u} :v. . . Kuhn-um). a .. :1 u, Wu... 4. w. . a.” 3%.... .. k 4.4.... .. . I . . I .m‘rmb '2 2' fifU ' . P. . . I $5 .. v . ‘ . . r»; A .35... WA .M..JW. MW.” ,. . m..wuv..,uurfl..du. u." 3 ya. . a 'H . . ...A 3.. 1.. . .1 . . Whflni. ..l . was" wefi$ma A v.3... a...» .4 .33.... .. .. . 54... 1... .a... .93 18......ufl....pwvvfl . . .. .m . s... ,. t In.-- «95% . ””35”. Wfiwfiaw... 3 .........J....fl$- ‘ . l.“ 3 t (I. 3 . .. .. t .. . .1 A. . Hahn....l3.wu...3 . «2...... ... . Ky. . .3... 1.. ~ n.33m...9u.nr h . 12.4.... 2... . .. t- .H .. 3.. 3n.-- .. 33:34.“. -.. .. . .1 :r4.n.»..: .. . .- . 3... 3.3...- . . . .. #5.. int . .. a... l... .T .. 3 J. . 13121 P 1.10:." ‘ ‘. :0 m" . . fli i: 3 2 K3 '3 3: g3; 35 : IE: '2 s V .31 Nu 1:; .2 {1; a i 1 5!: $11 5:? 3% 3 3 3 .n t3 13 :3 33' 31- 23 k E h. h. ”IRAN. I03 I"... 0633 .OND.3O...._vIl.3I I I u .. 3.3.93 Huh-4.3.4.. A)", . i. :3... i. 3...... .. u.........3)t3f-. v.31“ 333k33303. .33- (3 i... a... '33 ' II. III I... 3‘33 1 .vv . 3 313.33..- 3 1.-.-.. .3. L... If .3. .133-” .1-.. .- .3. .. .33. 3-!!39r333. s 3-..qufi33.-3. 33.3.3 .rr..u...,.3.. .... 3..-. 1495...... 33 . .ruflana3 .3..333ulv3.u|I¢-fll‘\a933rrho33333333 v 1313333333.:3. . 33." 33%3.33lun33 - n. (3 3.. 3h... 333.333333. ' ' 3.“: 333... i..hun .33 l333 33....3 3.3 1.x v!- 33313 [3-333 . 3.. .33....3. . 33.3.0? .H.IDW\333333. 33 . .lll) 03.90“”.“33 3 . 33.3.4 33 I..." .3333.’ 333! v. 3) . a? . 33333.3 333a 333;. 33 u 33. . .3 (-33 . .... 3.3..-t .33. 3! .. 03.33333 3333. 3 .33. I 3 :3 .33333II 33.33.3333! . 3.3!. $03!. .. 1.3 3 33 .3 30...... $33“. .KI..33.I33333 "v.3. 3|.lt‘l ’1 gig! i43n3b‘l3l t f 3333 3333 4.3-. .uu‘EO‘Y}- . . 1 .3/\(.-uo....3 333).)!» 3 .3 . 3.3.. 3.3:... n -3 fig..." . -3.” 3 ..l.. .v..3....33333. .3. 3a... 5.31%, .hl. (.7 .3. - .filflg -.. .93..th..$..3 .3 . 3i. I.3v3q|v3333nl n -h..l....fl..l.l.. 3.: 3-3...- in .2- .- 0:5. 033 33. | . l. 96.3.”333. 133. 331. 3333 3.. THESlS " Illlllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllll 3 1293 01688 0704 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Determinants of Socialization in African American Families Raising Children With Special Needs presented by M. Dewana Thompson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Famill Studies medal/m ' Major professor Dme July 6, 1993 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE lN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. | DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE W5 | g n H ‘ , flllq 1m campus-m4 DETERMINANTS OF SOCIALIZATION IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES RAISING CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS By M. Dewana Thompson 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 1998 ABSTRACT DETERMINANTS OF SOCIALIZATION IN AFRICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES RAISING CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS By M. Dewana Thompson This study explores the influence of the family climate and parental characteristics in determining how parents discipline and socialize their children for achievement. Data were collected for 133 African American parents who were raising children with special learning needs. Findings show that religiosity was predictive of socialization achievement outcomes Q=.22, p<.05). Parents who fostered high levels of religiosity in their homes also tended to have very positive socialization achievement attitudes (B=.477, p<.01). These findings suggest that the tenets of a religiously oriented family may promote high levels of achievement socialization despite children’s learning limitations. This supports the literature that suggests that African American families raising children with special needs generally find strength in their religious beliefs. This is humbly dedicated to the loving memory of my maternal grandparents, Bertha and Dan Byrd and my paternal grandparents, Manuel and Mildred Frazier. This is also dedicated to my parents, brother, and sister. Without their love, guidance, encouragement, and humor this journey would not have been possible. And finally I dedicate this work to my husband, Marcel for his constant love, friendship, support, and understanding, and our unborn child who helps me realize more and more everyday how blessed I truly am. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to give honor and praise to God for blessing me with the wisdom, strength, and above all perseverance to complete this dissertation. Many thanks are extended to my committee chair, Harriette P. McAdoo, Ph.D., and my committee members, Joanne Keith, Ph.D., Tom Luster, Ph.D., and Stanley Trent, Ph.D. Their support of my efforts in completing my degree long distance are recognized and greatly appreciated. Finally to my family and friends I extend my gratitude for their constant words of encouragement and their unconditional love and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ viii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 4 Theoretical Framework ..................................................... 4 Ecological Theory of Human Development ................. 4 Conceptual Model .............................................................. 6 The Family Climate ........................................................... 11 Cohesive Family Climates ......................................... 11 Moral-Religious Family Climates ............................. 12 Determinants of The Family Climate ............................. 13 Determinants of Discipline .............................................. 14 The Family Climate and Discipline .......................... 17 Determinants of Achievement Socialization ............... 19 The Family Climate and Achievement Socialization ................................................................ 22 3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................... 25 Conceptual and Operational Definitions ....................... 25 Research Hypotheses ......................................................... 29 Research Design .................................................................. 30 Sample ................................................................................ 31 Adequacy of the Sample .............................................. 31 Sample Description ...................................................... 36 Procedure ............................................................................ 38 Instrumentation .................................................................... 39 Parent Demographic Factors ....................................... 39 Family Climate ............................................................. 39 Socialization for Achievement ................................... 42 Discipline ......................................................................... 44 Limitations ............................................................................ 44 Data Analysis ......................................................................... 45 4. RESULTS ................................................................................... 47 Relationship Between Parental Characteristics and Family Climates ................................................................. 47 Relationship Between the Family Climate and Socialization Outcomes .................................................... 51 Path Analysis ...................................................................... 53 Logistic Regression ........................................................... 55 5. DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 58 Religiously Oriented Family Climates ............................. 58 Cohesive Family Climates ................................................. 60 Conclusions .......................................................................... 62 Implications .......................................................................... 64 APPENDICES ................................................................................................ 68 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................ 80 Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. LIST OF TABLES Chi-Square of Differences in Parents Use of Spanking By Their Child's Disability Type .................................................. 32 t-test for Socialization for Achievement Attitudes by Disability Type .......................................................................... 34 t-test for Socialization for Achievement Behaviors by Disability Type .......................................................................... 35 Demographic Characteristics .................................................. 37 Family Climate Sub-Scale Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations ............................................................... 41 Frequency Distribution of Socialization Outcomes .......... 43 Correlations Between Parental Characteristics, Socialization Outcomes, and the Family Climate .............. 48 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the Use of Spanking .................................................................................... 57 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Moos & Moos’s Conceptual Model of the Determinants and Outcomes of the Family Environment .......................... 8 Figure 2. Conceptual Model Adapted from Moos & Moos’s Model of the Determinants and Outcomes of the Family Environment .............................................................................. 9 Figure 3. Path Model ..... 54 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION African American families who are raising children with special needs face the tremendous challenge of promoting healthy socialization goals that are not only cognitively appropriate, but that also meet their cultural and environmental needs. The overrepresentation of African American children in special education programs suggests that there are large numbers of African American families who face this challenge daily. Many families meet this challenge by fostering healthy socialization behaviors and attitudes for their children. Because much of the literature however is inundated with research that focuses on the negative demographic attributes of special needs families, the positive characteristics of families have often gone unidentified. It is critical therefore that positive models of socialization, as well as the determinants of healthy socialization, are highlighted. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, identifies the socializing behaviors and attitudes of African American parents raising children with special needs. Secondly, it explores whether parental marital status, age, 2 income, and education are significant predictors of the socialization for achievement and discipline techniques that parents utilize when the type of family climate (cohesive and religiously oriented families) is considered. The overarching research questions of this study are: 1. What socialization behaviors and attitudes, and family climates are characteristic of African American families raising children with special needs? 2. Is there a direct relationship between parental characteristics and the family climate? 3. Is there a direct relationship between the family climate and discipline techniques, socialization behaviors, and socialization attitudes? 4. Is there an indirect relationship between parental characteristics and discipline techniques, socialization behaviors, and attitudes as mediated by the family climate? Earlier researchers who focused on determinants of socialization behaviors and attitudes typically only proposed characteristics such as marital and socio-economic status (Scanzoni,1985), and parents’ level of educational attainment (Baker G: Stevenson, 1986) as determinants of socialization. It has been argued that the inconsistent findings of much of the literature that solely focused on demographic characteristics, indicated the lack of attention given to additional contextual factors that may have equal or greater 3 explanatory power (Marks, 1993). Although researchers have studied several contextual factors which influence socialization (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Belsky, 1984), others have suggested that an additional factor that has been given less attention is the family climate (Hill, 1995; Moos Moos, 1994). Moos & Moos (1994) propose that the family climate is a contextual factor that directly and indirectly influences parenting behaviors. A young, single parent therefore who is raising a child with special needs, who has the additional influence of a family climate that is more cohesive and religiously oriented, may have healthier socialization behaviors and attitudes, than a young, single parent who does not have these protective factors available to him or her. This present research explores this component of Moos and Moos’s (1994) model by examining the mediating influence of the family climate on socialization outcomes. Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Theoretical Framework Ecological Theory Of HugLan Development Bronfenbrenner (1986b, 1989) described the ecosystem as encompassing significant and essential relationships which influence human development through direct and indirect interactions. Bronfenbrenner (1989) asserted that the development process is not only affected by the relationships amongst the ecological settings, but by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded. Families, therefore, are involved in reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationships with their environments. He proposed four interdependent levels within ecological systems which affect growth and development (the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems). This study recognizes the importance of each level of a family's ecosystem and the potential that systems on each level have to indirectly influence socialization behaviors and attitudes. The most basic level of interaction will be tested here however. This level, the microsystem, includes the interactions between the 5 individual system and primary systems in their lives, but recognizes the influence that individual characteristics (e.g., marital status and age) or group characteristics (e.g., the family climate) can have on interactions as well (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Characteristics such as the family climate, parent age, and education are termed developmentally instigative because they have the potential to influence an interactive change between the parent and child (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). As will be examined in this study, factors such as these can have a significant influence on socialization. Parents’ linkages outside of the family are important in the socialization process as well. The mesosystem includes relationships amongst the microsystems. The relationship that a parent has with his or her child’s teacher is an example of such a relationship. It is proposed here that whether or not a parent volunteers in his or her child's school or talks to his or her child's teacher is multiply and reciprocally influenced by factors in the family’s environment. Although not tested in this study, the exosystem is comprised of linkages between the microsystem and additional settings. These additional settings however are indirectly linked to the individual child through his or her direct relationship to persons in his or her microsystem (e.g., the relationship between a parents’ job and a child). The final level, the macrosystem, includes the broader context, culture, or subculture of the environment. It is derived from the patterns evident in all of the existing systems and recognizes the influence that the developmentally 6 instigative characteristics of each system may have on the overall environment (e.g., the commonly held belief systems in African American families) (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). As described by Bronfenbrenner (1989), the overall belief systems of the sub-culture are the source from which parents draw their socializing techniques. The belief systems and widely held attitudes of the sub-culture, therefore have the distinct quality of indirectly socializing the organism through their direct influence on other systems in the environment. Thus commonly held beliefs and attitudes of the African American community regarding achievement and discipline can, in turn, influence the parents’ own socialization attitudes and behaviors. A major assumption of this research, therefore is that African American socialization takes place within the scope of an African American subculture that simply exists within a broader Euro-American culture, but is not replaced by it. Such conceptualizations make this theory an appropriate and relevant one in the examination of socialization within African American families. Conceptual Model Moos and Moos’s (1994) model defines the family as participating in a reciprocal relationship with its environment. The family’s climate therefore is seen as a developmentally instigative component of the microsystem where characteristics of families are not only shaped by its members but, in turn, shape its members as well (Moos & Moos, 1994). The family’s climate or milieu may also serve as a protective factor in families that are faced with a 7 crisis such as raising children with special needs (Moos, 1974; Moos & Moos, 1994). As shown in Moos and Moos’s (1994) model (see Figure 1), each individual’s personal characteristics, coping, and well-being (panel I 8: II) influence the relationships, growth and maintenance in the family system (panel IV). Extrafamilial contexts such as crisis situations and the presence of additional resources (panel 111) also influence the family environment/ climate (panel IV). Reciprocally, the family environment influences these characteristics in the family’s life. Therefore Moos and Moos's (1994) model proposes that the family climate (panel TV) shapes its members’ personal characteristics, coping, and well-being (panel V & VI), as well as extrafamilial contexts (panel VII). A major assumption of this study is that the family climate is reciprocally shaped by parental characteristics (i.e., personal beliefs and attitudes) (panel 1), child characteristics (i.e., having special learning needs) (panel 11), and crisis and stressors (i.e., financial stressors) (panel 11]). Due to the limitations of this data set however, and the considerable body of literature that has extensively examined other segments of this model, this current study will test the paths between parental characteristics, family climate and socialization outcomes (panels I, IV, and V). An adaption of Moos and Moos’s (1994) model is therefore used for this study (see Figure 2). This adapted model is in support of Moos 8r Moos's (1994) contention that the influence that the family environment has on parent attitudes and behaviors have been given less Determinants Fund I Adults' Perm characteristics. Coping. and Well-Being l Fenel ll Children's Personal Characteristics. Coping. and Welt-Being $ (Acute crisis .06 ongoing stressors. and resources) MOON.” Penel IV Family Environment (Relationship. Growth. Maintenance) Outcomes Panel V Adults' Personal Characteristics. Coping. and Well-Being l Panel VI Children's Personal Characteristics. Coping. and Well-Being $ W Ezaraiamily Context (Acute crisis and Domino stressors. and resources) ggre 1. Moos 6: Moos's Conceptual Model of the Determinants and Outcomes of the Family Environment (1994). . $85 EBB—outrun bun—em 05 uo 35°88 v.3 Sunni—.559 3: no ~38: Eggnog—o0 6.80: an woo: 59¢ fleas—3‘. «Naming 10 attention in the literature and needs to be further explored. Focusing on these specific components of the model will serve as a guide for beginning to understand the contributions that the family climate and parental characteristics have on socialization. As shown in Figure 2, it is proposed here that the marital status, age, educational level and income of the parent (parental characteristics) (panel I) are associated with the types of family climates that are fostered (panel II). The types of family climates examined here include cohesive and religious oriented families. The family climate can influence how parents discipline (whether they use spanking) and their achievement socialization strategies (their attitudes towards education and their involvement in their child’s education) (panel III). In essence, it is proposed that the relationship between parental characteristics (panel I) and socialization strategies (panel 111) is mediated by the family climate (panel 11). This model proposes that parental characteristics can not be used to solely explain socialization behaviors and attitudes. Simply because a parent is young and uneducated does not mean that his or her socialization is unhealthy. The family climate may aide in fostering very healthy socialization behaviors and attitudes across family types. As Moos & Moos (1994) contended, this prospective influence has been given less attention in the literature and needs to be further explored. The presentation of the underlying assumptions of the theoretical framework and the conceptualization of the model has laid the groundwork 11 for a discussion of the potential impact that parental characteristics and the family climate have on socialization outcomes. The Family Climate Researchers have argued that because of methodological flaws, little is known about the climates of African American families (T olson 8: Wilson, 1990). Less is known about the climates of African American families raising children with special needs because very few studies have been done with this population. Therefore research will also be cited from studies focusing on broader representative samples of African American families. - _C_ol;e_sive firmly Climm In the few studies that have examined this population of families, cohesion has been identified as a component of the family climate that differs from those families who are not raising children with special needs. Cohesive family units are viewed as protective factors in families where a life crisis has occurred such as having a child with a special need. Findings of a study on African American parents raising youth with emotional disorders indicated that their perceived family climates tended to be more disengaged. These families therefore, tended to have lower levels of cohesion and in turn higher levels of conflict (Dixon, 1986). Boyce et al. (1995) noted in their review, that single mothers raising a child with special needs tended to report less close and cohesive family environments than married couples raising a child with disabilities. Similarly, low levels of cohesion were found in 12 African American couples who were raising an adopted child with special needs (Rosenthal, Groze & Curie], 1990). Low levels of cohesion however, were interpreted by the authors as healthy family dynamics in that such levels suggested that the boundaries of the nuclear family were not rigid, but fluid. African American families therefore appeared to be interacting with and utilizing the support of not only members of their immediate family, extended family members and friends as well. Harry (1995) proposed that the presence of these close kinship ties, is what allows African American parents to have greater acceptance levels of their children's disabilities. Thus, the protective factor of being embedded in a family unit which is supportive and cohesive, aides in fostering healthy socializing environments for children. Moral-Religious Famin Climates A moral-religious orientation has also been found to be a significant component in the lives of African American families raising children with special needs. The existence of strong religious orientations have been used as a source of support and have been linked to better coping strategies for African American parents in dealing with their children’s disabilities (Harry, 1995; McAdoo 8: Murray, 1996). Parents have also identified their religiosity and spirituality as a source from which they draw strength and understanding of their children’s special needs. This parallels the long standing literature which documents the eminent role that religiosity plays in the lives of African American families (Billingsley, 1968, 1992; Frazier, 1963; Hill, 1971; 13 McAdoo, 1995; Taylor, Chatters, Tucker 8: Lewis, 1990). African American family’s religious orientation has overwhelmingly been viewed as a strength of Black families (Billingsley, 1992; Randolph, 1995). Research in this area has shown that families that are rooted in a strong religious orientation are more likely to also foster environments that are conducive to their children's special needs. Determinants of the Family Clim_a_t_e_ One objective of this study. is to examine the determinants ‘of cohesive and religiously oriented families. Specifically, is there a relationship between parental characteristics and the family climate. Although no studies were found which specifically examined the determinants of cohesive and religiously oriented family environments within African American families raising children with special needs, Moos and Moos (1994) proposed that the family climate is influenced by a host of parental factors. Although influenced by numerous factors it has been argued that within African American families, the family climate is primarily influenced by the family structure (T olson and Wilson, 1990). Female headed families, for example, tend to lack adequate resources and therefore frequently find themselves requiring the assistance of extended family members (Harrison et al., 1990; Wilson, 1995). The support system that emerges from extended and fictive kin serves as a protective factor for many single mothers and their children by providing emotional, financial and human resources (Harrison, et al., 1990). When 14 these supportive resources are available, single mothers also often experience high levels of cohesion (McAdoo, 1995). Predictors of religiously oriented family climates have been less well defined. Tolson and Wilson (1990) found that two-parent households (i.e., households where there was a parent and a spouse or a grandparent), tended to have higher levels of religious orientation, than single headed households (T olson and Wilson, 1990). This tends to be true of female-headed African American families in general. Although no studies were found .which examined age, education, and income level as predictors of the family climate, the significant associations that have been found to exist between marital status and these variables suggests that there is a need to further explore this relationship (Boyce et al., 1995; Click, 1997; Linbald-Goldberg, Dukes, & Phil, 1985; McLoyd, 1990b). Determinants of Discipline Another objective of this study is to examine the determinants of parents’ use of spanking. Specifically, is there a relationship between the family climate and the use of spanking. The discipline discussion is particularly significant in the lives of parents raising children with special needs for two primary reasons. First, the ways in which parents modify non-conforming behaviors is germane within the African American community because of the large numbers of African American children that are consistently classified as having mental retardation, serious emotional disturbance, and 15 learning disabilities (Artilles 8: Trent, 1994; Harry 8: Anderson, 1994; Reschly, 1996). Secondly, because a significant relationship has been found to exist between children’s behavioral problems and parenting practices (Bush, Supple, 8: Roosa, 1996), having a clear understanding of what types of disciplinary techniques parents utilize is essential. Although parental disciplinary practices have been widely researched in the literature (Carey, 1994; Hemenway, Solnick, 8: Carter, 1994; Sears, Maccoby, 8: Levin, 1957; Straus, 1979; Straus, 1991), no studies were found which specifically measured the use of spanking in African American families raising children with special needs. Studies that have examined the determinants of discipline techniques in general populations of African American families have been somewhat inconclusive however. This has been particularly true fOr those studies which have hypothesized that there is a direct relationship between parental characteristics (such as age, income, marital status and education) and discipline. Kelley, Power, and Wimbush (1992) examined 42 lower-class African American mothers and their children. Using an ecological approach, they examined such factors as marital status, socioeconomic status, maternal age and religion as potentially affecting parenting attitudes and behaviors. Kelly et a1. (1992) did not find significant relationships between parents’ marital status, education level or religiosity and their parenting behaviors. Given the lack of significant associations, the authors suggested that 16 researchers need to examine the potential influence of additional mediating factors on parents’ choices to utilize physical punishment (Kelly, Power 8: Wimbush, 1992). Other researchers have paralleled these findings in their contentions that when used as single predictors, demographic factors are far less important in determining discipline techniques than the literature would suggest (Erlanger, 1974; Giles-Sims, Straus 8: Sugarman, 1995; Portes, Dunham 8: Williams, 1986). McLoyd (1990b) proposed that although family economic conditions have been found to determine the disciplinary practices of parents, other factors such as available family support systems may additionally explain disciplinary practices as well. Spencer (1990) found that there were no significant differences in the value that low or high socioeconomic African American parents placed on discipline, nor in the number of discipline techniques that they used. Similarly, Erlanger (1974) concluded that findings that suggest that economic factors are powerful predictors of the use of spanking are virtually unsubstantiated. In a review of literature, he found that the relationship between social class and spanking was at best weak. His review of literature found that social class alone only explained between one and two percent of the overall variance in spanking (Erlanger, 1974). Giles- Sims, Straus 8r Sugarman (1995) contended that the ability of demographic variables, such as SES, marital status and race, to explain large portions of the variance in spanking independently was limited. The collective influence of 17 these and additional variables that have yet to be explored can give a clearer picture of variations in the use of discipline techniques (Giles-Sims, Straus 8: Sugarman, 1995). By and large, studies have found that there is not a direct relationship between demographic characteristics and discipline, but that additional environmental factors need to be explored as potential mediators (Boyce et al., 1995; Erlanger, 1974; Giles-Sims, Straus 8: Sugarman, 1995; Kelly, Power 8: Wimbush, 1992; Portes, Dunham 8: Williams, 1986). As is suggested in the conceptual model used here, the family environment may mediate this relationship. The Family Climate and Discipline There was only one study that was found that examined the relationship between family climate and socialization (Hill, 1995). In this correlational study examining parenting styles, Hill found that the family climate was significantly associated with child perceived parenting styles. Using working- class, two-parent families and children, Hill found that authoritative parenting of both mothers and fathers was significantly and positively correlated with cohesive family climates. Contrarily, authoritarian parenting styles were not associated with cohesion. These findings are interesting in that they suggest that the less strict parenting styles are reflected in family climates that are cohesive. Therefore, as shown in the conceptual model, families which score high on cohesion are less likely to engage in spanking. African American families religious orientation has been found to play a 18 significant role in influencing the way that parents discipline their children as well (Spencer, 1990). Kelly, Powers, and Wimbush (1992) found that low- income African American mothers who had higher levels of intellectual religiosity had less strict attitudes about discipline. They proposed that the nature of the scale indicators may have identified those parents who had more fundamental religious beliefs, thereby suggesting that they may have had more conservative attitudes and beliefs, but their actual practices may have varied. Contrarily, others have found that conservative Protestants place a greater emphasis on obedience than other religious groups (Alwin, 1984; Ellison 8: Sherkat, 1993; Flynn, 1994; Strauss, 1991). In a trend analysis of families living in Detroit, Alwin (1984) found that Black Protestants were more likely than their White counterparts to encourage and expect obedience in children as opposed to autonomy. Similarly, others found that African American parents and conservative Protestants, across all racial groups and all regions of the U.S., were more likely to support the use of spanking or corporal punishment than such groups such as Catholics, Southern Baptists or Pentecostal (Flynn, 1994; Giles-Sims, Strauss 8t Sugarman, 1995). It has been proposed however, that the underlying ethical interpretations and ideologies of the Protestant faith influence its members’ beliefs. These components include a literal interpretation of the Bible; the belief that it is human nature to sin; and an overwhelming belief that all sins should be punished (Ellison 8: Sherkat, 1993; Strauss, 1991). Although this present study does not directly 19 examine religious affiliation, it is proposed that the indicators of the religious climate sub-scale, such as: family members believe that if you sin you will be punished, (see Appendix) will identify families who hold similar conservative views. Therefore it was proposed that parents with more conservative religious views and higher levels of religious orientation, would be more likely to use spanking as a means of discipline. Determin_a_nts of Achievement Socialization A third objective of this study is to examine the determinants of socialization for achievement. The relationship between the family climate and achievement socialization is examined here. African American families have long valued education and for this reason have encouraged high levels of educational attainment in their children (Coll et al.,. 1996). Research has shown that African American parents tend to socialize their children for high levels of achievement. Reynolds and Gill (1994) found that African American parents tended to display behaviors and attitudes which helped to socialize their children for achievement (Reynolds, 1992; Reynolds, 8: Gill, 1994). Researchers have found that these attitudes and behaviors are all socialization strategies which influence children’s academic achievement (Reynolds, 1992; Reynolds 8: Gill, 1994; Slaughter, 1987). This has also been found to be true in parents raising children with special needs (Switzer, 1990). Factors such as helping with homework, volunteering in school and fostering positive attitudes about achievement in children have been found to have 20 more of an influence on children’s achievement levels than parents’ income, education, or occupation (Reynolds, 1992; Reynolds 8: Gill, 1994; Slaughter, 1987; Switzer, 1990). This study recognizes that socialization attitudes are as important as the behaviors themselves (Reynolds 8: Gill, 1994). This is particularly true for this sample of families who have often been characterized as being apathetic or uninterested, when in reality many parents have expressed that they simply do not have the time to be fully involved in their childrens’ education (Harry, 1992). Many parents may not be able to volunteer or frequently help children with homework because of environmental conditions, such as being a single parent, and having more than one child who governs their time (Harry, 1992). Consequently it is recognized that parents who do not implement child rearing practices that foster what was traditionally viewed as high aspirations, do not necessarily have negative attitudes or beliefs, but are simply inundated with meeting the demands of their everyday lives. For these reasons, parental behaviors as well as attitudes are examined. Research that documents the determinants of socialization for achievement strategies has produced varied findings. There has been some research which has supported the direct relationship between parental characteristics and achievement socialization. Researchers have investigated such parental characteristics as parents’ marital and socio-economic status (Kriesberg, 1967; Scanzoni,1983), and parents’ level of educational attainment 21 (Baker 8: Stevenson, 1986; Brody, Stoneman 8: Flor, 1995) and found that these factors have been associated with achievement socialization outcomes. Brody, Stoneman, and Flor (1995) found that in a sample of rural African American families, higher levels of education for both mothers and fathers were significantly related to their involvement in their children's school. Similarly, arguments have been raised that suggests that the ability of parents to be involved in their children's education is directly related to the changing family structures and life-styles (e.g., more single headed families) within the African American community (Slaughter-Defoe, 1991). Single mothers in particular appear to be faced with economic conditions (McAdoo, 1995), (i.e., long work hours or searching for work) which often left less time for them to be involved in behaviors which socialize their children for high levels of achievement. Others have found however that parental demographic factors are not significant predictors. Spencer (1990) found no differences in the educational expectations that parents had for their children based on socioeconomic status. All parents, regardless of socioeconomic status, expected high levels of educational attainment for their children. She also found that parents believed that self-discipline (good behavior) in the classroom and getting a ’basic’ level of education were important and highly valued by parents regardless of social class (Spencer, 1990). Similarly, Reynolds and Gill (1994) found that despite the low educational and income levels of parents, they 22 generally had positive attitudes regarding achievement and had moderate levels of involvement in their children’s schooling. In another study, Baker and Stevenson (1986) did not find any evidence which supported the hypothesis that mothers with higher levels of education had any more knowledge of more educational strategies (i.e., strategies that would help their children achieve) to use with their children than mothers with less education. Scanzoni (1983) found that regardless of job levels and income levels, parents valued high levels of achievement. The major difference, he surmised, is that parents with higher incomes may be better able to transfer these values into positive outcomes for children by obtaining additional resources for children (e.g., additional tutoring outside of the classroom, purchasing additional educational materials). The inability of demographic characteristics to explain large portions of the variability in achievement socialization suggests that the influence of additional factors, such as the family’ 5 climate should be considered. The Family Climate and Achievement Socialization Studies in the area of achievement socialization tend to focus on child achievement (Brody et al., 1996; Slaughter, 1987; Luster 8: McAdoo, 1994). Many have proposed that supportive home environments are predictive of higher levels of achievement in African American children (Luster and McAdoo, 1994; Slaughter 1987; Slaughter-Defoe, 1991). Luster and McAdoo (1994) contended that future studies would do well to investigate the 23 emotional climate of the home (i.e., relationships between family members), as it relates to African American achievement. Slaughter (1987) proposed that the family environment, as opposed to the socioeconomic status of the parents, needs to be considered as an important influence of child outcomes. Those who have begun to explore this area have found that cohesive families are linked to positive socialization outcomes within African American families (Manns, 1997; McAdoo, 1995). In this regard, African American families have traditionally had family support systems which play a myriad of roles and aid in fostering a number of socialization strategies including the fostering of achievement socialization (McAdoo, 1995; Manns, 1997). This has been particularly true in single-headed and low-income families. Although nuclear and extended family members across economic levels, encourage and foster achievement socializatiOn, African American families who have lower income levels and are single parents in particular, are frequently dependent on a larger number of family members, whom they turn to for achievement socialization (Manns, 1997). The propensity for younger parents and less educated families to lean on close knit family ties is also founded in the literature (Manns, 1997; McAdoo, 1995; Stevens, 1988). Although this relationship has yet to be explored within a population of African American children with special needs, the literature suggests that parents who have more cohesive and closely knit families tend to foster higher levels of achievement socialization. 24 Socialization for achievement has not been well examined as it relates to religious orientation. In a study examining the socialization achievement of African American parents raising children with special needs, Thompson and McAdoo (1997) found that religiously oriented families were more likely to have positive attitudes towards their children’s education. Parental characteristics such as age, education, income, and marital status however did not directly predict parents’ achievement attitudes. Although no other studies were found which examined the relationship between socialization achievement and religiosity, the beliefs that African American families have traditionally held regarding the importance of a strong commitment to education, coupled with a strong religious orientation support the exploration of this relationship (Billingsley, 1992). Those families therefore that adhere to a strong religious orientation and place a high value on moral components in the lives of their children, will be more likely to also socialize their children for high levels of achievement. Chapter 3 METHODS Conceptual and Qp_erational Definitions Independent Variable. 1. Parent Marital Status: Parent marital status is the current marital situation or family situation as described by the participant. Categorical responses include: married; never married; widowed; divorced; separated; or living with a partner. The responses were recoded into a dichotomized item (1=yes: married or living with a partner and 0= no: not married and not living with a partner). 2. Ag: Age is the current age of the parent in years. The participant's responses to the open-ended question: “How old were you on your last birthday?” Age is coded as a continuous variable. 3. Income: Income is the total annual family income. This includes money or financial support that is received in addition to income acquired from current employment. This is a single item question that asks: ”What is your total family income including all sources?" was 25 26 used to measure income. Responses are intervally scored and have 11 responses that range from less than $6,000 to over $70,000. Income is coded as a continuous variable 4. Education: Education is the highest level of education attained by the participant. This single item question is measured using the participant’ 5 response to the open ended question: ”What is the highest grade of school completed?” The responses are continuous and range from 0 = no education, to 21 = post Ph.D., ].D. or equivalent. Intervening Variables. 1. Cohesive Family Climate; Cohesive family climate is the respondents’ perception of the degree of commitment, help and support family members provide for one another (Moos and Moos, 1994). Cohesion is measured using a sum score of the Family Environment Cohesion Sub-Scale (Moos 8: Moos, 1974). Higher scores indicate higher levels of cohesion. Items include: family members really help and support one another; we often seem to be killing time at home; we put a lot of energy into what we do at home; there is a feeling of togetherness in our family; we rarely volunteer when something has to be done at home; family members really back each other up; there is very little group spirit in our family; we really get along well with each other; and there is plenty of time and attention for everyone in our family. 27 Responses are dichotomous and include 1=yes and 0=no. . Mom-Religious Famin Climate: Moral-religious family climate is the emphasis on ethical and religious issues and values (Moos and Moos, 1994). Religiosity is measured using a sum score of the Family Environment Moral-Religious Sub-Scale (Moos 8: Moos, 1974). Higher scores indicate higher levels of religiosity. Items include: family members attend church, synagogue, or Sunday School fairly often; we don’t say prayers in our family; we often talk about the religious meaning of Christmas, Passover, or other holidays; we don’t believe in heaven or hell; family members have strict ideas about what is right and wrong; we believe that there are some things you just have to take on faith; in our family each person has different ideas about what is right and wrong; the Bible is a very important book in our home; family members believe that if you sin you will be punished. Responses are dichotomous and include 1=yes and 0=no. Dependent Variables. . Spanking: Spanking is the parents’ use of physical punishment to reprimand inappropriate or non-conforming behaviors. This is a single item question which read as follows: ”Do you spank or hit your children”. Responses included 0 = no and 1: yes. 28 2. Achievement Socialization Behaviors: Achievement socialization behaviors are the extent to which parents actively participate in their children’s overall schooling and education. Parental behaviors were assessed using three items which measure the extent to which parents are involved in their children’s schooling. Indicators included: 1) How often do you help your child with his / her homework, 2) How often do you volunteer in your child’s classroom, 3) How often do you talk to your child’s teacher about school related issues. The items are scored using the following scale: 1=rarely, 2= occasionally and 3=frequently. The 3 item scores are summed and a total score for parental behaviors will be used. Higher scores will indicate more parent participation. 3. Achievement Socialization Attitudes: Achievement socialization attitudes are the parents feelings and attitudes regarding their children’s schooling and education. Parental attitudes are assessed using six items which measure their beliefs about the importance of their children’s schooling and education. Indicators include: 1) How important is it for your child to do well in the following subjects: reading/spelling, math, science and social studies (4 independent questions). 2) How important is it for your child to do well in school. 3) How important is it for your child to cooperate with the teacher. Responses are 4 point likert type and range from 1=not important to =very important. The scores from all 6 items were summed. Higher 29 scores represent more positive parental attitudes. Research Hypotheses H1: H2: H3: H9: Married parents will have more cohesive family climates than single parents. Married parents will have more religious oriented family climates than single parents. Parents with higher levels of education will have more cohesive family climates than parents with lower levels of education. Parents with higher levels of education will have more religious oriented family climates than parents with lower levels of education. : Parents with higher income levels will have more cohesive family climates than parents with lower income levels. Parents with higher income levels will have more religious oriented family climates than parents with lower income levels. : Older parents will have more cohesive family climates than younger parents. Older parents will have more religious oriented family climates than younger parents. Families who are more cohesive will have higher levels of achievement socialization attitudes than families who are less cohesive. H10: Families who are more religiously oriented will have higher levels of achievement socialization attitudes than families who are less religious. 30 H11: Families who are more cohesive will have higher levels of achievement socialization behaviors than families who are less cohesive. H12: Families who are more religious oriented will have higher levels of achievement socialization behaviors than families who are less religiously oriented. H13: Families who are more cohesive will have lower levels of spanking than families who are less cohesive. H14: Families who are more religious oriented will have higher levels of spanking than families who are less religiously oriented. H15: There will be an indirect relationship between parental characteristics and socialization achievement attitudes, as mediated by the family climate. H15: There will be a positive indirect relationship between parental characteristics and socialization achievement behaviors, as mediated by the family climate. H17: There will be a positive relationship between parental characteristics, the family climate, and the use of spanking. Research Desiga This present research was drawn from a larger research project funded through the National Institute for Health which used a longitudinal research design. The Research Project is entitled ”African American and Mexican American Families of Children with Special Needs: Coping with Social- Cultural Stressors.” The purpose of the broader study is to explore the coping 31 mechanisms, stressors, socialization practices, and educational concerns that are faced by families of color that are raising children with special needs. Assessment of the cohorts took place over a three year period. Data from the first year of collection are used for the present study. Sam 1e Adeguagy of the Sample. The sample for this present study was drawn from this larger sample of families. Criteria for participation included being the primary care giver or parent of a child between the ages of 6 and 13, who had special learning needs. The original sample consisted of 148 African American parents. ' In order to assess the appropriateness of examining parents raising children with different disability types collectively, differences between socialization means by disability type were examined. Disability type was measured in this study using 8 independent questions. Parents were asked whether an educational or health professional had ever identified their child as suffering from any of the following: a learning disability; aphasia; hyperactivity; attention disorder; developmental disorder; mental retardation; slow learning and/or a neurological condition. Responses included 0=no and 1=yes. There were high rates of comorbidity found in this sample with the average child having at least 2 disabilities. Phi coefficients were first calculated to examine the relationship between disability type and spanking. These data are presented in Table 1. There were no significant 32 ._8.va:. .8.va: nova. 18d mm. mm. 8. mu. 3. 8. 2.. 3. “announces: «a an an «a an «a «a «m 8380 .83.. 3.5. 885 . 5:8 53.8 5335 $28.62 32m 3.852 ocean—£03m. 82.32 8.52 Fae—13 NEE-Q.— xE £538 8:385 Aw: nzv 8:. 3:385 FEED :2; m a. m ._o 82 $5.8m E moon—80:5 .0 83mm-EO — 035,—. 33 differences in the use of spanking by disability type at the .05 level of significance. T-tests were run to examine differences in socialization achievement attitudes and behaviors by disability type. As shown in Table 2, there were differences in the attitudes that parents held regarding their children’s education. Parents raising children with mental retardation had lower attitude mean scores (M=19.4) than parents who did not have a child with mental retardation (M=22.3), (t=3.06, p<.01). Parents achievement socialization behaviors varied slightly by disability type as well (see Table 3). Parents who were raising children with neurological conditions had lower socialization behavior means (M=6.25) than parents who were not raising children with this condition (M=6.89), (t=2.15, p=.05). These differences were significant at the .05 level of significance. The t-tests show that parents raising children with more severe disabilities (mental retardation and neurological conditions) had the lowest achievement attitude and behavior means in the sample (see Tables 2 and 3). Overall, it appeared that parents of children with neurological conditions and mental retardation tended to place less of an emphasis on academic subjects and participated less in their children’s schooling than those parents who were raising children with other disability types. It is suspected that these findings are more representative of the developmental stage of the children and not the value that parents place on education. Children with more severe disabilities are not typically evaluated by the same academic measures as Table 2. t-test for Socialization for Aclaievement Attitudes by Disability Type (N=148). Socialization for Achievement Attitudes Disability Type _c_i_f M E P. Neurological Conditions 1 2 1 .280 ns yes 21.9 no 22. 2 Mental Retardation 13 2 3 . 06 * * * .003 yes 19.4 ”° 22.3 Hyperactivity 13 1 l .0 ns yes 22.5 “0 22.0 Attention Deficit 131 1.7 us Yes 22.7 “° 21.9 Learning Disability 129 .03 ns yes 22. l “0 22.1 Aphasia 13 0 .3 1 us Yes 22.3 “° 22.1 Developmental Disorder 132 .46 ns yes 22.4 ”0 22.1 Slow Learner 13 l .36 ns yes 22.0 “° 22.7 Note. t-tests were run on each individual disability type. Responses for each category include 0=no and 1=yes. Table 3. 35 t-test for Socialization for Achievement Behaviors by Disability Type (N=148). Socialization for Achievement Behaviors Disability Type d_f M t p Neurological Conditions 12 l 2. 15 * .05 yes 6.3 no 6.9 Mental Retardation 126 .01 ns yes 7.0 no 6.8 Hyperactivity 125 .17 ns yes 6.6 no 7.0 Attention Deficit 125 .12 ns yes 6.8 no 6.9 Learning Disability 124 1.0 ns yes 6.7 no 7.1 Aphasia 124 1.4 ns yes 7.1 no 6.8 Developmental Disorder 126 .00 ns yes 6.6 no 6.9 Slow Learner 125 .27 ns yes 6.8 no 6.9 Note. t—tests were run on each individual disability type. Responses for each category include 0=no and 1=yes. 36 children who have higher cognitive abilities. Particularly at the elementary school level, there tends to be less of a focus on traditional academic subjects, and more of an emphasis placed on developmental and social gains (Matson 8: Mulick, 1990). Thus the socialization goals of the parents raising children with more severe disabilities (i.e., neurological conditions and mental retardation) may be very different from those parents of children with less severe disabilities. Based on these differences in achievement socialization, parents raising children with neurological conditions and mental retardation were excluded from the sample. The remaining sample included 133 parents. ~ Sample Description The sub-sample for this present study included 133 African American parents. Parents ranged in age from 20 to 60, with a mean age of 34.9. The majority of the respondents were mothers (81%). Thirty percent of the parents were married, while 70% were single. The majority of the single parents in this sample had never been married (43.4%). Sixty nine percent of all parents had at least a high school education. The income levels were overwhelmingly low for 80% of this sample, with total incomes below $20,000. The low income levels may be reflective of the number of participants who were not employed outside of the home (67%) (see Table 4). The majority of the 133 children were males (N=82). The age range was 6- 13, with a mean age of 9. Their grade in school was 1 through 8. Parents were asked whether their child had ever been identified by an educational or Table 4 Dempggaphic Characteristics of Parents and Children (N)=133 Mean SD Parent Characteristics - Age 34.9 8.5 20-35 60.2 36-60 39.8 Gender Male 18.8 Female 81.3 Highest Grade Completed 11.7 1.9 Less than 12th Grade 33.3 12th Grade 48.4 Post Secondary 20.5 Participant’ 5 Employment Status Working 33.3 Not Working (unemployed, 66.7 homemaker, and other) Income Under $20,001 80.2 $20,000-49,999 14.4 $50,000 and above 5.4 Current Marital Status Not Married 69.7 Married 30.3 Child Characteristics Age (Range = 6-13) 9.0 2.0 Gender Male 64.6 Female 35.4 Grade in School (Range=1-8) 3.8 2.2 Disability Type Learning Disability 59.5 Slow Learner 58.5 Hyperactivity 39.0 Attention Deficit 42.4 Aphasia 21 .2 Developmental Disorder 16.0 38 health professional as having a disability. Most commonly, parents indicated that their child had been identified as having a learning disability (59.5%) and a slow learner (58.5%). The third and fourth most commonly identified disabilities were attention deficit (42%) and hyperactivity (39%). Twenty one percent indicated that their child had been identified as having aphasia and 16% having a developmental disorder. Comorbid disorders were clearly evident in this sample with the average child having at least 2 special needs. A description of the demographic characteristics of this sample is presented‘in Table 4. Procedure The larger sample was drawn from two midwestern cities and consists of 233 parents (150 African American parents, 76 Latino American parents, and 7 ethnically mixed parents) raising children with a disability that affects their learning. The sub-sample that met the required criteria for this present study includes 133 African American parents. Potential study participants were identified by local school districts, social service providers, community agencies, churches, local community groups and parents. The parents were then contacted via telephone or mail, to request their participation in the study. Face to face interviews were conducted using the Ethnic Families Research Project Instrument. The Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects (UCRIHS) approval was previously obtained (see Appendix). 39 Interviews were divided into two sessions and averaged a total of two and a half hours. The interviews were conducted by African American and Mexican American research assistants in a location convenient for the participant. Prior to the interview the researcher read a letter of consent, along with the participant, which outlined the purpose and stipulations of the study and insured confidentiality (see Appendix). Participants were informed that they may refuse to answer any question and maintained the right to stop the interview at any time. After both sessions of the interview were completed, participants were given a cash gift of twenty five dollars for sharing their parenting experiences and expertise with the researchers. Instrumentation The instruments used in this study can be found in the Appendix. Parent Demoggaphic Factors. Parent factors were measured using the Ethnic Families Research Project Instrument. Measures of parents’ marital status, age, education, and income level were used. The measures have been found to have construct validity through the use of these items in preliminary studies and subsequent follow- up studies. Family Climate. The family climate was measured using two subscales (Cohesion and Moral-Religious Orientation) from the Family Environment Scale-Form R (FES) (Moos, 1974). The FES is a 90 item, dichotomously scored (true-false) 40 questionnaire. The FES assesses 10 types of family environments. The subscales measure three broad dimensions of family climate which include: Relationship, Personal Growth, and System Maintenance. Higher scores are depictive of higher degrees of a particular family climate. Only the subscales Cohesion and Moral-Religious Orientation are used in this study. The measure has been widely used and shows evidence of construct validity and reports high reliabilities ranging from .64 to .86, (Moos 8: Moos, 1976; Tolson 8: Wilson , 1990). Few studies however have psychometrically analyzed Form R using an all African American sample. Researchers have suggested therefore that the subscale norms may need to be adjusted to account for moderate influences of some demographic variables including ethnicity (Boake 8: Salmon, 1983; Tolson 8: Wilson, 1990). The initial subscale reliabilities for Cohesion and Religiosity were .58 and .46, respectively. Given the initially low sub-scale reliabilities for this sample, items were statistically deleted. Once items 11, 41, and 61 were deleted the Cohesion Subscale yielded a reliability of .74. Three items were deleted from the Moral-Religiosity Subscale (items 18, 38, and 68) yielding a reliability of .71. The mean scores for the two scales were 4.17 (SD=1.81) and 4.51 (SD=1.63) respectively (see Table 5). Parents appeared to generally have high levels of religiosity and cohesion. Over half of all parents had religiosity and cohesion levels above the mean (53% and 62% respectively). 41 Table 5. Family Climate Sub-ScalLe Reliabflies, MeansI and Sta_ndard Deviations (N=133). a # of Items M SD Family Climate Cohesion .736 6 4. 17 1.81 Moral-Religious .713 6 4.51 1.63 Note. Each subscale has 6 items. Scores range from 1 to 6. Socialization for Achievement. The two domains of socialization for achievement, Parent Attitudes and Parent Behaviors) were measured using items from the Education and School Index of the Ethnic Family Research Project Instrument. Reliability for this collective scale has been reported at .67 (Thompson 8: McAdoo, 1997). The subscales (Socializing Attitudes and Socializing Behaviors) were used for this study. Parent attitudes were measured using six indicators that assessed parents feelings about the importance of education. The reliability for the achievement socialization attitudes index was. .83. Overwhelmingly, parents had positive attitudes towards education. The scores for the total scale ranged from 13 to 24, with a mean of 22.3. The means for the parents’ attitude items ranged from 3.50- to 3.83. Parents indicated that by and large they believed that reading, math, science and social studies were important for their children and that it was important for their children to do well in school and cooperate with their teachers (see Table 6). . Three indicators assessed parent socialization behavior. The reliability for this index was .56. Parental behaviors seemed to vary somewhat in comparison to their attitudes. Overall parents exhibited behaviors which showed that they were somewhat involved in their children’s schooling. The mean behavior index scores for parents socialization behavior was 6.86. The range for the index was from 3 to 9. The differences in behaviors became evident when examining individual items however. It appears that overall 43 Table 6. Fryuency Distribut_i_o_r_r of Socializatioa Outcome Item_s (N: 133). % M. §Q Socialization for Acfihjevemeat Attitudes Importance of Math 3.77 .505 Importance of Reading 3.73 .624 Importance of Science 3.50 .645 Importance of Social Studies 3.63 .615 Importance of Doing Well In School 3.83 .399 Importance of Cooperating with Teacher 3.78 .546 Socialization for Achievement Behaviors Talk With Child’ 5 Teacher 2.38 .669 Volunteer In Child’s Classroom 1.88 .822 Help Child With Homework 2.59 .661 Spanking Yes 41.0 No 59.0 Note. Responses for socializing attitudes include: l=not important, ksomewhat important, 3=important, and 4=very important. Responses for socializing behaviors include: 1=rarely/never, 2=occasionally, and 3=frequently. 44 parents were more likely to help their children with their homework (M=2.59, SD=.66) and were less likely to talk to their teacher (M: 2.38 SD=.67) or volunteer in their children’s classroom (M=1.88, SD=.82) (see Table 6). Discipline. To assess disciplinary measures parents were asked whether they spanked or hit their children when they misbehaved. Response choices are dichotomous and include 0=no and 1=yes. Use of spanking for discipline is coded as a dummy variable, with higher scores indicating that the parent did use spanking. The majority of parents indicated that they did not spank their children (60%), while 40% indicated that they do use spanking as a means of discipline (see Table 6). Limitationa This study recognizes that although relevant, there are several limitations which may hinder its generalizability to other samples. First, this research assumes that the respondents answered all questions to the best of their ability, but the limitations of recall bias are acknowledged. Moreover, the information used in this study was obtained from one source. Shared method variance may influence the results. Parents indicated whether their child had been identified by an educator or health professional as having a special learning need. Because this information is confidential, it could not be verified through the school system. Many of the children however were enrolled in special education classes. A second limitation is that the data set 45 and the scope of this research do not allow additional relationships to be examined. Ideally including factors such as social support systems, child characteristics and developmental history, the influences of work and relationships on socialization, and parents relationship with their children’s school may allow for a broader examination of socialization. Thirdly, this sample includes a large number of low income families. Although this number may be somewhat representative of the economic makeup of the broader community from which the sample was drawn, the findings may not be representative of communities where there is a larger number of families with middle and upper level incomes. Data Analysis Data analyses was conducted using the Macintosh version of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). All interview responses were coded and entered into SPSS. In order to assess the demographic characteristics, discipline techniques, and socialization for achievement strategies that African American parents utilize, descriptive statistics are presented. Pearsons product moment correlations were used to assess the hypothesized relationships. A path analysis was then conducted to examine the influence of parental characteristics on the child rearing practices when the family climate is considered. Path coefficients were estimated using a series of multiple-regressions. This analysis allows for the examination of independent relationships in the model. Coefficients that are significant at 46 the .01 and .05 level (p<.01 and p< .05) are presented. Path coefficients are presented in a path model. Because spanking is a dichotomous variable it is not used in the path analysis. A logistic regression however was used to predict spanking. Coefficients that are significant at the .05 level of significance (p< .05) are presented. Chapter 4 RESULTS Relationship Between Parental Characteristics and Family Climates The relationships between parental characteristics and the family climate were examined using Pearsons product moment correlations. The correlational findings are presented in Table 7. H1: Married parents will have more cohesive family climates than single parents. It was hypothesized that married parents would have more cohesive family environments than single parents. Contrary to predictions, there was no significant relationship between levels of cohesion and marital status Q= —.05, ns). H2: Married parents will have more religious oriented family climates than single parents. It was hypothesized that married parents would have more moral- religious oriented families than single parents. This hypothesis however was 47 Table 7. Correlat_ions Between Parental Characteristics, SLocialization Outcomes, andfithe Family Climate (N=133) Cohesion df p Religiosity df 2 Parental Characteri stics Marital Status -.05 (122) -- -.19* (122) .03 Education .06 (122) -- . 10 (122) -- Income .04 ( 126) -- .04 (126) -- Age .03 (118) -- .11 (118) -- Socialization Outcomes ._ Achievement Attitudes .05 ( 1 28) -- .22* ( 128) .01 Achievement Behaviors . 1 1 ( 1 22) -- . 12 (1 22) -- Spanking 23*" (122) .009 .07 (122) -- Note. Marital Status is a dichotomous variable. 1=Married, living with partner and 0=not married, not living with partner. Spanking is also a dichotomous variable. 1=Parent uses spanking and O=parent does not use spanking. 49 not supported. Results show that married parents in fact tended to have modestly less religious family environments than single parents (g=-.19, p<.05). Single parents had a modestly significantly higher mean religiosity score of 4.88 compared to married parents who had a mean of 4.41 at the .05 level of significance. H3: Parents with higher levels of education will have more cohesive family climates than parents with lower levels of education. It was also hypothesized that parents with higher educational levels, would have more cohesive oriented family environments. Contrary to predictions, there were no associations found between these variables (_r;=.06, ns). H4: Parents with higher levels of education will have more religious oriented family climates than parents with lower levels of education. It was hypothesized that parents with higher educational levels, would foster a family environment that was more religious oriented. This hypotheses was not supported (g: .10, ns). H5: Parents with higher income levels will have more cohesive family climates than parents with lower income levels. It was hypothesized that parents with higher levels of income would have 50 more cohesive family climates. There was however no significant relationship found between parents’ income and their levels of cohesion (g: .04, ns). H6: Parents with higher. income levels will have more religious oriented family climates than parents with lower income levels. It was hypothesized that parents with higher income levels would also promote higher levels of religious orientation in their families. This hypothesis however was not supported (g: .04, ns). H7: Older parents will have more cohesive family climates than younger parents. It was hypothesized that older parents would foster higher levels of cohesion than younger parents. Contrary to predictions, this relationship was not significant (p: .03, ns). H3: Older parents will have more religious oriented family climates than younger parents. It was also hypothesized that older parents would foster more religious oriented family environments than younger parents. This hypothesis however was rejected as well (g: .11, ns). 51 Relationship Between the Family Climate and Socialization Oatcomes The relationship between the family climate and achievement socialization behaviors and attitudes of parents was examined using Pearsons product moment correlations. These findings are also presented in Table 7. H9: Families who are cohesive will have higher levels-of achievement socialization attitudes than families who are less cohesive. It was hypothesized that families who had higher levels of family cohesion would have higher achievement attitudes for their children. There was no significant relationship between cohesion and the achievement socialization attitudes of parents (1;: .05, ns) . H10: Families who are more religious oriented will have higher levels of achievement socialization attitudes than families who have lower levels of religiosity. It was also hypothesized that families with more religiously oriented families would have higher levels of achievement attitudes than those families with lower levels of religiosity. As shown in Table 7, this hypothesis was supported (g=.22, p<.05). Parents who fostered religiosity in their families also tended to have more positive attitudes regarding their children’s achievement. 52 H11: Families who are more cohesive will have higher levels of achievement socialization behaviors than families who are less cohesive oriented. It was hypothesized that families who had higher levels of cohesion would have higher levels, of achievement socialization behaviors. There were no associations however between levels of cohesion and socialization achievement behaviors Q=.11, ns). H12: Families who are more religiously oriented will have higher levels of achievement socialization behaviors than families who are less religiously oriented. It was hypothesized that families who were more religious oriented would have higher achievement behaviors for their children. As shown in Table 7, there was no significant relationship between religiosity and the achievement socialization behaviors of parents (g=.12, ns). H13: Families who are more cohesive will have lower levels of spanking than families who are less cohesive. It was expected that more cohesive families would use less spanking. Contrary to predictions, families with more cohesive family climates were in fact more likely to use spanking as a means of discipline (;=.23 p<.001). 53 H14: Families who are more religiously oriented will have higher levels of spanking than families who are less religiously oriented. It was hypothesized that families who were more religiously oriented were more likely to use spanking. Religious orientation however was unrelated to the use of spanking (g=.07, ns). Path Analysis It was proposed that parental characteristics would directly influence the family’s environment, and in turn impact socialization outcomes (e.g., achievement attitudes and behaviors and use of spanking). A path analysis was used to assess these relationships. The path coefficients (standardized beta weights) were calculated using a series of multiple regression equations. The 'results of the path model show consistency with the previously discussed correlational findings. Figure 3 displays the path coefficients. H15: There will be a positive indirect relationship between parental characteristics and socialization achievement attitudes, as mediated by the family climate. It was hypothesized that parental characteristics would be indirectly related to socialization achievement attitudes. Only one parental characteristic was predictive of the family climate however. Single parents tended to be more religiously oriented. Those single families that were more religiously oriented were in turn more likely to have positive attitudes Parent Charactistics FamilyClimate Socialization Outcomes -.58‘ .47“ Metal Religiosity Socialization Status Attitudes Figu_re 3. Path analysis. Predictors of socialization outcomes. * *p<.01. *p<.05. Standard betas are presented. Model controlled for age, education, income, and cohesion. 55 regarding their children’s education (R2=.18). No other parental characteristics were indirectly related to achievement attitude outcomes. H16: There will be a positive indirect relationship between parental characteristics and socialization achievement behaviors, as mediated by the family climate. It was hypothesized that there would be an indirect relationship between parental characteristics and socialization behaviors as mediated by the farnily’s climate. Contrary to expectations, none of the variables significantly predicted socialization achievement behaviors. Logistic Reggession A logistic regression was used to predict the relationship between parental characteristics, family climate and the use of spanking. All of the variables used in the path were used as predictor variables in the logistic regression and entered simultaneously. H17: There will be a positive relationship between parental characteristics, the family climate, and the use of spanking. It was hypothesized that parental characteristics (age, income, education, and marital status) and the family climate would predict the use of spanking by parents. This hypothesis was only partially supported. There was no 56 relationship between parental characteristics, religiously oriented families, and the use of spanking. There was however a relationship between cohesion and spanking (8:.250, p<.05). Families that were more cohesive tended to use spanking more frequently. Overall 70% of the parents who used spanking were correctly classified (see Table 8). 57 Table 8. Logistic Regression Coefficients f or Lhe Use of Spanking. g E Wald Parental Characteristics Marital Status -.754 (.486) 2.40 Education -. 172 (. 142) 1.46 Income . 178 (.097) 3 .37 Age .015 (.023) .277 Family Environment Cohesion .282 (.1 16) 5.92”“ Religiosity -.086 (. 163) .275 Note. Marital Status is a dichotomous variable. 1=Manied,living with partner and 0=not married, not living with partner. Spanking is a dichotomous variable. 1=Parent uses spanking and O=parent does not use spanking. Overall classification=70%. ’p < .05. Chapter 5 DISCUSSION Few studies have addressed the influence of the family climate on socialization in African American families raising children with special needs. This study proposed to explore the influence that parental characteristics had on the family climate, and in turn how the family climate influenced socialization outcomes. The present analysis partially supported the proposed hypotheses. Religiously Oriented Family Climates It was proposed that a parents’ marital status would influence the type of family climate that they fostered in the home and that these factors would in turn influence the way in which parents socialized their children. This hypotheses was supported. Religiosity played a role in the way that single parents socialized their children for achievement. Single parents appeared to be somewhat more likely to have a stronger religious—moral orientation. In turn, parents who placed a greater emphasis on issues of religiosity and morality in the home, were also more likely to reiterate the importance of high levels of achievement to their children. Parents in this case would 58 59 emphasize the importance of not only faith, morality, and the consequences of sins, but would also teach the value of doing well in school, concentrating on all academic subjects, and cooperating with teachers. This finding is particularly interesting given the large numbers of single mothers who are raising children with special needs (Boyce et al., 1995). Although it was expected that single parents would have lower levels of religiosity, this finding supports what others have suggested about single headed families. Randolph (1995) proposed that single mothers find an enormous amount of strength in their religious orientations. These findings suggest that single parents do in fact find strength in their religious orientations and that they are better able to foster attitudes of high achievement socialization in their children, when this supportive mechanism is present. There was an unexpected lack of a relationship between religiosity and achievement socialization behaviors. These findings suggest that parents involvement in their children’s schooling is not influenced by the religiosity fostered in the home. Given the moderate rates of parental involvement in their children’s schooling, but the strong belief that doing well in school is very important, it is speculated here that although religious family climates influence the attitudes that parents have regarding the importance of schooling, there are additional factors in their lives that influence their likelihood to participate in their child’s schooling. The lack of involvement on the parents part may in fact be related to school barriers. Many have 60 suggested African American parents often feel alienated and unwelcome in schools (Epstein 8: Becker, 1982; Harry ,1992). This seems to be particularly true for parents of children with special needs. Examining the parents satisfaction with their children’s school and teacher may prove beneficial. Furthermore, there may be additional ways that parents are involved in their children’s education that are not measured here. As changes in the welfare system continue to take place and volunteering in schools continues to become mandatory in many states, researchers would do well to further examine parental involvement in the school. Religiosity was not predictive of the use of spanking by parents. This finding is particularly interesting given the large amount of literature which suggests that religiosity is linked to the use of spanking (Alwin, 1984; Ellison 8: Sherkat, 1993; Flynn, 1994; Strauss, 1991). The examination of how religious orientation influences the use of disciplinary techniques other than spanking may shed light on the lack of associations found here. MW Family Clim_afl It was proposed that there would be a positive relationship between parental characteristics and socialization achievement as mediated by cohesive family climates. This hypothesized relationship however was not supported. Parental demographic characteristics were not predictive of how cohesive families were and thus did not predict parents’ socialization achievement attitudes or behaviors. A possible explanation for the general 61 lack of associations found between socialization achievement and the family environment could be explained by the limited variability of the socialization measure. Most parents indicated that they had very high socialization achievement attitudes. The restricted range of the socialization achievement measure may have minimized the effects that the family environment had on socialization achievement outcomes. As suspected, the way that parents disciplined their children was influenced by the family climate. This relationship however, was not in the hypothesized direction. Parents who fostered cohesive family units were in fact more likely to use spanking as a form of discipline. There are some speculative conclusions that can be drawn based on these findings. One plausible explanation for this finding is that families who were close knit placed a greater emphasis on family values and commitment to the family. As spanking is sometimes viewed as a means of strict discipline which ensures that children adhere to rules and regulations of the family, it may make sense that this technique was used more frequently in very cohesive families (Kalyanpur 8: Shridevi, 1991). A second plausible explanation is that cohesion is reflective of families who are very close with those in their immediate family or those who reside in the same household, but not with members of the extended family (Rosenthal, Groze, 8: Curie], 1990). This might suggest that the use of spanking is used as a means by which to discipline because of the lack of alternatives and support that would 62 otherwise be offered by extended family members. These are only speculative conclusions. A more extensive investigation into the other discipline techniques that parents use, how frequently they use spanking in comparison to other discipline methods, and in what situations they use spanking is warranted. The fact that a quarter of all parents chose to use spanking with a population of children who are primarily suffering from hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder raises additional concerns as to whether spanking is an appropriate method of discipline for this group of children. Conclusions A central proposition of this study was that the family climate would mediate the relationship between parental characteristics and socialization outcomes. This proposition was partially supported. Findings suggest that the impact of parental characteristics on socializing behaviors and attitudes are less significant than some researchers have suggested. Only marital status had an indirect relationship with achievement attitudes. Characteristics such as age, educational level and income however were not predictive of achievement attitudes, behaviors, or discipline when the family’ 8 climate was considered. It can be speculated that the lack of relationships found between income level and socialization outcomes may be due in part to the large numbers of parents who had low incomes. As previously mentioned 80% of the sample had incomes below $20,000. The low variability on this item may have attributed to the lack of significant associations. For single parents 63 however, religiosity seems to serve as a small buffer in the socialization of their children for achievement. This reliance on religiosity and family ties allows families to cope and provide healthy socializing environments for their children despite mitigating circumstances. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. First, unlike much of the deficit orientation that is found in the literature, these findings indicate that African American parents value high levels of achievement and generally exhibit behaviors that have been shown to foster high levels of academic achievement. Such findings support the literature that suggests that African American families have healthy socializing strategies (Baumrind, 1996; Harrison, 1985; Harrison et al., 1990; Spencer, 1990; Thorton, et al., 1990), and that their family functioning is not negatively affected by their child's disability (Harry, 1995). It should be noted however that the lack of relationships between achievement attitudes and behaviors and their predictors may be due more to the fact that most parents had such high attitudes and positive behaviors regarding achievement. This restricted range did not allow for much variability and may have attenuated potential relationships. Secondly, these findings suggest that moral-religiously oriented family environments have a significant influence on healthy socializing attitudes. This relationship supports much of the literature that documents the significance of religiosity (Frazier, 1963) and values (McAdoo, 1991) in the 64 lives of African American families. Moreover it supports what researchers have found to be true in African American families raising children with special needs. Harry (1995) purported that families find strength in their religious beliefs. Families in this study who encouraged religious values and morals in the home, tended to also value high levels of achievement for their children. Despite what is suggested to be true about the lack of religious orientation of single parents (mothers in particular), single parents do in fact foster religiously and morally oriented family climates and in turn possess very positive socialization attitudes. Thirdly, in populations of families raising children with special needs, the family dynamics are even more profound than suspected. These findings suggests that parents raising children with special needs have high levels of cohesion and religiosity. These family climates have moderate influences on socialization attitudes and choices in discipline. More importantly, these healthy family environments exist despite, or in spite of the fact that they are raising children with learning limitations. These factors appear to serve as buffers in the lives of African American families raising children with special needs. Implications There is a significant void in the body of research which focuses on African American families raising children with special needs. The large representation of African American children in special education programs 65 has serious implications for what is known about the ability of this group of children and families to function and adapt later in life. Future studies would do well to not only examine the cognitive, social, and academic developments of African American children with special needs, but to focus on the family dynamics and climates, life stressors, levels of depression, and life satisfaction of parents. Additionally, the continued use of an ecological theoretical framework is needed in research which proposes to examine multiple influences of socialization. In moving towards a broader ecological theoretical model, future studies should examine additional factors that may influence socialization outcomes such as the influence of child and environmental characteristics. The child's age, birth order, personality, disability type, and sex may all be factors which influence the overall socialization process. African American families are not homogeneous and therefore can not solely be defined by their demographic attributes. To consider otherwise, ignores the within group variability and the influence of additional environmental factors. Furthermore, findings of earlier research that suggest that parental involvement is related to academic achievement in children, emphasizes the importance of socialization achievement behaviors. The high value that African American parents place on education and religiosity, despite their life circumstances, is a resource which is virtually going untapped primarily 66 because these same families have not realized the importance of school involvement or there are not adequate opportunities for them to be involved in the school. School and community based programs which support and encourage the participation of parents are needed. Teachers and administrators should take a proactive approach in getting parents involved and allowing them to become partners in their children’s education. Working collaboratively with religious organizations in gaining access to parents and reiterating the importance of school involvement is an avenue that may be useful. Social workers and mental health professionals can better meet the needs of clients by recognizing the significant influence that closely knit and religiously oriented family systems have on their behaviors and attitudes. Research which focuses on the specific influences of religiosity on socialization attitudes and examining ways in which this can be translated into parents advocating for their children and being more involved in their children’s education is also needed. The use of a rigorous qualitative approach which taps parents perceptions of the school system, and in turn the role that they see themselves playing in their children's education, may prove beneficial in addressing many of these issues. Finally, additional research is warranted in the area of socialization. The lack of significant relationships found here pose a challenge for future researchers. The challenge is to refine and revise the model used here and examine additional avenues of socialization. Further studies in this area will 67 aide in facilitating a much needed and long overdue discussion on the socialization outcomes in African American families raising children with special needs. APPENDIX a. mute:- m mum “a!” azimu- Wham tutu-untra- ant-ran m 6") “if “t 6m m Collaborating I. mutilated” WSW” What“ (“on mm W Wm $06136” mm waist-sot“ APPENDK letter of Consent Dear Participant: 11m interview is being conducted by faculty from the Department of Family and Child Ecology and the institute for Children. Youth. 8t Families at Michigan State University. The purpose of this proiea is to uy to develop an understanding of the social. emotional. and educational concerns and stress that are iaoedbypeopieiiiteyouwhohaveehiidrenwithspedaineeds. WewiiibeuikingtopeoplefromflricanknerianandMeficanAmerican familiesoverthenextfouryears. inadditiontotaikingwidtyoutodaymewiii betalitingtoyouagaininthefutureatatimeandplaoeeonvenientforyou. Yourinvoivementisstrictiyonavoiunteerbasis. Youmaydecideatanypoint intirnetonoiongerbeinvoivedintheseinterviews. Allofthelnformationthat providetvillbeeont‘tdentiai. Nietheryomnoranyrnemberofyourfamfly wiilbereierredtobynameinanyofoutfiies. Wewiiltnethisinformationand dieiniomuuonobtainedftomodterswhOpanidpateinthaeinterviewsto wnteareportfltesereponswinbeavaiiabietoyouifyouwouidliketoreview them. Wewfldappredategreadyyotuagnementtopanidpatehtthisprojeet Please hidiateymuwmingnesstopanidpatebydmanddaungdselnesbeiow. iagreetopnidpateintheproieatitied: 'Ai’ricanAmerianandMedcan AmericanfamiiiesofctiidrenwithSpedalNeeds.’ Wreseardtproieetis beingeonductedbydtelnsuuneiorOtiideouduandFamfiiesatmdtigan State University. [understand the nature ofthe prolect. the nature ot'my participation. that my participation is voluntary. and that I can terminate my participationatanytimeduringtheoourseot'theproiect. Signed Date 69 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY May 1. 1996 To: Harriette P. Mc Adoo 106 Morril; Hall RE: IRBQ: 94-211 TITLE: AFRICAN AMERICAN AND MEXICAN AMERICAN FAMILIES OF RETARDED CHILDREN: COPING WITH SOCIAL-CULTURAL STRESSORS REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: 2-I APPROVAL DATE: 04/30/96 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIRS) review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any reVisions listed above. RININAL: UCRIRS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a proaect beyond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a progect is renewed) to seek u date certification. There is a maximum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a progect beyond that time need to submit it again .cr complete reView. REVISIONB: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal. please use the green renewal form. To reVise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the_ CRIHS Chair. requesting reVised approval and referenCing the pronect's IRE I and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. pnosinns/ CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (l) roblems (unexpected side effects. comp aints. etc.) involving uman mwmsm= subjects or (2)_changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than RESEARCH eXisted when the protocol was preViously reviewed an approved. AND GRADUAJE If we can be of any future hel , lease do not hesitate to contact us “E W m 0' Sincerely. mun-anus: «Elfin» . mmmm WW UCRIHS Chair EBHJwMtMflKF' osu:bed “INAOQ flflfiaflli nasnunant cc: Francisco A. Villarruel Dewana Thompson 7O DEMOGRAPHIC MEASURES Date ID# Interviewer Contact #1 Contact # 2 Ethnicity 1. To what racial or ethnic group do you and your parents belong? 1. _ Black / African-American/ Negro 2. _ Mexican American 3. _ Chicano 4. _ Latino/Hispanic 5. _ West Indian (What Country? (b) ) 6. _ Central American (What Country? (b) ) 7. _ African (What Country? (b) ) 8. _ South American (What Country? (b) ) 9. _ Caribbean (What Country? (b) _) 10. _ Other (Specify (c) ) Family Structure 122a.We would like you to list al 1 of the people who live in your household by how they are related to you. Let’ 5 start with you: 122a2. Sex: 1. Male 2. _Female: 71 122a3. How old were you on your last birthday? 122a4. What is your marital status? 1. _ Married 4. _ Divorced 2. _ Never Married 5. _ Separated 3. _ Widowed 6. _ Living with a partner 122a5. The number of children that you have who live in the household. _ 122a6. Are you attending school, working, unemployed, retired, a homemaker, have dropped out of school or other? 1. _ Preschool 5. _ Retired 2. _ School 6. _ Homemaker 3. _ Working 7. _ Dropout 4. _ Unemployed 8. _ Other 122a7. What is the highest grade of school you’ve completed (Give number of grade). 122a8. What is the length of time that you have lived at this address? 237. What is our total family income including all sources? 1. __ less than 6,000 6. _ 20,000 - 24,999 2. _ 6,000 — 8,999 7. __ 25,000 - 29,999 3. _9,000 - 11,999 8. _ 30,000 - 49,999 4. _ 12,000 - 15,999 9. _ 50,000 - 69,999 5. _ 16,000 - 19,999 10. _ over 70,000 11. _ don’t know 72 Education: Achievement Socialization Attitudes 164. 165. 166. How often do you talk with your child’s teacher about school related issues? 1. _ Rarely 2. _ Occasionally 3. _ Frequently Do you participate as a volunteer in your child’s classroom?* 1. _ No, never 2. _ Yes, occasionally (only when asked my teacher) 3. _ Yes, frequently (weekly, monthly) How often do you help your child with his / her homework assignments?” 1. _ Not very often or hardly ever 2. _ Occasionally-only when requested 3. _ Frequently-at least two to three times per week A_chievement Socialization Behaviors 167. On a scale of 1 to 4, (1 = Not important; 2 = Somewhat Important; 3 = Important; 4 = Very Important) how will / do you rate the importance of the following for your child: a. Reading / Spelling _ c. Science _ b. Math d. Social Studies * The original scores for these items were: 3=never/ rarely,‘2=rarely, and 73 1=frequently. The codes on these items were reversed for statistical analysis. 173. How important is it for you to have __ (child’s name) do well in school? 1. _ Not important 3. _ Important 2. _ Somewhat Important 4. _ Very Important 174. How important is it for __ (child's name) to cooperate with his/ her teacher? 1. _ Not important 3. _ Important 2. _ Somewhat Important 4. _ Very Important Child Care 246. Do you spank or hit your child? 1. _ Yes 2. No 74 _F_amin Environment Scale” Please give your honest feelings and opinions. If it is difficult to answer either True (T) or False (F), answer in terms of what you or your family feel or do most of the time. Please do not skipjany items! There are not wrong answers. Please indicate whether the statement is most true or most false for your family. 1. Family members really help and support one another 2. Family members often keep their feelings to themselves 3. We fight a lot in our family. 4. We don’t do things on our own very often in our family. .01 We feel it is important to be the best at whatever you do. 6. We often talk about political and social problems. >1 We spend most weekends and evenings at home. H—l—l—l—lt-it-i—l '11'1'1'11‘11'11'11'11'1'1 oo . Family members attend church, synagogue, or Sunday School fairly often. 9. Activities in our family are pretty carefully planned. T F 10. Family members are rarely ordered around. T F 11. We often seem to be killing time at home. T F 12. We say anything we want to around home. T F 13. Family members rarely become openly angry. T F 75 14. In our family, we are strongly encouraged to be independent. 15. Getting ahead in life is very important in our family. 16. We rarely go to lectures, plays or concerts. 17. Friends often come over for dinner or to visit. 18. We don’t say prayers in our family. 19. We are generally very neat and orderly. 20. There are very few rules to follow in our family. 21. We put a lot of energy into what we do at home. 22. It’ 3 hard to ”Blow off steam" at home without upsetting somebody. 23. Family members sometimes get so angry they throw things. 24. We think things out for ourselves in our family. 25. How much money a person makes it not very important to us. 26. Learning about new and different things is very important in our family. 27. Nobody in our family is active in sports, Little League, bowling etc. 28. We often talk about the religious meaning of Christmas, Passover, or other holidays. '-l '-l '-l r-l '-l v-i '-i *-l i-i '11’11'11'11'11'11’11 76 29. It’ 5 often hard to find things when you need them in our household. 30. There is one family member who makes most of the decisions. 31. There is a feeling of togetherness in our family. 32. We tell each other about our personal problems. 33. Family members hardly ever lose their tempers. 34. We come and go as we want to in our family 35. We believe in competition and "may the best man win”. 36. We are not that interested in cultural activities. 37. We often go to movies, sports events, camping, etc. 38. We don’t believe in heaven or hell. 39. Being on time is very important in our family. 40. There are set ways of doing things at home. 41. We rarely volunteer when something has'to be done at home. 42. If we feel like doing something on the spur of moment, we often just pick up and go. 43. Family members often criticize each other. 44. There is very little privacy in our family. 45. We always strive to do things just a little better next time. Fit-lt-l—lhi i-ii-l—l—lt-l—l '11 '11'1'1'11’11 ’1'1’71’1'1'11'11'11 77 46. We rarely have intellectual discussions. 47. Everyone in our family has a hobby or two. 48. Family members have strict ideas about what is right and wrong. 49. People change their minds often in our family. 50. There is a strong emphasis on following rules in our family. 51. Family members really back each other up. 52. Someone usually gets upset if you complain in our family. 53. Family members sometimes hit each other. 54. Family members almost always rely on themselves when a problem comes up. 55. Family members rarely worry about job promotions, school grades, etc. 56. Someone in our family plays a musical instrument. 57. Family members are not very involved in recreational activities outside work or school. 58. We believe there are somethings you just have to take on faith. 59. Family members make sure their rooms are neat. 60. Everyone has an equal say in family decisions. 61. There is very little group spirit in our family. i-l t-l—lr-l—l '11’11'11'1'1 78 62. Money and paying bills is openly talked about in our family. 63. If there’s a disagreement in our family, we try hard to smooth things over and keep the peace. 64. Family members strongly encourage each other to stand up for their rights. 65. In our family, we don't try hard to succeed. 66. Family members often go to the library. 67. Family members sometimes attend courses or take lessons for some hobby or interest (outside of school). 68. In our family each person has different ideas about what is right or wrong. 69. Each person’s duties are clearly defined in our family. 70. We can do whatever we want to in our family. 71. We really get along well with each other. 72. We are usually careful about what we say to each other. 73. Family members often try to one-up or out-do each other. 74. It’ 5 hard to be by yourself without hurting someone’s feelings in our household. 75. “Work before play” is the rule in our family. 76. Watching T.V. Is more important than reading in our family. v-lt-lt-i—l—l—l l-l "r'i'fl'l'i'l'i'fi'i'i 79 77. Family members go out a lot. T F 78. The Bible is a very important book in our home. T F 79. Money is not handled very carefully in our family. T F 80. Rules are pretty inflexible in our household. T F 81. There is plenty of time and attention for everyone T F in our family. 82. There are a lot of spontaneous discussions in our family. T F 83. In our family, we believe you don't ever get anywhere T F by raising your voice. 84. We are not really encouraged to speak up for ourselves T F in our family. 85. Family members are often compared with others as to T F how well they are doing at work at school. 86. Family members really like music, art, and literature. T F 87. Our main form of entertainment is watching T.V. T F or listening to the radio. 88. Family members believe that if you sin you will be T F punished. 89. Dishes are usually done immediately after eating. T F 90. You can’t get away with much in our family. T F ‘The Cohesion Sub-Scale includes items 1, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, and 81. The Moral-Religious Sub-Scale includes items 8,18,28,38,48,58,68,78, and 88. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Alwin, D. F. (1984). Trends in parental socialization values: Detroit, 1958- 1983. American |ournal of SociologyI 90, 359-382. Artilles, A. 1., 8: Trent, S. C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A continuing debate. The lournal of Special Educationl 27, 4, 410-437. Anderson, M. G., & Webb-Johnson, G. (1995) Cultural contexts, the seriously emotionally disturbed classification, and African American learners. In B. A., Ford, F. E., Obiakor, & I. M. Patton, (Eds.). Effective education of African American exceptional learners (pp. 151-187). Austin: TX, Pro—Ed Inc. Baker, D. P, & Stevenson, D. L. (1986). Mother’ 3 strategies for children’s school achievement: Managing the transition to high school. Sociology of Education 59 156-166. Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations 45 405-414. Belsky, I. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55I 83-96. 80 81 Billingsley, A. (1968). B_l_a£k fainilies in White America. NY: Simon and Schuster Inc. Billingsley, A. (1992). Climbing lacob’s ladder: The enduring legag of African American families. New York: Simon and Schuster. Boake, C., 8r Salmon, P. G. (1983). Demographic correlates and factor structure of the family environment scale. lournal of Clinical chhology, 39, 95-100. Boyce, G. C., Miller, B. C., White, K. R., 8: Godfrey, M. K. (1995). Single parenting in families of children with disabilities. (Single parent families: Diversity, myths and realities, part 2). Marriage and Family Review, 20, 389- 410. Boykin, A. W. 6: Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H. P. McAdoo 8: J. L. McAdoo (Eds), Black children: Social educational and parental environments (pp. 113-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z. & Flor, D. (1995). Linking family processes and academic competence among rural African American youth. |ournal of Marriage and the Family. 57. 567-579. Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z. & Flor, D. (1996). Parental religiosity, family processes, and youth competence in rural, two-parent African American families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 696-706. 82 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of CMlQevelopmentz Vol. 6 (pp. 187-249). Greenwich, CT: IAI PRess. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986b). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742. Bush, K., Supple, A., & Roosa, M. W. (1996, November). Parenting practices as mediators of depression and conduct-disorfier in high risk children. Paper presented at annual Conference for The National Council on Family Relations, Kansas City, MO. Carey, T. A. (1994). Spare the rod and spoil the child. Is this a sensible justification for the use of punishment in child rearing? Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 1005-1010. Cheatham, H. E. & Stewart, J. B. (Eds.) (1990). Black families: Interdisciplina_ry pgrsmctives. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Coll, C. G., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914. Dixon, M. A. (1986). Families of adolescent clients and non-clients: Their environments and help-seeking behaviors. Advances in Nursing Science, 8, 75-88. Ellison, C. G., 8: Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for corporal punishment. American Sociological Review. 58, 131-144. 83 Epstein, J.L & Becker, H.J. (1982). Teachers’ reported practices of parent involvement: Problems and possibilities. Elementary Sc_hool Journal 83 103- 113. Erlanger, HS. (1974). Social class and corporal punishment in childrearing. A reassessment. American Sociological Review. 3% 68-85. Flynn, C. P., (1994). Regional differences in attitudes toward corporal punishment. lournal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 314-324. Ford, B. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Patton, J. M. (1995). Effective education of African American exceptional learners: New persmctives. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Inc. Frazier, F. (1963). The Negro church in America. New York: Schocken. Giles-Sims, J.,-Straus, M.A., & Sugarman, DB. (1995). Child, maternal and family characteristics associated with spanking. Family Relations, 44,170—176. Glick, P. C. (1997). Demographic pictures of African American families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (3rd ed., pp. 118-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Harrison, A. (1985). The Black family’s socializing environment. Self- Esteem and ethnic attitude among Black children. In H. P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo, J. L. (Eds.), Black children: Social. educational and parental environments (pp. 174-193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Harrison, A. 0., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, S. Q., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61, 347-362. 84 Harry, B. (1992). Restructuring the participation of African-American parents in special education. In K. L., Freiberg (Ed.), Educating Exceptiona_l Children (9th ed., pp. 123-131). Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Group/ Brown & Benchmark Publishers. Harry, B. (1995). African American families. In B. A., Ford, F. E., Obiakor, & J. M. Patton, (Eds.), Effective ecfltion of Africam American exceptiorfl l_e_arners: Nemerspggpiyep (pp. 211-233). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Inc. Harry, B. 8r Anderson, M.G. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. lournal of Neggo Education, 63, 603-619. Hemenway, D., Solnick, 8., 8: Carter, J. (1994). Child-rearing violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 1011-1020. Hill, N. (1995). Parenting styles and family environments. lournal of Black Psychology,21, 408-423. Hill, R. (1971). The strengths of Black families. New York: Prentice-Hall. Kalyanpur, M., 8: Shridevi, S. R. (1991). Empowering low-income Black families of handicapped children. American Journal of Orthopsychiat_ry, 61, 523—532. Kelley, M. L., Power, T. G. 8r Wimbush, D. D. (1992). Determinants of disciplinary practices in low-income Black mothers. Child Development, 63, 573-582. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York: Harper Collins. 85 Kriesberg, L. (1967). Rearing children for educational achievement in fatherless families. |ournal of Marriage and Family, 288-300. Linbald-Goldberg, M., Dukes, J. L., 8: Phil, M. (1985). Social support in Black, low-income, single-parent families: Normative and dysfunctional patterns. American lournal of Orthopsychiag, 55, 42-58. Luster, T., 8: McAdoo, H. P. (1994). Factors related to the achievement and adjustment of young African American children. Child Development, 65, 1080-1094. Manns, W. (1997). Supportive roles of significant others in African American families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (3rd ed., pp. 198-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Marks, C. C. (1993). Demography and race. In J. H. Stanfield II, & R. M. Dennis (Eds.). Race and ethnicity in research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Matson, J. & Mulick, J. (1990). Handbook of mental retardation. New York: Pergamon. McAdoo, H. P. (1991). Family values and outcomes for children. |ournal of Neggo Educatiop,60, 361-365. McAdoo, H. P. (1995). Stress levels, family help patterns, and religiosity in middle-and working class African American single mothers. |ournal of Black Psychology, 21, 424-449. 86 McAdoo, H. P. (Ed.). (1997). Black families (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McAdoo, H. P., & McAdoo, J. L. (Eds.). (1985). Black children. Social educational, and parental environments. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc. McAdoo, H. P. 8: Murray, M. J. (1996). The relationship between religion and perceived levels of stress in African american mothers of children with special needs. In H. P. McAdoo & F. A. Villarruel, The Gatlingburg Papers (pp. 71-78). East Lansing: Michigan State University. McLoyd, V. (1990b). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting & socioemotional development. Chilfid Development, 61, 311-347. Moos, R. H. (1974). Family environment scale (Form R). Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moos, R. H., 8: Moos, B. S. (1994). Family environment scale manual. Developments, applications, research (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Portes, P. R., Dunham, R.M., & Williams, S. (1986). Assessing child-rearing style in ecological settings: Its relations to culture, social class, early age intervention and scholastic achievement. Adolescence 21 723-735. 87 Randolph, S. M. (1995). African American children in single-mother families. In J. H. Stanfield II (Series Ed.) & B. J. Dickerson (Vol. Ed.), Egg series on ra_c_e_a_r£l ethnic relations: Vol. 10. Africafin American single mothers: Understanding their lives and families. (pp. 117-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Reschly, DJ. (1996). Identification and assessment of students with disabilities. The Future of Childrea,6, 40-51. Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parent involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research marterlyj, 441-462. Reynolds, A. J., & Gill, S. (1994). The role of parental perspectives in the school adjustment of inner-city black children. M of Yogth a_n_c_l_ Adolescence 23 671-694. Rosenthal, J. A., Groze, V., 8: Curiel, H. (1990). Race, social class and special needs adoption. Social Work 35 532-539. Scanzoni, J. (1985). Black parental values and expectations of children’s occupational and educational success. In H. P. McAdoo 8: J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational and parental environments (pp. 113-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Sears, R., Maccoby, E. & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of child rearing. White Plains, NY: Peterson & CO. 88 Slaughter, D. T. (1987). The home environment and academic achievement of Black American children and youth: An overview. Journal of Neggo Education, 56, 3-20. Slaughter-Defoe, T. (1991). Parental educational choice: Some African American dilemmas. lournal Neggo Educatioa, 60, 210-224. Spencer, M. B. (1990). Parental values transmission: Implications for the development of African-American children. In H. E. -Cheatham 8: J. B. Stewart (Eds.). Black families: Interdisciplinagy perspectives (pp. 111-130). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Stevens, J. H. (1988). Social support, locus of control, and parenting in 'three low-income groups of mothers: Black teenagers, Black adults, and White adults. Child development, 59, 635-642. Strauss, M.A. (1979) Family patterns and child abuse in a nationally representative sample. International lournal of Child Abuse and Neglect,3, 213-225. Straus, M. A. (1991) Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems 38 133- 154. Switzer, L. S. (1990). Family factors associated with academic progress for children with learning disabilities. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 24, 200-206. 89 Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Tucker, M. B., & Lewis, E. (1990). Developments in research on Black families: A decade review. |ournal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 993-1014. Thompson, M. D., & McAdoo, H. P. (1997, March). Socializing children with special needs for academic achievement. In H. P. McAdoo (Chair), Socialization patternsgtress. the utilization of proverbsl dichos, and religion of merits of developmentally disabled children of color. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Gatlingburg Conference on Research and Theory in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Riverside, CA. Thorton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., 8r Allen, W. R. (1990). Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racial socialization by Black parents. Child Development, 61, 401-409. Tolson, T.F.J., & Wilson, M. M. (1990). The impact of two- and three- generational Black family structure on perceived family climate. C_hild Development, 61, 416-428. Wilson, M. N. (1995). African American family life: The dynamics of interactions, relationships, and roles. In M. N. Wilson (Ed.). African American family life: Its structural and ecological aspects. New Directionsfifor Child Development, 68, (pp. 5-21). Josey-Bass Publishers. nICHIan stats UNIV. LIBRARIES VIIWINWWW”llI“!IIWIHIWIIIIWII 31293016880704