. .HJ..:OA.; vv. .7: .9 5

5....
‘1 Y-
9.“.qu
Emma. bx
«Mun

2, J

*qtmfiuvhé .

. a}. -11..

.lr . Q .:?»Iv.dn.

3.5vsapmmimmefi.

. ,
1.51:!»

ill?!» . I. 1 .. 9%.. . .

 

THESlS

ICHIGAN s ATE umvensmr LIBRARIES
n n

Illllllllllllllll ill

ll
3 1293 0 8 4

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Comparative Analysis Between Baumrind’s Parenting Styles and
Imig’s Paradigmatic Parenting Structures

presented by

Kelly H. Lyttle

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mast‘é‘rl-A') . Family Studies

degree in

 

 

 

Date AUKV‘ST' 2's! ‘93?

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

—-_ _ _ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from you

r record.
fore date due.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To AVOID FINES return on or be
DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
:5 ‘
JAN 1 3 2000
________.._..— // /
33ft 2 0 00
_______._._._—— _________.__——— _,,___.—————
_____,/ ______.______—- ___/

 

 

1M WM.“

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN BAUMRIND’S PARENTING STYLES AND
lMlG’S PARADIGMATIC PARENTING STRUCTURES
By

Kelly I-L Lyttle

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTERS OF FAMILY STUDIES
Family and Child Ecology

1998

ABSTRACT
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN BAUMRIND’S PARENTING STYLESAND
IMIG’S PARADIGMATIC PARENTING STRUCTURES
By

Kelly H. Lyttle

How do parenting styles as measured by John Buri associate with the
paradigmatic parenting structures as measured by David Imig? This was assessed
utilizing a correlational matrix and factor analysis on surveys returned by forty-one
parents from the Lansing, Nfl area. Parents who were identified as Authoritative
according to Buri’s PAQ study were determined to be more likely to be Open and
Random as identified by David Imig’s PPAS. Parents who were identified as
Authoritan'an according to Buri’s PAQ were determined to be more likely to be Closed
and Synchronous according to David Imig’s PPAS. Parents who were identified as
Permissive according to Buri’s PAQ were determined to be more likely to be Random

and Synchronous according to David Imig’s PPAS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER I
Problem Statement
Research Objectives
Conceptual and Operational Definitions
Research Assumptions

CHAPTER ll
Literature Review
Parenting Styles
Review of Paradigms
Research Questions

CHAPTER III
Research Hypotheses
Research Design
Instrumentation
Sampling Procedure
Data Collection Procedure
Data Analysis

CHAPTER IV
Results
Results Related to Correlation Matrix
Secondary Correlations
Results Related to Factor Analysis

CHAPTER V
Discussion
Limitations
Concern with Scales
Implications for Educators
Implications for Parents
Implications for Psychologists and other Therapists
Future Directions for Research
APPENDIX A: REFERENCES
APPENDIX B: PARENT LETTER
APPENDIX C: LETTER OF CONSENT
APPENDIX D: PAQ
APPENDIX E: PPAS
APPENDIX F: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

APPENDIX G: UCRIHS APPROVAL LETTER

SSSSS 883

388$$8$$

V
01

\l
m

82

85

90

92

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1
Distribution of Marital Status, Income Level,
Education Level, and Race; All Data, N=42

TABLE 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between Parenting
Styles and Family Structures; All Data, N=41

TABLE 3
Correlation Coefficients, Caucasian Respondents

TABLE 4
Correlation Coefficients, Caucasian Respondents,
Minimum Income of $25,000, Minimum Education
Level of High School Graduate, N=27

TABLE 5
Chi Square for All Data, N=41

TABLE 6
Chi Square for Race = 1, N=31

TABLE 7
Chi Square for Race = 1, Edlev>=2, lncome>2, N=27

TABLE 8
Factor Analysis Using Equamax Rotation Matrix, N=41

35

46

47

49

50

51

55

Chapter I - Introduction

Problem Statement

“Train up the child, in the way he should go;
and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

The Proverbs, 22:6

The child’s family life, specifically the way the parents interact with the child
impact the life of the child in significant ways (Baumrind, 1975). The way in which
parents interact with their child shapes the way in which the child behaves both in the
present and in the future (Baumrind, 1968; Grolnick and Ryan, 1989) with their pment
and with others. Different parenting processes are linked with difi’erent child behavior
outcomes. If a child experiences warmth, honesty and trust they learn to be warm, honest
and trustworthy (Baumrind, 1975). When they don’t experience those positive behaviors
the outcome may not be as positive. It is not simply the styles of parenting that impacts
the family, but also the family’s basic processes. These ways of understanding affect the
manner in which the family functions and how well it functions together. The child is
impacted by the images, structures and behavior patterns under which his family Operates
(Constantine, 1993). If certain parenting styles are linked to specific child behavior
outcomes, could this mean that family structure could predispose children to these same

behaviors? Perhaps there is an association between parenting styles and family structure.

The language used in the literature in reference to these topics has been used
interchangeably in relation to processes, styles, ways of understanding, types, and
structures. For the purpose of this study, parenting will be referred to in regards to as
styles and family paradigms will be referred to as structures. In the Parental Attitude
Questionnaire (Burr, 1991), there is an ideal parenting style, the Authoritative parenting
style, while in the Parent Paradigm Assessment Scale (Imig, 1997) there is an ideal
manner in functioning in each of the four family paradigms. This allows for four ideal
parenting paradigms. How do these two assessments interact? Since Authoritative
parenting is the ideal, does this mean that the parents operating in the four paradigms will
identify more with the Authoritative parenting style than the other two? If the persons
studying the family were aware of these aspects of a family’s processes, it might enable a
clearer and more concise analysis of the family, and, perhaps, an easier transition into
family therapy if need be.. The persons studying the family may include educators
interacting with either the children or the adults, social services personnel dealing with
the family unit, parents looking for the most effective manner in which to relate to their
children, and therapists searching for more effectual ways of treating clients. If the
manner in which the family processes information, communicate with each other and the
outside world, patrol boundaries, and establish hierarchies are known, then family
support professionals would likely have less difficulty working within the family while
being aware of their specifics of how families parent. If therapy is required, a child’s
therapist may be made aware of these crucial pieces of information and perhaps therapy

sessions would run more constructively and more efficiently.

This study will examine the associations between parenting styles and
paradigmatic family structures for parents of children in grades three, four and five. This
study specifically will examine the association between parenting style as measured by
the Parent Attitude Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) and paradigmatic family structure as
measured by the Parenting Paradigm Assessment Scale (Imig, 1997) for parents of
children in grades three, four and five. The two scales represent the operationalization of
two different (yet potentially related) conceptual frameworks as applied to parenting.
The purpose of this study is to test for the degree of association or relatedness of those
two conceptual fiameworks ( Buri’s PAQ and Imig’s PPAS) with implications for
parents, and family professionals.

Persons who work with families are in need of insight into the best methods with
which to deal with individual children and their families. Do parents in specific family
structures tend to parent their children in similar style to other parents in the same family
structure? The paradigm in which a parent operates may prescribe the style in which
they parent. Or does the style in which a parent operate dictate the paradigm under
which they function? Are these two scales, in efi‘ect, measuring similar constructs? The
exploration of similarities and differences between a parent’s responses to the PPAS and
the PAQ would provide greater depth than would the parent’s responses to the scales
separately. In addition these people would be helped by an understanding of the reasons
a child is behaving in a particular manner through increased understanding of the
manner in which he is parented, as well as the process by which the family functions on a
day to day basis. This would be beneficial to therapists, educators, clergy and/or parents

themselves. Awareness of needs, desires, similarities and differences would give the

3

family advocate a place in which to start the family discussion. Therapy sessions may be
directed and focused by knowledge of the family structure and/or parenting style because
the therapist will have attained insight into the areas where the family is not engaged or
perhaps too firmly engaged Further research is needed regarding the probable outcomes
of each of these different families. If there is an association between the family
paradigms and parenting styles, does this mean that the findings in regard to parenting
styles outcomes are similar to those of family paradigms? This study will assist in
providing insight in regards to the relationship between parenting style and paradigmatic

family structure; is there even an association between the two?

Objectives:

The overall objective of this study is to examine the interactions between family
types as they impact parenting styles and how the different ideals of the two scales
interact, the Parental Attitude Questionnaire being a linear representation and the Parent
Paradigm Assessment Scale being a of three-dimensional representation for the parents
of children in grades three, four and five. In order to carry out this overall objective, the

following more, specific objective is posed:

o to investigate the relationship between the four parenting paradigms as assessed by
the Parenting Paradigm Assessment Scale (Imig, 1997) and the three parenting styles
as assessed using the Parent Attitude Questionnaire (Buri, 1991) for parents of

children who are in grades four, five and six.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions

Conceptual Definition Dependent Variable: Paradignatic Family Structure

Closed paradign: the blueprint for the stable, secure family that relies on
traditional authority and conformity to its norms to ensure continuation of established
family patterns. The family identity comes first before any individual identity.

Individual needs are met through the loyalty and service to the family.

Random paradign: the antithesis of the closed family. Random families favor
change and variability over stability and conformity. These families are the blueprint for
an ever changing kaleidoscope based on creative individuality and egalitarian autonomy.
The individual comes first and the collective needs of the family are met through

spontaneous synergy of individual inventiveness and initiative.

Open families: the “modern”, open-communication and democratic family.
These families are the merger of the conformity of Closed families and the spontaneity of
Random families. Open families strive to achieve flexibility that integates change with
stability, and needs and interests of the individual with those of the family as a group.
Collaborative process of consensual negotiation and communication are stressed and
raised to high art. Change and stability are valued to solve problems and adapt to

specific problems.

Synchronous families: the opposite of the Open family. It is the blueprint for the
quiet and harmonious family. These families rely principally on tacit understanding and
unstated rules for regulation. These families strive toward timeless perfection in which

no one needs to be told what to do and the smooth surface of the family is undisturbed.

Operational Definition Dependent Variable: Paradignatic Family Structure

The paradignatic family structures will be assessed by using parent’s score

derived using Family Paradign Assessment Scale (Imig, 1997).

Conceptual Definition Independent Variable: Parent Attitude

Authoritative parent attitude: attempt to direct their child’s activities in a rational
manner. These parents encourage verbal give and take, share reasons behind policy and
ask for children’s objections when he or she refuses to conform. Independent self-reform
and disciplined conformity are valued. These parents exert firm control, but do not fence
their children in with rules and restrictions. The parent’s enforce adult perspective, but
consider the child in that perspective. Parents affirm the child in the present, but set
goals for future conduct. The parents use reason, power, and shaping by regimen and
reinforcement to achieve their objectives and do not base decisions solely on goup

consensus or the child’s individual desires.

Authoritarian parent attitude: value obedience as a virtue and favor punitive and
forceful measures to curtail self-will at times when the child’s actions are in conflict with
the parent’s beliefs of proper conduct. These parents believe in keeping the child in his
place, restricting his autonomy and assigning chores to teach respect for work
Authoritarian parents highly value the preservations of order and tradition. These parents
do not encourage verbal give and take, and believe that the child should accept the

parent’s word as right.

Permissive parent attitude: behave in an affirmative, acceptant and benign
manner in regards to child’s impulses and actions. These parents present themselves as a
resource for the child to use as he wishes, but does not play an active role in shaping and
altering the child’s current and future behavior. The immediate aim of an ideologically
aware Permissive parent is to free the child from restraint as much as is consistent with

survival.

Operational Definition Independent Variable: Parent Attitude

The parenting style of those in this study will be assessed by the parent’s score on

John Buri’s Parent Attitude Questionnaire (1991 ).

Research Assumptions

1. It is assumed that the participants in the study answer the questionnaires honestly and

completely.

Chapter II - Review of Literature

Literature Review

Parenting Styles

According to Baumrind (1966), there are a number of indicators in regard to the
resultant behavior of children to differing parenting styles. Baumrind’s research sought
to disclose whether common myths of Authoritarian parenting were truths rather than
myths. The myths studied and findings are as follows: First, how do different forms of
punishment impact children? Are there negative consequences to the ways in which
particular parents discipline? The evidence led to the conclusion that if the punishment
is hostile, self-righteous and non-empathetic then there may be a cogritive and emotional
disturbance in the child (hostile acting out, hostile withdrawal, dependency, personality
problems, nervousness, and low school efficiency). Second, does close supervision, high
demands, and other manifestations of parental authority provoke rebelliousness in
children, especially adolescents? Baumrind’s research did not find a link between these
parental behaviors and child rebelliousness. Third, does firm parental control foster
passivity and dependence? The research was unable to support this statement since there
are many instances in which children may resist parental control. Fourth, does parental
authority decrease normal self-assertiveness and buoyancy? There was no way to draw a
definite conclusion. Fifth, does permissiveness free the child from the presence and

authority of the parent? The presence of a non-reacting adult affects the child in definite

ways. For instance, if the child were to act out in a way that would not normally be
acceptable and the adult in attendance does not react, the child is reinforced that the
action is not punishable. Sixth, does firm control inhibit the child’s creative thought?
The increase of Authoritarian control in the parent does correlate with higher IQ in the
child, but also correlates with lower creativity. Finally, do similar patterns of child
rearing affect boys and girls differently? Baumrind’s research led her to conclude that
there was not enough information with which to draw a conclusion.

Baumrind (1968) researched five positive and negative aspects of parental
control. First, she researched the issue of whether or not punishment has inevitable,
negative side effects , and is an ineffective means of controlling behavior. The findings
purport that milder forms of punishment have beneficial side effects including: 1.) more
rapid reestablishment of affectionate involvement on both sides following emotional
release; 2.) high resistance to similar deviation by siblings who vicariously experience
punishment; 3.) emulation of aggressive parent resulting in prosocial assertive behavior;
4.) lessening of guilt reactions to transgressions; and 5.) increased ability of the child to
endure punishment in order to achieve the desired end. Second, research considered if
close supervision, high demands, and other manifestations of parental authority provoke
rebelliousness? This study found that the more that the parent demanded, the less hostile
was their child. Also, parents who require more have children with more enriched and
organized surroundings and are more conscientiously involved with their environments.
Third, study focused on whether firm parental control generate passivity and
dependence? The study concluded that parents with the most firm control and reactive

power assertion have children who are more self-reliant and approach oriented. Fourth,

l0

research explored if permissiveness free the child from the presence of the authority of
the parent? Conclusions indicate that the noninterference of the parent who is present
when the child misbehaves, seems to sigrify approval. Finally, research pursued if
controlling parents motivated by the Authoritarian Personality Syndrome? The
conclusion of the study indicate while all people with Authoritarian Personality
Syndrome are controlling, not all controlling people have Authoritarian Personality
Syndrome.

Baumrind and Black (1967) researched the impact of parenting style on child
behavior. There were a number of findings. First, this study did not find parental
warmth to be an important indicator of child behavior. Second, punitive attitudes on the
part of the parent(s) were not associated with fearful or compliant behavior. Third,
parental consistent discipline is associated with independence and assertiveness in boys
and affiliativeness in girls. Fourth, the cluster of Maternal Maturity Demands also
correlated positively with independence and assertiveness in boys. F ifih, the willingress
of parents to offer justification of directives and listen to the child are associated with
competent behavior. Finally, parents who are restrictive and deny independence are

associated with boys who exhibit dependent and passive behavior.

Based on a series of research projects investigating the process of parenting
associated with child behaviors, Baumrind (1975) classified parenting styles into three
categories: Authoritative (Pattern I), Authoritarian (Pattern II) and Permissive (Pattern
III). Authoritative parents are classified as Pattern I (mature). These parents are

controlling and warm, and communicate clearly with their child. These families lack

ll

discord and disciplinary friction, and use corporal punishment, but do not ridicule,
fiighten or withdraw love. Positive reinforcement is used instead of negative
reinforcement. There is high control and positive encouragement. Authoritarian parents
are classified as Pattern H. Parents utilize less rational methods of control and are less
nurturant and sympathetic. Parents in these families are as controlling as Authoritative
parents, but give parental authority and religious views as reasons for demands instead of
reason and compromise. Children are not encouraged to express disageement, and there
are more instances of frightening the child to achieve desired behavior. These parents
are detached, controlling and cool. Permissive parents are classified as Pattern III
(immature). These parents are less controlling and less organized. They also have less
influence on their children and make fewer demands.

Baumrind studied the children of each parenting type to find if there were
common traits throughout any of the classifications. The findings were many. In
Permissive families the girls appear not to be greatly affected, but were somewhat
suggestible and aimless. The boys in Permissive families were not achievement oriented,
were hostile with their peers, resistive to adults and aimless. In Authoritarian families
the girls were submissive, aimless and not achievement oriented. Boys in Authoritarian
families were achievement oriented and independent, hostile to their peers and resistive
to adults. Authoritative parents bad girls who were dominant, purposive, and
achievement oriented They were also friendly, but not compliant. The boys of
Authoritative parents were friendly, cooperative, tractable and achievement oriented.

They were not as dominant and purposive as may have been wished.

lZ

Baumrind (1971) identified three objectives to placing children in a day care
center: Primary: to free both parents to work outside of the home; Secondary: to provide
the child with a healthful and stimulating environment which will contribute to his
mental, physical and moral development; 3) Third: ideological - to bring to bear upon
young children a set of adult values that are appropriate to the society’s way of life, and
to do so in an environment where, under adult leadership, the peer goup can be used as
the major socializing force. The children were then tested for instrumental competence
and independence. Instrumental competence was divided into three categories: 1)
Achievement oriented vs. Non-achievement oriented: willingress to persevere in
frustration vs. withdrawal in frustration, set one’s goals high and meet the demands of
others in cogiitive situations vs. an unwillingness to comply with the teaching
instructions. Friendly vs. Hostile behaviors with peers: nurturant, kind, altruistic
behavior displayed toward age mates vs. bullying, insulting and selfish behavior. 3)
Cooperative vs. Resistive behavior toward adults: trustworthy, responsible, facilitative
behavior vs. devious, impetuous obstructive actions. Independence and suggestibility
were also divided into three categories: 1) Domineering vs. Tractable behavior: bold,
aggressive, demanding behavior vs. timid, nonintrusive, undemanding behavior. 2)
Dominant vs. Submissive behavior: individual initiate and leadership vs. suggestible and
following behavior. 3) Purposive vs. Aimless behavior: confident, charismatic, self-
propelled activity vs. disoriented, normative goaliess behavior.

The researcher then defined the ways in which the parents in each of the
parenting categories transacted with their children. Authoritative parents attempt to

direct their child’s activities in a rational manner. These parents encourage verbal give

13

and take, share reasons behind policy and ask for children’s objections when he or she
refuses to conform. Independence, self-reform and disciplined conformity are valued.
These parents exert firm control, but do not fence their children in with rules and
restrictions. The parents enforce the adult perspective, but consider the child in that
perspective. Parents affirm child in present, but set goals for future conduct. The parents
use reason, power, and shaping by regimen and reinforcement to achieve their objectives
and do not base decisions solely on goup consensus or the child’s individual desires.
Authoritarian parents value obedience as a virtue and favor punitive and forceful
measures to curtail self-will at times where the child’s actions are in conflict with the
parent’s beliefs of proper conduct. These parents believe in keeping the child in his
place, restricting his autonomy and assigring chores to teach respect for work.
Authoritarian parents highly value the preservations of order and tradition. These parents
do not encourage verbal give and take, and believe that the child should accept the
parent’s word as right. Permissive parents behave in an affirmative, acceptant and
benign manner in regards to child’s impulses and actions. These parents present
themselves as a resource for the child to use as he wishes, but do not play an active role
in shaping and altering the child’s current and future behavior. The immediate aim of an
ideologically aware Permissive parent is to free the child from restraint as much as is

consistent with survival.

Grolnick and Ryan (1989) studied how the different parenting styles were
associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. This was achieved

through several methods: a parent interview: focused on ways parent motivated child for

14

various activities and how they respond to child behaviors; self-report scales: 1)
Academic Self Regulation Questionnaire (ASRQ): used to assess children’s styles of
regulating behavior in a classroom setting. Children were given 24 questions exploring
why children do a variety of activities (homework, answering difficult questions in class)
and rate them on a four point scale. 2) Multidimensional Measure of Children’s
Perception of Control (WCPC): assesses children’s perceptions of who and what
controls success and failure outcomes in their lives. 3) Perceived Competence Scale:
children’s perceptions of their academic competence. There were also teacher rating
methods: 1) Teacher Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale: measurement of children’s
school difficulties: A) Acting out (aggressive, disruptive, impulsive behaviors); B) Shy-
anxious (shy, withdrawn nervous behaviors); C) Learning problems (academic,
motivation and performance difficulties). 2) Teacher Rating Scale: teacher’s perception
of child’s academic competence. Then there were achievement indexes: I) Standardized

achievement and 2) Classroom grades.

The results of this study strike a familiar cord. Autonomous support from both
parents predicts children’s self-regulation and was inversely related to acting out and
learning problems. Increased parental autonomous support was related to increased
achievement and gades in their children. As far as structuring of the environment, there
was found a negative relationship between structure and children’s unknown perception
of control. Involvement was another issue of the research. Increased maternal

involvement was positively correlated to higher gades, standardized achievement, and

IS

teacher-rated competence and negatively associated with student’s perceived unknown

control, teacher-rated acting out, and learning problems.

Burr (1991) developed a scale to assess the parenting styles identified by
Baumrind. The researcher constructed 48 questionnaire items based on the descriptions
of Authoritative, Authoritarian, and Permissive prototypes proposed by Baumrind (1971).
Twenty-one professionals working in the fields of psychology, education, sociology and
social work were presented the forty-eight items along with verbatim descriptions of the
three parenting types. If more than 95% of the professionals ageed that an item
unequivocally represented one of the three parental prototypes, then the item was
included in the final pool of responses. Of the forty-eight items originally constructed,
thirty-six met the above mentioned criterion. Of that thirty-six, ten permissive, ten
authoritative and ten authoritarian items were retained for the final Parental Authority

Questionnaire.

Smetana (1995) recruited families through the cooperation of a suburban school
district. The respondents completed the Parental Authority Questionnaire (PAQ, Buri,
1991), which analyzed whether the parent was Authoritarian, Authoritative, or
Permissive. Finally, the adolescent indicated for each of sixteen items whether the parent
dictated how they should behave, asked their opinion, or left the decision entirely up to

them.

From the results it was indicated that the adolescents viewed their parents as
being more Authoritarian and Permissive than the parents viewed themselves. Mothers

viewed themselves more Authoritative, fathers viewed themselves as more Authoritarian,
l6

while the adolescent s thought their parents were about the same. Adolescents in tenth
gade viewed their parents as more Authoritarian than did adolescents in eighth gade.
Adolescents sixth and eighth grades viewed their parents as more Authoritative than did
adolescents in tenth gade. Authoritative and Authoritarian parents were viewed as more

legitimate parental power.

To summarize the research as reviewed, Authoritative parents utilize high control
and positive encouragement. These parents attempt to direct their children’s activities in
a rational manner, encouraging verbal give and take, share the reasons behind policy and
ask for their children’s objections when he or she refuses to conform. The parents exert
firm control, but do not fence their children with rules and restrictions. The parents
affirm the child in the present, but plan for the future. Authoritarian parents are
detached, cool and controlling. Their children are not encouraged to express
disageement, and are more likely than other parents to frighten the child to achieve
desired behavior. These parents believe in keeping the child in his place and restricting
his autonomy. These parents highly value the preservations of order and tradition.
Permissive parents are the least controlling of all parents. These parents present
themselves as a resource for the child to use as he wishes, but does not play an active
role in shaping and altering the child’s current and future behavior. Ideally the
Permissive parent’s goal is to free the child from restraint as much as is consistent with

survival.

17

Review of Paradigms:

Constantine’s (1993) research on family systems identified four different family
paradigns. The Closed paradign is the blueprint for the stable, security-oriented family
that relies on “traditional” norms of authority and conformity to ensure continuity of
established family patterns. The family identity develops before individual identity.
Individual needs are met through loyalty and service to the family. Random families are
the antithesis of the Closed family. Random families favor change and variability over
stability and continuity. These families are the blueprint for an ever changing
kaleidoscope based on creative individuality and egalitarian autonomy. The individual
comes first and the collective needs of the family are met through the spontaneous
synergy of individual initiative and inventiveness. Open families are the idealized and
“modern” system characterized by open communication and “democratic” processes.
These families are a synthesis of the continuity of Closed families and the spontaneity of
Random families. Open families strive to achieve flexibility that integates change with
stability, and the needs and interests of the individual with those of the family as a group.
The collaborative processes of consensual negotiation an “open” communication are
stressed and raised to high art. Change and stability are valued to solve problems and
adapt to specific problems. The Synchronous family is the antithesis of the Open family.
It is the blueprint for the tranquil and harmonious family. These families rely principally
on tacit understanding, mutual identification, shared mapping, and unstated mics for
regulation. These families strive toward timeless perfection in which no one needs to be

told what to do and the smooth surface of the family is undisturbed.

18

Constantine related the implications for assessment of knowing the families
paradignatic structure. These structures offer the best and clearest insight into the
family’s basic style: how they coordinate their everyday activities, resolve conflict (use of
dependence and authority) acceptance of independent activity and divergent solutions,
use of self-reflective discussion and consensus building, and its reliance on alignment
with unstated expectations. The implications for intervention are that the therapist has
insight into the family’s dominant paradign which will provide a direction and shape to
the therapy sessions, as to whether or not to promote more or less engagement and
identifies broad issues that may be appropriate to focus on.

Constantine (1985) wrote of the ways in which parents in each of the family
paradigns parented their children. The Closed parent is restrictive and see their children
as a blank slate waiting to be imprinted These parents impress their own expectations in
their children, dominate them and set limits. Closed parents discipline, punish and
reprimand their children, encourage their children to seek their approval, promote
dependence and obedience. Random parents are lax and offer little supervision. They
may be neglectful and inconsistent. These parents discourage dependence and promote
disobedience. These parents see their child are having permission to be set free. Parents
impose no expectations, abdicate and set no limits. Open parents are democratic. The
child is viewed as a partner to be helped to discover own expectations. The parents and
the child collaborate and negotiate limits. These parents support autonomy, but
dependence is allowed These parents promote cooperation and responsibility.
Synchronous parents are perfectionistic, in which child is an extension or projection of

self. These parents have strong, but implicit expectations and invisible limits. There is

19

indirect control by parents who deny responsibility. These parents promote identification
and the appearance of agreement.

Imig (1993) explored and explained the dimensions of the family system. These
dimensions are the access or physical dimensions of time, energy, space and the material
world and the target or informational dimensions of control, affect, meaning and content.
Stereotypically, the physical dimensions or resources are utilized to attain the
informational or goal dimensions.

First are the informational (target) dimensions: 1. Control is the ability of the
family to accomplish and achieve what it wants in a manner consistent with its typal
design. Families who are successful at control develop a sense of mastery. This sense of
mastery leads to increased self-esteem and self-worth for the individual family members
and confidence in the family unit. 2. Affect is the patterns in which family members
engage to acquire an affirmative sense of warmth, closeness, or caring and nurturence.
The two major components of Affect are Reciprocity, which is the giving and getting of
“strokes”, and Expression, which is the prescribed V personal nature of the Affect
offered or received 3. Meaning is the values, ideologies, good and bad, right and wrong,
fair and unfair, why do I/we exist, and why are we/I here? Meaning is the manner in
which a family manages the sameness or the differences. 4. Content Ins the goal of
knowledge. It is the informational dimension that is neutral, concrete and detached.
Secondly, are the physical dimensions. 1. Material has the goal of appropriateness. It
deals with transactions of interest both for their substance and for their interactions with
other dimensions. 2. Time has the functional goal of rhythmicity. The family unit is

impacted by the extent to which the members integrate their individual rhythmicities. 3.

20

Energy has the functional goal of viability. It has the purpose of storing, fueling and
balancing the energy reserves of the family unit and of its individual members. 4. Space
has the functional goal of coordination. It deals with the boundaries, connections and
communication between family members and the outside world.

Constantine (1986) extended the work of Kantor and Lehr (1975) by defining the
three levels of analysis or components of a family system. Image refers to the models,
visions, and world view(s) which act to guide the family system. The Regime (or
structure) is the family system strategies and rules that act to regulate the system and
consist of the access (physical) dimensions of time, energy, space and the material world
as used to actualize the target (informational) dimensions of control, affect, meaning and
content. Process (or behavior) is the patterning of collective system behavior and is
predicated on the concept of player parts (Mover, Opposer, Follower, and Bystander).
The behaviors of the four player parts are defined as:

A. Mover: initiates the family system strategies. Directly or indirectly the Mover “starts
the action”.

B. Opposer: provides a “check and balance” fiinction by challenging some aspect of the
strategy initiated by the Mover. Actions by an enabled Opposer are intended to refine
and enhance the strategy selected by the Mover in order to ensure that all subsystems
within the family get their “fair share”.

C. Follower: primarily empowers and supports the strategies and actions of the Mover -
can also empower and support the Opposer and the Bystander.

D. Bystander: acts as a witness to family interactions and representing what is important

and meaningful. The Bystander attempts to facilitate an authentic rendering of reality

21

by causing all family subsystems to reflect on their actions and intentions relative to
the desigr and purpose of the family system. An effective Bystander provides non-
evaluative guidance and neutral reflective comments. The Bystander acts in a
confirmatory manner. No direct comments or sanctions of a positive or negative

quality are communicated to other subsystems.

The four family behavior patterns are defined as:

. Closed family structure: (thesis) structured-connected: Relationship between the
Mover and the Opposer is challenged, between the Mover and the Follower is
affirmative, the Bystander confirms the Mover and the Follower and the Follower
challenges the Opposer.

. Random family structure: (antithesis) flexible-separate: Relationship between the
Mover and the Opposer is affirmative, between the Mover and the Follower is
challenged, Bystander confirms the Opposer and the Follower, and the Follower
aflinns the Opposer.

. Open family structure: (synthesis) flexible-connected: Relationship between the
Mover and Opposer is affirmative, between the Mover and the Follower is
affirmative, Bystander confirms the Mover, Opposer and Follower, and the Follower
affirms the Opposer.

. Synchronous family structure: (antithesis) structured-separate: Relationship
between the Mover and the Opposer is challenged, between the Mover and the
Follower is challenged, the mover, Follower and Opposer confirm the Bystander, and

the Follower challenges the Opposer.

22

In the Closed family system images, strategies and behavioral patterning are
directly guided and prescribed by the relevant social institutions, rules, and traditions
which explicitly define and sanction what is appropriate and conventional. Stability,
continuity, and integity of the “group” is of ultimate importance. In Closed families, the
Mover defines and initiates socially prescribed and legitimized system strategies and
behaviors intended to maintain family tradition, continuity and stability. The Mover
tolerates challenges (criticisms and suggestions) by the Opposer out of comtesy and
respect. The Mover patiently listens to the Opposer and then out of a sense of
competency and experience explains to the Opposer how the strategy has been successful
in the past, why it will be successful now, and why it is the “correct” choice. The
Follower empowers the Mover by affirming the strategy(s) selected by the Mover and
legitimizes the Mover’s “right” to act from a position of respect and authority. The
Opposer challenges in a respectful manner intended to refine the strategy initiated by the
Mover. The Bystander confirms the Mover’s right to define the principal strategy and the
F ollower’s responsibility to empower the Mover.

In the Random family paradigm, each subsystem must find its own answers to the
questions and dilemmas of life. The Mover initiates individualized subsystem strategies
and behaviors intended to actualize personally relevant goals designed to facilitate
change and the maximization of experience, encourages confrontation and challenges by
the Opposer(s). The Opposer affirms the Mover’s right to act in an independent manner
for personally relevant reasons. The Opposer also reaffirms own individual right to

protect and maintain the autonomy of their personal subsystem boundaries. The

23

Follower empowers the Opposer. Essentially each subsystem feels supported by other
subsystems to be unique. The Bystander confirms the Opposer’s right to challenge the
Mover and the F ollower’s mandate to empower the Opposer.

In the Open family paradign, conflict and emotions are not avoided and are
viewed as important sources of information that must be utilized in order to resolve
differences. The Mover initiates a strategy intended to openly contrast and confront
expected and divergent perceptions held by the subsystems within the family. The Mover
encourages the Opposer to challenge the identified strategy in order to put into action the
all-important consensual decision making process. The Opposer plays the “devil’s
advocate” to the Mover to promote exploration of alternative perceptions, discussion, and
dialogue. New information is integrated with past knowledge to construct a
contemporary solution. The Follower empowers both the Mover and the Opposer. This
mutual empowerment strategy employed by the Follower is vitally critical to the Open
system’s delicate balance of power. The Bystander simultaneously confirms the
collective actions of the Mover, the Opposer and the Follower.

In the Synchronous family paradign, the system perceives the world as being
unified, centered, wholistic, universally and spiritually integrated with the environment
and the cosmos. The Mover is subtle and implicit and depends upon the awareness of the
other subsystems to respond to the appropriate situational and contextual cues. The
Mover initiates simply by noting the presence of a “situation” requiring attention and in-
effect becomes an agent for the context and situation. The Opposer, who is attuned to
the situational and contextual cues, resists (challenges) any attempt by the Mover to give

direction and discourages the Follower from empowering any subsystems other than the

24

Bystander. The contextual environment structures the situation. The Follower follows
the situational and contextual cues and does not need direction from the Mover and the
Opposer. All systems “follow” the situational context and not the Follower subsystem.
The Bystander, because of their “insider-outsider” position in relation to the family, is the
subsystem most likely to be in-sync with the environmental context. The Mover,
Opposer and Follower subsystems affirm the Bystander player part and function in all
subsystems. The Bystander is the most likely source of “centered and knowing wisdom”.

In Family Paradigm: The Practice of Theory in Family Thm (Constantine,
1986), the issues of enablement and disablement were discussed. Enablement refers to
the strategies that facilitate a family’s pursuit of its target ideals. Disablement refers to
patterns associated with a system’s failure to attain its targets. Closed-type disablement,
the family demands absolute obedience. The family often becomes isolated and has
impermeable boundaries. Creativity and change are issues be punished. Random-type
disablement has family members completely independent and unattached to each other.
The only interactions are hostile and furious arguments. All instances are an arena for
competition and furthering of one’s own goals. Open-type disablement has continuous
negotiation. All discussions are never ending and become long-standing disageements.
Decisions are not made since consensus cannot be reached

In summary of the studies of paradignatic family systems: Closed families are the
blueprint for the stable, secure family that relies on traditional authority and conformity
to its norms. Parents in Closed families see their children as a blank slate waiting to be
imprinted. These parents set the limits and impress their own expectations on their

children. They discipline, punish and reprimand their children, encourage their children

25

to seek their approval and promote dependence and obedience. There are definite
similarities between the Closed family structure and Authoritarian parents. Both are
locked in the maintenance of tradition and stability. In both, those who are in charge are
to be obeyed, at the expense of the individual needs and desires, as all of these are
expected to be met through the goup itself. Parents who are Authoritarian and parents of
the Closed family believe that the child should accept the parents’ word as right and seek
to curtail self-will and autonomy. Authoritarian parents may be further linked to
Disabled Closed families. In the disabled closed family there is a demand for absolute
obedience that is also prevalent of the Authoritarian parenting style. There is also an
almost phobic approach to change in both the Disabled Closed family and the
Authoritarian parenting style, with a geater desire for stability and tradition.

The Open family are the “modern” and open-communicating families. The
collaborative process of consensual negotiation and communication are stressed to a high
art. Open parents are democratic, with the child viewed as a partner to help realize their
own expectations. Conflict and and emotions are not avoided, but are instead seen as
sources of information. These parents support independence, but dependence is allowed.
In many ways the Open family operates similarly to Authoritative parents. Both seek to
help the child reach their own goals and expectations. These parents encourage
communication and verbal give and take as it facilitates the satisfaction of all involved
and provides information as to the feeling of all parties involved. Both recognize the
necessity of receptiveness to change which may be necessary to adapt to circumstances.

The Random family thrives on change and independence. The individual comes

first to these families, more importantly than the goup itself. The Random parents are

26

lax and offer little supervision. These parents discourage dependence and promote
disobedience. It is up to each individual in the family to find their own answers to the
questions and dilemmas of life. The Synchronous family relies on tacit understanding
and unstated rules for regulation. These families strive toward timeless perfection in
which no one needs to be told what to do and the smooth surface of the family is
undisturbed As parents, they are perfectionistic. They have strong, but implicit
expectations and invisible limits. These two family structures (Random and
Synchronous) together have qualities that are identified in the Permissive parenting style.
The Permissive parent expects their child to find their own way independently, but
provides self to use as the child wishes, much as a Random family parent may. The
Permissive parenting style may be closely linked to the Disabled Random structure
because the Disabled Random family’s members have utter and complete independence
from one another. This may relate to the Permissive parenting style’s lack of guidance
and complete reliance on the children’s decisions in regards to their own lives. A
chaotic lifestyle and unconditional lack of discipline are prevalent in both the Permissive
parenting style and Disabled Random family structure. However, a Permissive parent
reacts to their children’s behaviors in a benign fashion, much similar to the Bystanding
behavior practiced extensively in the Synchronous family. These participants may
remark or counsel in a manner that is non-judgnental or decisive, instead simply

commenting.

27

Research Questions

1. Is there an association between a parent scoring as Authoritarian in regards to

parenting style and the parent scoring as having a Closed family structure?

2. Is there an association between a parent scoring as Authoritative in regards to

parenting style and the parent scoring as having an Open family structure?

3. Is there an association between a parent scoring as Permissive in regards to parenting

style and the parent scoring as having a Random family structure?

4. Is there an association between a parent scoring as Permissive in regards to parenting

style and the parent scoring as having a Synchronous family structure.

28

Chapter III - Hypothesis and Methodology

Research Hypotheses

Hm: There is no relationship between a parent’s score for Authoritative parenting style

and a parent’s score in Closed family structure.

H N: There is a relationship between a parent’s score for Authoritarian parenting style and

a parent’s score in Closed family structure.

Hm: There is no relationship between a parent’s score for Authoritative parenting style

and a parent’s score in Open family structure.

HA2: There is a relationship between a parent’s score for Authoritative parenting style and

a parent’s score in Open family structure.

29

H03: There is no relationship between a parent’s score for Permissive parenting style and

a parent’s score in Random family structure.

HA3: There is a relationship between a parent’s score for Permissive parenting style and a

parent’s score in Random family structure.

Hon: There is no relationship between a parent’s score for Permissive parenting style and

a parent’s score in Synchronous family structure.

HM: There is a relationship between a parent’s score for Permissive parenting style and a

parent’s score in Synchronous family structure.

These hypotheses have found support in Buri, (1991); Baumrind, (1971); Constantine,

(1993); and Grolnick & Ryan (1989).

Decision Rule: A chance probability of .05 or less (p505) will be required to reject the

null hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis.

3O

Research Design

This applied, descriptive study was carried out in a natural setting. This study
was non-experimental and was cross-sectional in nature. The unit of analysis were
families from the tri-county area of Lansing representing families from rural, urban and

suburban areas.

Instrumentation

Parent Attitude Questionnaire (PAQ) by John Buri (1991):

This questionnaire is utilized to predict a parent’s attitude towards their child(ren)
whether it be authoritarian, authoritative or permissive. This is accomplished through a
series of 30 Likert scale questions in which the parent responds on range from
“Definitely Not Like My Family” to “Exactly Like My Family”. The scale consists of
three sets of ten questions that describe authoritarian family, and authoritative family or a
permissive family. These sets of questions are mixed together so that the subject does
not discern a pattern of responses. The statements are mutually exclusive and contain

such statements as:

I do not allow my children to question any decision that I have made.

31

I allow my children to decide most things for themselves without a lot of

direction form me.

I always encourage verbal give and take whenever the children feel that the

family rules and restrictions are unreasonable.

Reliability: 1. Test-retest reliability (.81 for mother’s permissiveness, .86 for mother’s
authoritarianism, .78 for mother’s authoritativeness, .77 for father’s permissiveness, .85
for father’s authoritarianism, and .92 for father’s authoritativeness.) 2. Internal
consistency reliability (.75 for mother’s permissiveness, .85 for mother’s
authoritarianism, .82 for mother’s authoritativeness, .74 for father’s permissiveness, .82
for father’s authoritarianism, .85 for father’s authoritativeness.) Validity testing: 1.
Discriminant-related validity ( Mother’s authoritarianism inversely related to mother’s
permissiveness (r=-.38, p<.0005) and to mother’s authoritativeness (r= -.48, p<.0005);
Father’s authoritarianism inversely related to father’s permissiveness (r= -.50, p<.0005)
and to father’s authoritativeness (r= -.52, p<.0005)); Mother’s authoritativeness was not
significantly correlated to mother’s permissiveness (r=.07, p>. 10); Father’s

authoritativeness was not sigrificantly correlated with father’s permissiveness (r=. 12,

p>. 10))

Family Paradigm Assessment Scale (FPAS) by David Imig (1997):

This scale consists of ten questions in which the respondent is given four options
for response. The response format is an adaptation of the method utilized by the multi-

attribute utility technique (Edwards, 1982). The respondent is directed to identify one of

32

the responses as “ 10” meaning most indicative of the relationship being described. The
other three responses are then to be identified somewhere within the range of “O - 9”.
The higher the number given to a response, the more indicative it is of the relationship.
Responses can be given the same rating, with the exception of the number “10” which
may only be used once. The respondent fills out each of the items in the same fashion.
The respondent is instructed to complete each of the items as the relationship is
currently, how things are presently working in the parent-child relationship. Once that is
completed, the respondent is then instructed to complete the items the way they ideally
would like the relationship to be. This provides an opportunity to compare the way the
situation is at the time of testing and the way that the respondent would like it to be. The
output is placed in a three—dimensional manner, with each respondent identified by their
degree of Open, Closed, Random and Synchronous parenting structures. A parent is not
identified as singly Closed, Open, Synchronous or Random, but are in fact oriented
within each paradign. There is no information currently available as to the reliability
and validity of this measure. Reliability may be difficult to ascertain as there are
differences expected in the manner in which the respondent would fill out the
questionnaire depending on the current dynamics of the relationship. Test-retest
reliability would be difficult because differences in responses from one questionnaire
completion and the subsequent completion would provide information about dynamic
changes and demonstrate area to be discussed. Split-half reliability would be difficult
because the questionnaire surveys different dimensions of paradigns and each section is

a distinct questionnaire within the questionnaire.

33

Sampling Procedure

The population that was sampled were parents of children in third, fourth and/or
fifih gade and who live in the tri-county area of Michigan. The tools were distributed to
schools in the tri-county area and were taken home by the students. The parents then had
the option of filling out the instruments and sending the completed tools back with their
child to school, or they could choose to disregard the instruments. The instruments were
sent to schools in three different school districts to be dispersed as the district preferred.
The manner in which the sample was selected reflected a convenience sampling model.
This was necessary, because only parents that opted to complete the tools were included
in the research. The surveys were not marked according to school or gade of child so as
to maximize anonymity. The sample was gouped according to marital status, income
level, race and education level by a self-report measure. (See Table 1 for Distribution of

Marital Status, Income Level, Education Levels, and Races.)

34

Table 1: Distribution of Marital Status, income Level,
Education Level, gid Race

 

n=_42
Number of gimnIs Reported
Marital Status
Single Parents 4
Divorced Parents 10
Separated Parents 3
WidOWBd Parents 4
Married Parents 21
Income Level
$0 - 24,999 7
$25,000 - 49,999 12
$50,000 - 74,999 14
$75,000 - 99,999 6
$100,000+ 3
Education Level
Some High School 3
High School Graduatu 8
Some College
College Graduate 11
Graduate or Professit 7
Race
Anglo-Caucasian 31
Native American 1
Hispanic 7
Asian 1
African American 2

35

Data Collection Procedures

The data for this research was collected at three (3) school districts in the tri-
county area. The instruments (questionnaires) were sent home with the children in
gades three through five, the parents then had the option of whether or not to complete
the instruments. The researcher dropped off the instruments at the school districts’
administration offices, and picked up the completed tools two weeks later. The
respondents were informed not to write their names or any other identifiable information

on the questionnaires in order to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality.

Data Analysis

These primary data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, further analyses was
completed using comparative techniques. For the hypotheses: Authoritarian parenting is
associated with Closed family structure, Authoritative parenting is associated with Open
family structure, Permissive parenting style is associated with the Random family
structure and that the Permissive parenting style is associated with the Random family
structure, the relationships were determined using a bivariate correlation which was run
using the Pearson correlation coefficient. This displayed a correlation matrix which was
utilized to determine whether a relationship existed between the parenting style and the
paradignatic family structure. After the correlation was examined, a chi square for
Independence was run in order to estimate how likely (or unlikely) it is that the two

variables were independent in order to ascertain that any relationship was occurring by
36

chance. The completion of the correlation matrix dictated the need for a factor analysis.
The factor analysis was run to reduce the data into four factors, using an Equamax

rotation.

37

Chapter IV

RESULTS

Of the 300 subjects contacted, (at the time of the data analyses), forty-two (42)
completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher. The response rate is 14%.
Any questionnaires that were submitted that were missing data or incomplete were
removed from the study. The results of the following analyses will be discussed in
relation to the hypotheses that were posed in Chapter 111. Three separate analyses were
run.

Analysis 1: The entire data set of forty-two respondents were included.
Analysis 2: Only those respondents that identified themselves as Anglo—
Caucasian in regards to race and ethnicity were included in the analysis. This was done

in order to ascertain whether there would be any racial-bias in the results.

Analysis 3: Only those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-
Caucasian in regards to race and ethnicity, had a minimum reported yearly income of at
least $25,000, and reported a minimum education of a high school graduate were
included in the analysis. This was done in order to ascertain whether there was any bias
on the basis of Socio—Economic Status. This sample was selected to pinpoint white,

middle or upper class parents.

38

Results Related to Correlation Matrix

Question 1: Is there a_n_lssociation between a grent scoring as Authoritarian in
reggds to paLenting s_tyle and the pgent scoring as having a Closed family structure?

It was hypothesized that the higher a parent scored on Authoritarian parenting
style, the higher they would score on Closed farme structure. This hypothesis was not
supported using the Pearson correlation coefiicient. No sigrificant correlation was found
(p>=.05) between Authoritarian parenting and Closed family structure (See Table 2).
The results for a parent who responded as Authoritarian for parenting did not differ
significantly from those who identified themselves as being of Closed paradignatic
structure (2”: 103.66, df = 92, p > .05). (See Table 5).

The results for those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian
were no different from the larger sample. The hypothesis was not supported No
significant correlation was found (p>=.05) between Authoritarian parenting and Closed
family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient (See Table 3). The results for a
parent who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian and responded as Authoritarian for
parenting style did not differ sigrificantly from those who responded as being Closed
paradignatically (2” = 88.57, df = 80, p>.05). (See Table 6).

Those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, with a
minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum education level of high school gaduate
showed no sigrificant association (p>=.05) between Authoritarian parenting style and
Closed family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The hypothesis was
rejected. (See Table 4). For those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-

Caucasian, with a minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level of high

39

school gaduate, those parents who responded that they were Authoritarian for parenting
style did not differ sigrificantly from those who identified themselves as being of a

Closed paradign (2’ = 74.63, df =68, p>.05). (See Table 7).

ngstion 2: Ighere an association between a gent scoring as Authoritative in
r_egz_trds to parentingityle and the parent scoring as having an Qpen fa_milv structure?

It was hypothesized that the higher a parent scored on Authoritative parenting
style, the higher they would score on Open family structure. A significant correlation
was found (p<=.05) using the Pearson correlation coefficient (See Table 2). From the
studying the table it was clear that a higher score on Authoritative parenting style is
associated with a higher score on Open family structure. Those parents who identified
themselves as being Authoritative for parenting style did not differ sigrificantly from
those parents who identified themselves as being Open paradignatically (2’ = 79.51, df =
72, p>.05). (See Table 5)

For those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, there was a
significant correlation (p<=.01) using the Pearson correlation coefficient. (See Table 3).
The table clearly shows that there is an association between the higher a parent scores on
Authoritative parenting and the higher the parent scores on Open family structure. For
those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo—Caucasian, the parents who
responded as Authoritative for parenting style did not differ significantly from those who
identified themselves as Open paradignatically (T = 50.81, df = 39, p>.05). (See Table

6).

40

Those respondents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian with a
minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level of high school gaduate, a
significant (p<=.05) (See Table 4) correlation was found using the Pearson correlation
coefficient. There is an association between a parent scoring higher on Authoritative
parenting style and a higher score in Open family structure for parents in this sample
goup. For those parents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian with a minimum
income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level of high school gaduate, those
parents who responded as Authoritative for parenting style did not differ significantly

from those who responded as Open paradignatically (2" = 31.42, df = 36, p>.05). (See

Table 7).

Question 3: Is there 2.1L assocgntion between a went scoring as Permissive in
reggds to genting ale and the agent scoring as having a Random famin structure?

It was hypothesized that the higher a parent scored on Permissive parenting style,
the higher they would score on Random family structure. The hypothesis was not
supported. No significant correlation was found (p>=.05) between the Permissive
parenting and Random family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient (See
Table 2). Those parents who responded as Permissive for parenting style did not differ
significantly from those parents who responded as Random paradignatically (2" = 67.03,
df= 72, p>.05). (See Table 5).

For the portion of the sample who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian,
there was not a significant correlation (p>=.05) (See Table 3) between Permissive

parenting and Random family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient. There

4]

is not a significant association between Permissive parenting style and Random family
structure among parents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian. For those
parents who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, there was no significant
difference between parents who responded as Permissive for parenting style and those
who responded as Random paradignatically (T = 57.85, df= 64, p>.05). (See Table 6)
For the portion of the sample that was made up of Anglo-Caucasian parents who
declared a minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level of high school
gaduate, there was not a significant (p>=.05) (See Table 4) correlation between
Permissive parenting and Random family structure using the Pearson correlation
coefficient. For those respondents who identified as Anglo-Caucasian with a minimum
income of $25,000 and having a minimum educational level of high school graduate,
there was no significant difference between those who responded as Permissive for
parenting style and those who responded as Random paradignatically (T = 54.39,

df = 64, p>.05). (See Table 7)

Question 4: Is there an association between a went scoring as Permissive in

 

reggds to pagenting s_ter and the gent scoring as having a Smchronous famin

structure?

It was hypothesized that the higher a parent scored on Permissive parenting style,
the higher they would score on Synchronous family structure. The hypothesis was not
supported. No significant correlation was found (p>=.05) between Permissive parenting
and Synchronous family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient (See Table 2).

There was no significant difference between parents who responded as Permissive for
42

parenting style and those who responded as Synchronous paradigmatically (2”- = 45.34, df
= 36, p>.05). (See Table 5)

For the portion of the sample that identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, there
was not a significant (p>=.05) correlation between Permissive parenting and
Synchronous family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient. (See Table 3)
There was not an association between a higher score in Permissive parenting style and a
higher score in Synchronous family structure for parents who identified themselves as
Anglo-Caucasian. For those parents who identified themselves as Angio-Caucasian,
there was no significant difference between those parents who responded as Permissive
for parenting style and those who responded as Synchronous paradignatically (2" =
40.96, df= 32, p>.05). (See Table 6)

For the portion of the sample who identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, with
a minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level of high school gaduate
there is not a significant (p>=.05) correlation between Permissive parenting and
Synchronous family structure using the Pearson correlation coefficient. (See Table 4)
There is no association between Permissive parenting style and Synchronous family
structure for parents in this sample goup. For those parents who identified themselves as
Anglo-Caucasian with a minimum income of $25,000 and a minimum educational level
of high school gaduate, there was no significant difference between parents who
responded as Permissive for parenting style and those who responded as Syncfuonous
paradignatically (it2 = 38.97, df = 32, p>.05). (See Table 7)

When examining these data sets, there was little or no difference between the

total group of respondents and the Anglo-Caucasian subset. The same correlations were
43

present, in the same direction, and all that were significant in one set of data were still
significant in the other data set. This does not necessarily mean that there isn’t a
difference in the subjects responses due to cultural, ethnic and racial differences. A
majority of respondents (3 I) identified themselves as Anglo-Caucasian, which may have
skewed the data as the minority respondents (1 1) may not be representative of the

minority population in general.

Secondary Correlations

There were further examinations conducted on the primary variables (Permissive
parenting style, Authoritarian parenting style, Authoritative parenting style, Closed
family structure, Random family structure, Open family structure and Synchronous
family structure) to determine how they correlated with the secondary variables

(education level and yearly reported income). This was conducted for the entire data set.

1. There was a positive conelation (.3173) between Income Level and Authoritative
parenting style, at a significance level of .041. This significance level is within the
parameters specified by the Decision Rule, the relationship is determined to be
significant. Higher levels of income were associated with higher Authoritative

parenting scores in the PAQ.

2. Similarly, there was a positive correlation (.3099) between Income Level and Open
family structure at a significance level of .046. This, too, is within the parameters
specified by the Decision Rule, and is statistically significant. As Income Level

increases, so does a parent’s score in Open family structure.

44

3.

4.

There was a negative correlation (-.3282) between Income Level and Synchronous
family structure at a significance level of .034. This is within the parameters
specified by the Decision Rule, and is statistically significant. As Income Level

increases, a parent’s score in Synchronous family structure decreases.

As may have been predicted, there was a statistically significant positive correlation
(.5788) between Income Level and Education Level at a significance level of .000.
As Income Level increases, so does Education Level. The greater an educational

level one achieves, the more money they are likely to make.

Finally, there was a negative correlation (-.3156) between Education Level and
Permissive parenting style at a significance level of .042. This is within the
parameters specified by the Decision Rules, and is statistically significant. As

Education Level increases, a parent’s score for Permissive parenting style decreases.

45

Table 2

Pearson Conelgtion Coefficients Between
E_arenting Styles grid firmly Stmctures

 

 

 

 

 

All Data N=42
PARENTING STYLES
PERMISSNE AUTHORITARIAN AUI'HORITATTVE

CLOSED FAMILY 0.1664 0.158 -0.307
STRUCTURE P=.292 P=.318 P=.005
OPEN FAMILY 0.0452 -0.2644 0.4077
STRUCTURE P=.776 =.088 P=.012
RANDOM FAMILY 0.2403 -0.2199 0.3833
STRUCTURE P=. 125 P=. 162 P=.012
SYNCHRONOUS 0.2199 0.1306 -0.2007

FAMILY STRUCTURE P=.162 P=.410 =.202

46

Table 3

Pearson Condition Coefficients Between
ParentingStylesfiand anihr Stnictures
Respondents identified as Anglo-Caucasian, N=31

 

 

 

PARENTING STYLES
PERMISSNE AUTHORITARIAN AUTHORITATIVE
CLOSED FAMILY 0.0156 0.3267 0.4097
STRUCTURE P=.933 P=.073 P=.022
OPEN FAMILY 0.13% 02431 0.4888
STRUCTURE =.454 P=. 188 P=.005
RANDOM FAMILY 0.1372 -0.3541 0.5047
STRUCTURE P=.462 P=.051 =.004
SYNCHRONOUS 0. 1212 0.2061 -0. 1 199
FAMILY STRUCTURE P=.516 =.266 P=.521

47

CLOSED FAMILY
STRUCTURE

OPEN FAMILY
STRUCTURE

RANDOM FAMILY
STRUCTURE

SYNCHRONOUS
FAMILY STRUCTURE

Table 4

ELarson Correigtion Coefficients Between Pgrenting
was and Family Stmctures: Respondents Identified as
Mic-Caucasian, Minimum Income $25,000, and Mirnimum
Education Level of High School Graduate, N=27

PARENTING STYLES

 

48

PERMISSNE AUTHORITARIAN
01351 0.3179
P=.747 P=.106
0.0846 -0.1199
P=.675 P=.551
0.1025 -0.1763
P=.611 P=.379
0.1891 0.1583

=.345 =.430

AUTHORITATTVE

 

-0.3209
P=.103

0.4473
P=.019

0.4259
P=.027

0.1195

lam—e5
Chi Square for All Data

 

N=41
Pearson Chi DE Significance
Authoritative - Closed 7046 '72 0.5294
Authoritative - Open 79.51 '72 0.2545
Authoritative - Random 88.92 '72 0.0858
Authoritative - Synchronous 40.39 72 0.2824
Authoritarian - Closed 103.66 '92 0.1909
Authoritarian - Open 101.42 '92 0.2355
Authoritarian - Random 102.63 '92 0.2107
Authoritarian - Synchronous 49.7 '92 0.2107
Permissive - Closed 90.82 '72 01664
Pennissive - Open 99.4 '72 0.0179
Pennissive - Random 67.03 '72 0.6437
Pennissive - Synchronous 45.34 ’36 0.1387

49

Authoritative - Closed
Authoritative - Open
Authoritative - Random
Authoritative - Synchronous

Authoritarian - Closed
Authoritarian - Open
Authoritarian - Random
Authoritarian - Synchronous

Pennissive - Closed
Permissive - Open
Permissive - Random
Pennissive - Synchrornous

Table 6
Chi Sguare for Race = 1

 

_N_=_31

Pearson Chi

50.23
50.81
68.28
24.37

88.57

66.2
88.77
44.84

81.07
68.78
57.85
40%

50

ificance

0.5438
0.0976
0W4
0.5547

0.271 7
0.2352
0.2352
0.2761

0.0735
0.0262
0.6923

0. 133

Ia.b|___e'/
Chi Square for Race = 1, Ediev >=2, income>=2

 

N=27
Pearson Chi QE Siggiticance
Authoritative - Closed 45.05 '48 0.5945
Authoritative - Open 31.42 ‘36 0.6862
Authoritative - Random 77.07 '48 0.0049
Authoritatine - Synchronous 23.36 '24 0.4989
Authoritarian - Closed 74.63 68 0.2718
Authoritarian - Open 59.22 '51 0.2008
Authoritarian - Random 89.22 68 0.0432
Authoritarian - Synchronous 36.61 '34 0.3484
Pennissive - Closed 84.5 '64 0.044
Permissive - Open 70.77 '48 0.0179
Permissine - Random 54.39 '64 0.7986
Permissive - Synchronous 38.97 '32 0.1848

The correlation matrix indicated that the only statistically significant correlation
to be that between the Open paradignatic structure and the Authoritative parenting style.
Examination of the correlation matrix revealed further associations that were possible
among the parenting styles and paradignatic structures. Through the overall correlation
matrix for all raw data (the individual responses each parent reported), certain I
associations were apparent. Authoritarian parenting appears to be most closely
associated with Closed and Synchronous paradignatic structures. Permissive parenting
style appears to be most associated with Random and Synchronous paradignatic
structures. Authoritative parenting style appears to be most closely associated with
Random and Open paradignatic structures. These relationships could not be shown

clearly using a correlation matrix as the matrix does not allow combinations of variables.

51

This brought about another set of research questions. The researcher selected factor

analysis as the means with which to aggregate the data.

Results Related to Factor Analysis
Question 5: Igghere a flier likelihood of an and Random wiggatic

gr_uctures in instances of Agthoritgtive parenting for pgrents of child_ren in gr_ades three.

 

fourLaLnd five?

Factor 1 was made up of Authoritative parenting style items, Random paradign
items and Open paradign items. (See Table 8). This factor demonstrates the association
between Authoritative parenting style and the Random and Open paradign structures.
This factor was most closely associated with items involving the paradignatic
mechanisms of Meaning and Affect. The strongest associations occurred with:

Item 30 from the PAQ, “IfI make a decision in my family that hurts one of my
children, I am willing to discuss that decision with my children and I admit if I have
made a mistake.”

Item 20 from the PAQ, “I take my children’s opinions into consideration when
making family decisions. But I do not decide for something simply because my children
want it.”

The Affect item from the PPAS, “How do you generally show your care, love,
affection, and support for your child? In a spontaneous, enthusiastic and personal

manner.”

Question 6: Is there a geater likelihood of Ragndom gm! Synchrondug
pgadigmatic structures in instances of Permis_sive parenting for greats of children in
W

Factor 2 was made up of Permissive parenting style items, Random paradign
items and Synchronous paradign items. (See Table 8). This factor illustrates the
association between Permissive parenting style and the Random and Synchronous
paradignatic structures. The factor most highly associated with items involving the
paradignatic component of Control. The three strongest associations of the second
factor are:

Item 1 from the PAQ, “I feel that in a well-run home the children should have
their own way in a family as often as the parents do.”

Item 6 from the PAQ, “I have always felt what children need is to be free to make
up their own minds and do what they want to do, even if this does not agee with what
their parents might want.”

The Time item from the PPAS, “Time can be used in a variety of ways. In what
ways do you teach your children to use time? They just seem to know and understand

how to use time best.”

53

mestion 7: Is there ggrflnter likelihood of Closed grid SvnchronouMgLatig
structures in instances of Authoritarian genting for gents of child_ren in giggles three,
four and five?

Factor 4 was constructed of a combination of Authoritarian parenting styles items,
Closed paradign structure items and Synchronous paradign structure items. (See Table
8). This demonstrates the association of these three variables. This factor was most
highly associated with the items involving the paradigmatic components of Content and
Affect. The three strongest associations of this factor are:

Item 2 of the PAQ, “Even if my children don’t agee with me, I feel that it is for
their own good if they are forced to conform to what I think is right.”

The Content Item from the PPAS, “How do you teach your child to make sense
out of life? By using what has proven over time to be correct and reliable.”

The Meaning item from the PPAS, “As a parent, what are you trying to teach your
child as to what is most important in life? That, if you sacrifice and care for your family,

your family will sacrifice and care for you.”

54

Table 8

Fgctor Anglysis using Eguamax Rotated Factor Matrix

 

18:42

Item‘ Factor 1 Fagor 2 Fgctor 3
Pl -0.001 0.798 0.037
AR2 -0.017 -0.l47 0.466
A18 -0. 153 -0.498 0.352
AT4 0.587 -0.301 -0.063
ATS 0.554 0.453 0.088
P6 -0.12 0.72 0.018
AR7 -0.748 -0.277 0.253
AT8 0.471 -0.058 0.021
AR9 -0.437 -0.336 0.009
P10 -0.043 0.077 -0. 144
AT] 1 0.488 0.265 -0.485
AR12 0.248 -0.312 0.032
P13 -0. 179 0.238 -0.432
P14 -0. 138 0.015 -0.699
ATIS 0.583 -0.016 0.05
AR16 -0.553 -0.227 0.09
P17 -0.121 0.461 -0.113
AR18 -0. 102 -0.268 0.08
P19 0.066 0.64 -0.24
AT20 0.742 -0.1 14 0.177

55

P21

AT22

AT23

P24

AR25

AR26

AT27

P28

AR29

AT30

CONSYN

CONCLO

CONRAN

CONOPE

AFF OPE

AFFCLO

AFFRAN

AFFSYN

MEARAN

MEACLO

MEAOPE

CNTOPE

CNYRAN

CNTCLO

CNTSYN

TIMOPE

-0.136

0.548

0.123

.024

-0.315

-0.159

0.314

.0244

-O.179

0.834

-0.123

-0. 183

-0.18

0.016

0.137

-0.676

0.614

-0.721

0.026

-0.241

0.281

0.269

0.257

-0.018

-0.028

0.044

0.498

0.68

0.171

-0.068

0.214

-0.545

0.039

0.071

0.722

-0.121

—0.037

0.181

0.132

0.06

0.169

-0.043

0.152

0.267

0.217

0.343

-0.087

0.231

0.108

0.343

0.457

0.225

-0.006

0.314

56

-0.157

-0.334

-0.077

-0.223

0.112

0.12

-0.118

-0.054

-0.068

-0. 143

0.18

0.064

0.153

-0.203

-0.314

0.272

0.227

0.252

-0.515

0.696

0.477

0.351

0.126

0.114

0.572

-0.012

0.156

TIMCLO

TIMRAN

TIMSYN

SPARAN

SPACLO

SPAOPE

SPASYN

ENECLO

ENERAN

ENESYN

ENEOPE

MATCLO

MATRAN

MATOPE

MATSYN

SUMCON

SUMAFF

SUMMEA

SUMCNT

SUMTIM

SUMSPA

SUMENE

SUMMAT

-0.29

0.438

0.023

0.357

-0.441

-0.129

-0.456

-0.24

—0.247

-0.005

0.58

-0.18

0.159

0.035

0.381

0.093

0.421

0.636

-0.395

-0.398

0.155

0.111

0.088

-0.027

0.336

0.633

0.146

0.415

0.169

0.174

-0.044

0.122

0.107

0.33

0.114

0.371

-0.I66

0.431

0.758

0.224

-0.093

0.246

0.078

0.076

0.339

0.197

0.172

0.276

0.048

-0.444

0.45

0.33

0.2

0.142

0.184

-0.078

0.331

0.358

-0.495

0.39

0.22

0.341

0.601

-0.l86

0.499

0.114

-0.l99

0.386

-0.407

" Item is labeled with the number ofthe item from the FAQ (Buri, 1991) and the parenting style being
measured, AT = Authoritative, AR = Authoritarian, P = Permissive. (For example, ATI would designate
item 1, an Authoritative item.)

Chapter V - Summary and Conclusions

This research found associations between the PAQ (Buri, 1991) and the PPAS
(Imig, 1997). The Factor Analysis made it possible to view the parenting style in relation
to a combination of family structures allowing for the possibility that more than one
paradignatic structure is associated with a specific parenting style. This brings into the
picture the compound and compromise systems that operate in the paradignatic
construct. A family is almost never completely Open, Closed, Random or Synchronous,
but instead operate in a combination of the paradigns. The main problem found in the
correlation matrix was the reliance on a one-to-one relationship. The factor analysis
aggregated the data by condensing it into three factors which are made up of
combinations of items from the PAQ and the PPAS. This provides further analysis in
both the study of parenting styles and paradignatic structures. Is there a context in which
a parent may exhibit Authoritative parenting styles as opposed to Permissive or

Authoritarian parenting styles?

The factor analysis demonstrated that the combination of Open and Random
family structures is associated with Authoritative parenting styles. The Open parents use
of democratic processes and support of autonomy and the Random family’s belief that
the it is up the individual to find their own answers in life are in tnnne with the

Authoritative parenting style in which parents encourage verbal give-and-take, share

58

reasons behind policy and ask for children’s objections when he or she refuses to
conform. This defines parents who allow their children to have a voice of their own, but
still maintain the final word which is a good example of a Random-Open compromise.
These parents rely on spontaneous use of Affect and open communication. These parents

impose a less rigid structure than do parents that are Authoritarian.

The factor analysis revealed that Authoritarian parenting is associated with both
the Closed and the Synchronous paradignatic structures. Closed parents were defined as
restrictive, they impress their own explicit expectations in their children dominate them
and set limits. Synchronous parents have strong, but implicit expectations and invisible
limits. The Closed-Synchronous compound system relies heavily on these expectations
whether they be explicit or implicit, with serious consequences for failure to fulfill these
expectations. These are in agreement with Authoritarian parenting styles. Authoritarian
parents are detached, cool, and controlling. They believe in keeping the child in his
place and restricting autonomy. This can be the case of the Closed-Synchronous
Compound Both have the parents setting limits and having expectations for behavior

that must be met.

The final factor associated Permissive parenting with Random and Synchronous
paradigmatic structures. Random parents may be lax and offer little supervision. They
hold no expectations and set no limits. Synchronous parents deny responsibility for their
children in much the same way as Random parents do, but Synchronous parents do use
indirect control in the promotion of identification and the appearance of ageement.
These associate with the Permissive parenting style because the Permissive parent allows

59

the child to find their own way, without influence or expectation, but when a situation
arises the parents reacts in a Bystanding fashion which is the principle player part of the
Synchronous paradign. The parent will remark or counsel in a manner that is non-
judgnental or decisive, simply observing the situation. This allows (or forces) the child

to make decision or judgnents for himself.

There are several reasons why the categorical constructs (parenting style and
paradignatic family structure) did not associate with each other in the correlation matrix
as the researcher expected, at a significance level expected First, there was a relatively
small sample size, 42. This small sample size may not be representative of the
population Other reasons that the sample may not be generalizable to the general
population are the majority of respondents are Anglo-Caucasian and the parents are all
from the tri-county Lansing area and may not be representative of parents in other
regions. Second, the parenting styles, as measured by the PAQ, are mutually exclusive,
a parent is not both Permissive and Authoritative, while a family may operate under more
than one paradignatic structure. A family may have components of one or more
paradigns in operation regarding their family. For example, it is possible to operate
under a Closed-Open family in which there is some discussion of family issues, but the
parents have the ultimate decision making power. This interferes with the hypotheses, as
the PAQ identifies a parent as either Authoritarian, Authoritative or Permissive and does
not allow for a combination of styles. This difference may not allow the hypotheses to be
clearly proven. A parent may most accurately be identified as being Random-Open in

family structure, but is identified as only Permissive or Authoritative. The PAQ doesn’t

60

allow for the respondents to be classified as Pennissive-Authoritative. Finally, there is a
social desirability to the responses that are identified as Open family structure and
Authoritative parenting style. There may have been a desirability to the responses that
may have caused the respondents to identify themselves as either Open family structure

and/or Authoritative parenting style.

This study pointed out the ways in which parenting styles and family structures
are and are not correlated with each other. The manner in which a parent functions as a
parent affects the behavior outcomes of their children (Baumrind, 1968; Grolnick and
Ryan, 1989). As the parenting style impacts child behavior, the correlation between
parenting style and family structure may also impact these child behaviors. Further
research is needed to determine the actual affect of family structure on children in the
families. Are they more likely to be independent or dependent, self-motivated or
hesitant, practical or creative, realistic or a dreamer? What happens to the children in
situations in which two parents operate under two different paradigns? Are the children
confused or are do they benefit from the positive aspects of both perspectives? A larger,
more diverse sample would be better representative of the population being studied.
Perhaps, then, conclusions could be drawn about the cultural, economic and educational

differences in regards to the manners in which a parent and/or a family functions.

61

Limitations of Research

The researcher recognizes that there would be great difficulty generalizing from the
findings to any population other than the one sampled This population was selected
specifically because children who were younger may require too much supervision which
may sway the results to a more restrictive conclusion and children that were older may
have too much autonomy causing results to be revealed as too autonomous. Therefore,
these results can only be generalized to the specific population of parents of children in
grades three, four and five. There were other problems however, the sample size was
relatively small (n=42). The forty-two respondents may not be representative of the
population in general. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable after all. The
respondents were also principally Anglo-Caucasian and may not be representative of the
minority population. A final limitation to this research if the lack of reliability and
validity measures for the PPAS. The lack of reliability measures may be due in part to
the ever-changing relationship of the family which may negate the likelihood of a

reliability measure.

Concern with the Scales

Difficulties arose with the instruments used in this research. Mainly with the

PAQ (Buri, 1991). There are concerns that the parents’ responses to the PAQ items may

62

have been shaped by social desirability. The items that are Authoritative are phrased in
such a way that it appears to be more positive and “healthy”. “I always encourage verbal
give-and-take when the children feel that the family rules and restrictions are
unreasonable.” While the responses identified as Authoritarian and Permissive items are
phrased in more disabled and negative ways. “I believe that more force should be used
by parents in order to get their children to behave the way they are supposed to.” And “I
have always felt that what children need is free to make up their own minds and to do
what they want to, even if this does not agee with what their parents might want.” This
researcher has concern that the phrasing of these types of items may have affected the
way in which a parent responded and may not be indicative of a parent’s true parenting
style. A parent may have been “turned off” by such items that utilize such verbiage as
“force” and “conform” or “have their own way” and “do what my children want”. A
parent may have selected the Authoritative items because of the use of such phrases as
“reasoning”, “rational”, “admit if I make a mistake” and “discussion” which sound like
much more functional and enabled descriptors of the parent-child relationship. This
survey could only be improved by considering new terminology that may not cause such
an emotional response. The parent completing the PAQ needs to feel comfortable

selecting any of the responses, not uncomfortable with the verbiage used.

Another concern with the PAQ is in the manner of the findings. There is no
allowance given for combinations of parenting styles. A parent is identified as
Authoritarian if the highest score of the three parenting styles (Authoritariarn, Permissive

and Authoritative) is in Authoritarian parenting style. That is as far as the analysis goes.

63

There is no consideration given to their scores on the remaining two parenting styles.
What is the difference between a parent who scores as Authoritarian then Authoritative
and then Permissive in rank of results and a parent who scores Authoritarian then
Permissive and then Authoritative? The first parent may, for example, may be extremely
structured and believe in strict obedience to family rules. The parent may require
conformity and the unquestioned following of parental directives, but may identify the
child’s bedroom as their own domain to be kept any way that the child wishes except for
one day a week when the room must be cleaned to the parent’s specifications. This is an
example of a possible way in which a parent may be principally Authoritarian with
components that are Permissive. The parent who is Authoritarian with components that
are Authoritative may have the same regulations and rules of the parents in the first
example, but may believe that specific issues are open for discussion. The child may not
always be allowed to have his or her own way, but the child’s open and point of view are

taken into consideration.

The consideration of the combinations of parenting style would allow greater
depth of analysis and perhaps provide further delineation between parents within a
specific parenting style as well across parenting styles. This combination of parenting
styles would provide an improved picture of how the parent and child interact. It would
provide greater insight to know how the different types of Authoritarian parents related to

the paradigns as well as to the other parenting styles.

The main difficulty that arose through the use of the PPAS (Imig, 1997) was in
the apparent difficulty the respondents found in completing the survey. There were six

64

surveys that were returned with the PAQ completed but the PPAS was either not finished
or never even begun Some respondents even wrote a short note at the bottom of the
survey expressing the hard time that they had with the PPAS. The lack of the completion
of the survey was further inhibited by the respondents lack of a personal stake in the
outcome of the research. Often when the survey is given to parents, it is used to enable a
professional to assist the family in some fashion In this research, the parent was asked
to complete the survey to supplement the research of a person that they had never even
met. Therefore, it is believed that the parents simply gave up when they began to have
difficulty with the PPAS which may have impacted the number of completed surveys

returned.

This research caused me to come to certain conclusions about survey (scale)
research. The results of one study alone does not prove anything, but instead provides a
basis on which to compare and explore other research and information. Each study
provides a morsel of information, which alone is indicative of nothing, but when
combined with other information provides a broader canvas on which to examine the big
picture. Only when the larger picture is explored can any conclusions be proven and

accepted as fact.

Implications for Educators:

There is no indication of whether parenting styles are shaped by family
paradignatic structures, family paradigmatic structures are shaped by parenting styles, or

65

whether they are shaped by a third variable all together. Parenting styles do appear to be
associated with achievement orientation in children (Baumrind, 1975) and children’s
self-regulation and competence in school (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). Children who had
been given autonomous support from both parents had stronger self-regulation, less
acting out and learning problems. Increased autonomous support was related to
increased achievement and gades. Increased maternal involvement was positively
correlated to higher grades, standardized achievement and teacher rated competence and
negatively associated with acting out and learning problems. Many times in a classroom
setting an educator looks only to the immediate setting to assess a child’s scholastic
achievement and behavioral competency. Educators need to be informed of the family
circumstances that may impact the classroom setting. An educator may not be able to
change the manner in which a parent interacts with their child, but, instead, may alter
their own behavior in interacting with the child, shaping their own behavior to one more
familiar to the child This may make communicating with the child more clear and

impact the child’s negative behavior indirectly.

Implications for Parents:

Labeling a parent as either Authoritarian, Authoritative or Permissive as has been
done in the past has been detrimental to the family as a whole. There is a social
desirability to Authoritative parenting that is evident in the phrasing of the items on the

PAQ (Buri, 1991). This means that a parent who is identified as Authoritarian or

Permissive in parenting style is seen as a bad parent. They are either too lax and
therefore neglectfirl, or too rigid and therefore constrictive. This does not have to be the
case. Through the study of paradign, there has been awareness of the multiple ways of
knowing. A Closed family may come to know information in a different way than an
Open family, but each are still functioning as a family. Just because the families come to
know the information in different manners, doesn’t mean tlmt one family is working
better. The four paradigns are each capable of exhibiting enabled and disabled
characteristics. This is also true for the parenting styles. A parent who operates
principally with the Authoritarian parenting style are simply using a different way of
knowing. This knowledge of the multiple ways of knowing would help to lay to rest
many of the concerns that parents have about the “right” way to parent their child. The
association between the parenting styles and the paradignatic family structures

demonstrates the different ways of knowing.

Parents (as well as researchers) need to look at parenting in a more holistic
manner. Parenting is more than the principle parenting style, but instead includes the
other two parenting styles as they relate to the main parenting style, as well as, the way in
which those impact the family as a whole. The entirety is what affects the parent-child
relationship, not solely the individual pieces. There has been a lot of pressure on parents
to utilize the practices as labeled under Authoritative parenting style in parenting their
children This pressure to b parent in a way that is not natural and comfortable to the

parent may impact the parent-child relationship. Their discomfort with the way that they

67

are parenting may transcend into their relationship with their child causing even more

strife and chaos.

Implications for Psychologists and other Therapists:

Constantine (1993) related the implications for assessment of knowing the
family’s paradigmatic structure. These structures offer the best and clearest insight into
the family’s basic style: how they coordinate their everyday activities, resolve conflict
(use of dependence and authority), acceptance of independent activity and divergent
solutions, use of self-reflective discussions and consensus building, and its reliance on
alignment with unstated expectations. Baumrind (1971) identified parenting styles as
consisting of dependence or independence, control or autonomy, authority, freedom of
expression, organization, expression of affection, and acceptance. A therapist treating a
family would only be assisted by the knowledge of the constructs operating in a family’s
paradigmatic structure or parenting style. For instance, if a child is acting out, is there an
external cause (something outside of the family) or is it more of an internal cause?
Baumrind (1975) found that boys raised by Authoritarian parents are more likely to be
hostile to their peers and resistive to adults. Boys of Authoritative parents were found to
be friendly, cooperative, tractable, and achievement oriented, but not as dominant or

purposive as may he wished.

A therapist needs to take into account the family’s communication patterns,
acceptance, use of discipline, belief in conformity and authority when assessing the child

68

and/or the family unit. As noted in Chapter IV, there often is a combination of paradigms
operating within a family which together comprise the parenting style. A therapist needs
to be cognizant of these structures at the same time as dealing with issues involving
parenting practices. When concerned with the manner in which a parent and child are
talking to each other, negotiating and making decision, there may be an overarching
paradignatic structure at work that needs to be addressed as well. Ifthe family structure
is rigid and strongly believes in conformity, the parent and child cannot deal with the
lack of open negotiation without first addressing the lack of openness in general . A
therapist should be conscious of these structures so as to maintain the child and the
family’s sense of identity, as well as guide the family to the best possible outcomes for
all involved. The family’s style of function need not be changed, but instead be made

more accessible and more satisfying to all members of the family.

A therapist needs to know that it is not necessary to change the paradign or
parenting style in which the family operates, but instead to make that paradign of
parenting style more enabled. There is positive parent-child relationships possible under
each of the associations between the PAQ (Buri, 1991) and the PPAS (Imig, 1997). Too
often, we try to change the way in which a family functions as a whole instead of
working with the positive aspects that a family already exhibits. By labeling a parent as
either Authoritarian, Permissive or Authoritative a professional pigeon holes that parent
as functioning in the stereotypical fashion exhibited by parents of that style. This is not
always the case. As discussed previously, there need to be consideration of the

combination of parenting styles that is prevalent in modern society. Professionals need to

69

look at parents and parenting styles in the grander scheme of how that parenting style
relates to the family unit in order to assess the relationship between the parent and the

child.

Future Directions for Research:

The findings from this study suggest several directions and implications for future
research. Not much study has currently been done to demonstrate what behavioral
outcomes are likely to arise in families operating under specific paradignatic structures.
There are no data on children’s academic achievement, acting out problems, learning
disorders, personality characteristics, or autonomy as it relates to being reared in families
which are either from Closed, Random, Open, or Synchronous paradignatic structures.
Are children from certain family structures more likely to excel academically? To be
more popular among their peers? To have geater self-control or reliance? These
findings are important to firture family and parent behaviors. How do these outcomes fall
within enabled and disabled versions of the same paradigns? Are these child behavior
outcomes actually caused by these paradigns or are the paradigns simply a facet of the

child’s development?

Future research should attempt to identify differences as they occur due to social,
cultural, racial, economic and gender differences. Parents, educators, and therapists all
would benefit from the knowledge of what styles of parenting and paradignatic
structures are associated with which groups of people. The “American” culture appears

70

to prefer the Authoritarian parenting style as the “ideal” parenting style. How do
different cultures differ or relate to that “ideal”? Is this a cross-cultural ideal or are there
differences as a result of religion, race and socio-economic status? There has been
speculation about lower socioeconomic status families being more likely to exhibit both
Random or Closed paradigmatic structures, and Permissive or Authoritarian parenting
styles. Random and Permissive because the lax parenting was descriptive of the
lackadaisical lifestyle of people who are impoverished. That the lack of guidance and
expectations are prevalent in all areas of their lives. Closed and Authoritarian because,
often, lower SES families work for other people and are told what to do all day. The
home is deemed to be the one place where the parent has control and is in charge. This is
an overly simplistic description of the possible explanations for parental behavior, but the
true explanations need to be known. This would make dealing with family of varying

SES, culture, race, religion, etc. only easier.

With the gowing prevalence of single-parent households, what are the
differences that occur due to family make-up. Do the results change depending on
whether the mother or the father fills out the surveys? Prior research has shown that
females tend to be more nurturing, when males tend to deal with more discipline issues.
Would this impact the outcome of the survey? Would a single mother he more likely to
operate in a fashion deemed as Random or Open, relying on the children to take a more
active role in decision making and household maintenance, since she must often work
outside of the home? The characteristics of the family itself may impact how the parent

parents and how the family is structured.

71

In summary, this research has examined the relationships between paradignatic
structures and parenting styles. Significant associations were found between some
singular variables, as well as some combinations of variables. This study has contributed
to the gowing body of research related to parenting and families. The importance of the
impact of families, specifically parents, warrants further research, education, and

awareness.

72

APPENDICES

73

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

74

References

*Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritarian parental control on child
behavior. Child Develoment, 37(4), 887-907

*Baumrind, D. & Black, A. E. (1967). Socialization practices associated with

dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Development, 38(2), 291-
327

*Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control.
Adolescence, 38(2), 255-272

*Baumrind, D. (1971). Will a day care center be a child development center?
San Francisco State College Conference, October 15 - l6

*Baumrind, D. (1975). The contribution of the family to the development of
competence in children Schizophrenia Bulletin, Fall, 14, 12- 37

*Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personalig
Assessment 57(1), 1 10-1 19

 

*Constantine, L. L. (1985). The family void: treatment and theoretical aspects
of the synchronous family paradign. Family Process, 24(4), 525-547

*Constantine, L. L. (1993). The structure of family paradigns: an analytical
model of family variation Jounnal of Marital and Family Therapy, 19(1) 39-70

75

*Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent style’s associated with
children’s self-regulation and competence in school Joumal of Educational
Psychology, 81(2), 143-154

*Imig, David R. (19 ) Family process theory: Extending the concept of
dimensional mecharnisms. Journal of Theog in Home Economics

*Imig, David R. (1993) Psychopolitics, dialectics, and family structure.

National Cmil on Family Relations (ECFR) Theory Construction and Research
Methodolggy Preconference Workshop November, Baltimore, Maryland

 

*Smetana, J. G. (1995). Parenting styles and conceptions of parental authority
during adolescence. Child Development, 66, 229-316

76

APPENDIX B

Letter to Parents

77

Michigan State University
College of Human Ecology

Investigator“. Kelly Lyttle
Master’s Student
Family & Child Ecology

Dear Parent,

I am currently conducting a study investigating the different ways families parent
their children. This study is part of my Master’s degree progam in Human Ecology at
Michigan State University. This is a private study and is not affiliated with your child’s
school. The results of this study will be utilized to extend the knowledge of professionals
in treating families who are in crisis and to enhance programs designed to support and
enhance the skills of parents.

If you agee to participate in this study, you will be asked to fill out two short
questionnaires which will take less than half of an hour. This study is focused on
individual responses, so please don’t work on this with anyone else. If at any time, you
have any questions or do not understand the directions, feel free to call me for help. It is
important that you answer each question as honestly and accurately as possible in order
to provide the most precise results. I would appreciate if you could fill out the enclosed
questionnaires and send it back to school with your child within one week. The office at
your child’s school will be collecting the questionnaires for me.

You do not need to put your name on the questionnaire and the information
provided by the questionnaire will be kept confidential. There is no way for the
information to be traced back to you if you do not put your name on the questionnaire.
At any time that you feel uncomfortable or wish to stop participating, you may do so, at
any time with out any negative result.

I will happily send you a copy of the results at the time of completion, if you so
desire. Contact the researcher at the number below if interested in a copy of the results.

Thank you for your time and participation,

Sincerely,
Kelly Lyttle
Phone: (517) 887 - 7430

78

APPENDIX C

Consent Letter

79

Consent

The following survey is being conducted by a graduate student at
Michigan State University. The information obtained will be used to write a
Master’s thesis, which is part of the graduation requirements for this
individual.

This survey contains questions for parents that ask them about certain
aspects of their families and their relationship with their children. The
purpose of this study is to examine the nature of certain relationships between
parents and their elementary aged children.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you do not wish to
participate, you do not have to fill it out.

All information in this survey will be completely anonymous and
confidential. There are to be no names written anywhere on the
questionnaire. The researcher is only interested in the answers to the
questions, and not who, specifically, gave these responses.

Any questions or concerns about this survey may be directed to Dr.
David Imig, Department of F arnily and Child Ecology, at Michigan State
University. The number is: (517) 353 - 3998.

.You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this survey.

80

APPENDIX D

Parent Attitude Questionnaire (Buri, 1991)

81

 

Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number on a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agee) that best describes how the statement applies
to you and your child(ren). There are no right or wrong answers, so don’t spend a lot of
time on any one item. We are looking for your overall impression regarding each
statement. Be sure not to omit any item.

 

l.

2.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.
15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

I feel that in a well-run home the children should have their way in l 2 3 4 5
afamilyasofienastheparentsdo.

Even if my children didn’t agee with me, I feel that it was for our 1 2 3 4 5
own good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right

Wheneverl tell my children to do something, I expect it to be done 1 2 3 4 5
immediately without any questions.

Once family policy had been established, I discuss the reasoning I 2 3 4 5
behind the policy with my children

I always encourage verbal give-and-take whenever the children feel 1 2 3 4 5
that the family rnnles and restrictions were unreasonable.

I have always felt that what children need is to be free to make up their 1 2 3 4 5
ownmindsandtodowhattheywanttodo, even ifthisdoes notagee

with what their parents miglnt want.

I do not allow my children to question any decision that I have made. 1
I direct the activities and decisions of the children in my family 1
through reasoning and discipline.

I feel that more force should be used by parents in order to get their 1 2 3 4 5
children to behave the way they are supposed to.

2345
2345

I do not feel that my children need to obey rules and regulations of 1 2 3 4 5
behavior simply because someone in authority has established them.
My children know what is expected of them, but they are free to l 2 3 4 5

discuss those expectations with me when they feel they are unreasonable.
I feel that wise parents should teach their children early just who is l 2 3 4 5

boss in the family.

I seldom give my children expectations and guidelines for their 1 2 3 4 5
behavior.

I do what my children want in making family decisions. 1 2 3 4 5
I consistently give my children direction and guidance in rational 1 2 3 4 5
and objective ways.

I get very upset if my children try to disagree with me. 1 2 3 4 5
I feel that most problems in society would be solved if parents 1 2 3 4 5

would not restrict the children’s activities, decisions, and desires as

they are gowing up.

I let my children know what behavior is expected of them, and if they 1 2 3 4 5
don’t meet those expectations, they are punished.

I allow my children to decide most things themselves without a lot of 1 2 3 4 5
direction from me

82

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.
29.

30.

I take my children’s opinions into consideration when making family 1 2 3 4 5'
decisions, but I do not decide for something simply because my

children want it.

I do not view myself as responsible for directing and guiding my 1 2 3 4 5
children’s behavior.

I have clear standards of behavior for the children in my home, but I am 1 2 3 4 5
willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of the individual

children in the family.

I give my children direction for their behavior and I expect them to 1 2 3 4 5
follow my directions, but I am always willing to listen to their concerns

and to discuss that direction with them.

I allow my children to form their own point of view on family matters 1 2 3 4 5
and I generally allowed my children to decide for themselves what

they are going to do.

I feel that most problems in society would be solved if we could get 1 2 3 4 5
parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don’t

do what they are supposed to as they are growing up.
Ioftentellmychildrenexactlywhatlwantthemtodoandhowlexpect 12 3 4 5
them to do it.

I give my children clear direction for their behaviors and activities, but 1 2 3 4 5
I understand when they disagree with me.

I do not direct the behaviors, activities, and desires of my children. 1 2 3
My children know what I expect ofthem in the family and I insist that 1 2 3
they conform to those expectations simply out of respect for my authority.
IfImakeadecisioninmyfamilythathurtsoneofmychildren,Iam 12 3 4 5
willing to discuss that decision with my children and admit if I have

made a mistake.

45
45

83

APPENDIX E

Parent Paradigm Assessment Scale (Imig, 1997)

84

85
W

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE INTENDED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING. THERE
ARE NO ”CORRECT” OR 'RIGHT 5. WRONG“ ANSWERS. THE DIFFERENT CHOICES DESCRIBED IN EACH
QUESTION ARE JUST DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT THE TASK OF RAISING CHILDREN. IN ORDER TO MORE
COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEWS ON PARENTING WE ARE ASKING YOU TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS IN A PAR'nCULAR WAY. BUT. FIRST YOU WILL BE GIVEN AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE WOULD LIKE
FOR YOU TO ANSWER THE PARENTING OUESTIONS.

SUPPOSE THAT THERE WERE ONLY FOUR BASIC KINDS OF ICE CREAM IN THE WORLD AND WE WANTED TO
KNOW YOUR PREFERENCES ABOUT THESE FOUR KINDS OF ICE CREAM. JUST PRETEND THAT THE FOUR
KINDS ARE: A) PLAIN‘SINGLE FLAVORED ICE CREAMS LIKE VANILLA AND CHOCOLATE. B) FRUIT'BASED ICE
CREAMS LIKE STRAWBERRY OR BLUEBERRY. C) NUT'BASED ICE CREAMS LIKE WALNUT OR ALMOND. AND

D) COMBINATION'TYPES OF ICE CREAM LIKE CHOCOLATE-CHIP MINT OR .RASPBERRY PECAN ICE CREAM.
OR WHATEVER.

FIRST, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO PUT A VALUE OF IO NEXT TO THE KIND OF ICE CREAM YOU LIKED BEST.

LET'S SUPPOSE THAT YOU MOST LIKED A PARTICULAR KIND OF FRUIT-BASED ICE CREAM. YOU WOULD
THEN PUT A IO IN THAT APPROPRIATE SPACE.

NOW. THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF ICE CREAM LEFT. USING THE VALUE OF 10 FOR COMPARISON. AND
USING THE VALUES 09 (YOU CAN USE THE VALUE OF 10 ONLY ONCE). WHICH ONE OF THE REMAINING
THREE ICE CREAMS Is YOUR NEXT MOST PREFERRED CHOICE? SUPPOSE THAT YOU LIKED A PLAIN ICE
CREAM AS YOUR NExT BEST CHOICE. IF You LIKED PLAIN ICE CREAM As MUCH As FRUITY ICE CREAM
THEN YOU COULD GIVE n A VALUE OF 9 - REMEMBER THAT You CAN USE THE VALUE OF I 0 ONLY ONCE.
iF YOU LIKED PLAIN ICE CREAM ABOUT HALF As MUCH As FRUITY ICE CREAM, THEN YOU WOULD GIVE IT
A VALUE OF 5. IF YOU ONLY LIKE FRUITY ICE CREAM AND NO OTHER KINDS OF ICE CREAM YOU COULD
GIVE IT A VALUE OF 0. LET'S SUPPOSE HOWEVER THAT YOU LIKED PLAIN ICE CREAM A LOT. BUT

SLIGHTLY LESS THAN FRUITY. AND USING THE VALUE OF iO FOR COMPARISON. YOU GAVE PLAIN ICE
CREAM A VALUE OF 7.

NOW, WHAT VALUE WOULD YOU GIVE THE THIRD AND FOURTH CHOICES (NUTTY VS COMBINATION)?
SUPPOSE YOU HATED NUTTY ICE CREAM. YOU THEN MIGHT GIVE n A VALUE OF 0. AND FINALLY IT WOULD
MAKE SENSE THAT THE COMBINATION KINDS OF ICE CREAMS WOULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 0 AND 7.
PERHAPs YOU MIGHT GIVE COMBINATION ICE CREAMS A VALUE OF 4. WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR BETTER
UNDERSTANDING YOUR PREFERENCES ABOUT ICE CREAM Is THAT YOU HAVE W ASSIGNED
VALUES TO ALL FOUR CHOICES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES INSIGHTFUL INFORMATION. BELOW IS AN

EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED HAD YOU BEEN COMPLETING THE
SCALE.

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING KINDS OF ICE CREAM I VALUE
A - PLAIN-SINGLE TYPES LIKE VANILLA. CHOCOLATE. BUTTERSCOTCH 7
8 - FRUITY TYPES LIKE STRAWBERRY, RASPBERRY. BLUEBERRY 10
C - NUTTY TYPES LIKE WALNUT, ALMOND, PISTACHIO O.
D - COMBINATION TYPES LIKE CHOCOLATE-CHIP MINT, RASPBERRY-PECAN 4

 

 

 

 

FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS YOU WILL BE ASKED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU THINK
THAT YOU AND YOUR CHILD UNDERSTAND YOUR PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. YOU WILL BE A3KED TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU THINK THAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS CURRENTLY - AND IDEALLY
HOW YOU OR YOUR CHILD WOULD LIKE IT TO BE. YOU WILL BE ASKED To PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT YOU DO AND THE BEHAVIORS INVOLVED IN HOW YOU DO IT.

BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE OF A SAMPLE QUESTION WITH SIMULATED ANSWERS.

' 9 ' be (I)... AND...
In part 1 answer how you (parent) thunk It is noW (C) and how you would hire It to
hoW you think that your adolescent think: It is now (C) and hoW they would like It to be (I).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART I

IN OUR PARENT-ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIP WE GENERALLY TEND PARENT ADOLESCENT
TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER IN THE FOLLOWING WAY. C I C I

A - iN A DIRECT AND FACTUAL MANNER 10 IO 2.
B - IN A TACTFUL AND LESS DIRECT MANNER 8 B 6
C - iN A QUESTIONING AND ENGAGING MANNER l 6
D - IN A HUMOROUS AND UNDERSTANDING MANNER IO 2 IO

"" PLEASE NOTE....... ALL BOXES MUST BE FILLED AND THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE IO ""

PLEASE USE THIS WAY OF RECORDING YOUR ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT
YOUR EXPERIENCES. THANK YOU! PLEASE CONTINUE .........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I- HOW DO YOU GET YOUR CHILD TO DO WHAT A9 PARENT CW—P
NEEDS To GET DONE? C ' c '

A - MY CHILD JUST KNOWS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 8. HOW TO Do IT

8 - BY TELLING MY CHILD WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 6. HOW TO DO IT

C - MY CHILD DOES WHAT THEY THINK NEEDS TO BE DONE 8 HOW TO DO IT

D - BY DISCUSSINC 8. ACREEING. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 8 HOW TO DO IT

2 - HOW DO YOU GENERALLY SHOW YOUR CARE. LOVE As PARENT CHILD
AFFECTION AND SUPPORT FOR YOUR CHILD? C ' c '

 

A - IN A RESPONSIVE. EXPRESSIVE 8. DIRECT MANNER

 

B - IN A CONTROLLED. CONVENTIONAL & PRIVATE MANNER

 

C . IN A SPONTANEOUS. ENTHUSIASTIC 6. PERSONAL MANNER

 

D - IN AN UNSPOKEN MANNER - THEY JUST KNOW THAT i CARE

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

87

 

3 — AS A PARENT. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO TEACH TO YOUR
CHILD 13 TO WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IN LIFE?

AS PARENT

CHILD

 

A - WHILE CARING FOR YOUR FAHILY - DO WHAT’S BEST FOR YOUR SELF

 

B - THAT. IF YOU SACRIFICE 5. CARE FOR YOUR FAMILY. YOUR FAMILY WILL
SACRIFICE 6. CARE FOR YOU

 

C - BY HAVING CONFIDENCE. PATIENCE & FAITH IN THE FAMILY EVERYTHING
WILL TURN OUT FOR THE BEST FOR EVERYONE

 

 

D ' BY BEING ADAPTABLE AND USING OUR DIFFERENCES. NO MATTER WHAT
HAPPENS. AG A FAMILY WE CAN DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR ALL. OF US

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 - HOW ARE YOU TEACHING YOUR CHILD To
MAKE SENSE OUT-OF-LIFE?

As PARENT

CHILD

 

A - BY GETTING IDEAS FROM OTHERS 6. DOING WHAT WORILS

 

B - EY ALWAYS RELYING ON THEMSELVES 8. THEIR OWN IDEAS

 

C - BY USING WHAT HAS PROVEN OVER TIME TO BE CORRECT 6. RELIABLE

 

 

D - BY OBSERVING 6. LISTENING THEY WILL COME TO KNOW WHAT MAKES SENSE

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 - AS A PARENT. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING AREAS DO
YOU EHPHASIZE MOST?

AS PARENT

CHILD

 

A ‘ HOW TO MAKE SENSE OUT'OF'LJFE

 

B - THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO KNOW WHAT'S MEANINGFUL IN LIFE

 

C . TO PROVIDE CARE. SUPPORT AND LOVE FOR EACH OTHER

 

 

 

D ' THE NECESSITY OF GETTING DONE IN LIFE WHAT NEEDS TO GET DONE

 

 

 

 

 

6 - TIME CAN BE USED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. IN WHAT WAY
DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILD TO USE TIME?

As PARENT
C I

CHILD

 

A - IN A FLEXIBLE MANNER 6. CAN BE CHANGED AS NEEDED

 

B - IN A PLANNED. ORDERED AND SCHEDULED MANNER

 

C - IN A SPONTANEOUS MANNER 5. CAN BE USED FOR WHATEVER COMES ALONG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D - THEY .IUST SEEM To KNOW & UNDERSTAND HOW TO USE TIME BEST

 

 

 

 

88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 - HOW DO YOU HANDLE YOUR CHILD'S A3 Pm CHILD
QUESTIONS AND IDEAS? C I c
A - NO IDEAS ARE TOO SILLY OR EXTREME. IT'S OK To ASK ANY OUESTIONS
OR TO SAY ANYTHING - NO MATTER WHAT
B - CERTAIN TOPICS ARE HARDLY EVER DISCUSSED 5 OUESTIONS ARE
EXPECTED To BE ASKED IN A RESPECTFUL HANNER
C - WITHIN REASON. MOST IDEAS 5 OUESTIONS ARE OK TO DISCUSS.
BUT DIFFERENCES 5 CONFLICT MUST BE SETTLED
D - THERE IS NO REAL RmON OR NEED TO ASK OUESTIONS OR To DISCUSS
IDEAS - WE ALL KNOW 5 UNDERSTAND IN THE SAME WAY
8 - HOW HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD TO USE THEIR A5 PARENT CHM?
EFFORT 5 ENERGY AS THEY GO ABOUT LIFE? c ' C
A - IN A STEADY. CONSISTENT AND PACED MANNER
B - IN A DYNAMIC. ENTHUSIASTIC AND INTENSELY FOCUSED MANNER
C - IN A PEACEFUL. RELAxED AND HARMONIOUS HANNER
O - IN A FLEXIBLE. ADAPTIVE AND ACCOMMODATING MANNER
9 - WHAT HAVE YOU TAUGHT YOUR CHILD ABOUT THE *5 9‘35": C”"-°
VALUE OF POSSESSIONS GI BELONGINGS? C
A - THESE THINGS ARE VALUED BECAUSE THE FAMILY WORKED HARD FOR
THEM - THEY HAVE VALUE BECAUSE IT TOOK EFFORT TO GET THEM
B - THESE THINGS AREN'T WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN LIFE - IT'S
EXPERIENCING LIFE THAT Is IMPORTANT - THINGS JUST GET IN THE WAY
C - THESE THINGS ARE USEFUL IN LIFE BECAUSE YOU CAN USE THEM To
GET OTHER THINGS DONE 5 TO MAKE LIFE MORE CONVENIENT
D . THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF THEIR BEAUTY 5 HEANING -
THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED 5 BE KEPT AS PERFECT ILS POSSIBLE
IO - IN HELPING YOUR CHILD TO GRow-UP. WHAT A5 9‘39“ CCNL"
c I

EHPHASIS DO YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE PLACED
ON THE FOLLOWING AREAS?

 

A . HOW TO RELATE TO MATERIAL POSSESSIONS 5 BELONGINGS

 

B - THE IHPORTANCE OF HOW TO PUT EFFORT INTO WHAT YOU Do

 

C . THE IHPORTANCE OF TIME 5 HOW TO USE IT

 

 

O - THE IMPORTANCE OF OUESTIONS 5 IDEAS 5 HOW TO HANDLE THEM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

Demographic Information Survey

89

1. What is your total family income:
a. $0 - 24,999
b. $25,000 - 49,999
0. $50,000 - 74,999
(1 $75,000 - 99,999
e. $100,000+

2. List the highest level of education you have completed:
a. some high school
b. high school graduate
C. some college
(1. college graduate
e. graduate or professional education

3. Race: (lnthecaseofbi-raciality, identifytheracewithwhichyoumostidentifyyourself):

a. Anglo - Caucasian
b. Native American
c. Hispanic
(1. Afiican American
e. Asian

f. Other-pleasespecify

 

4. Marital status:
a. Single, never married
b. Divorced or Separated

c. Widowed

90

APPENDD( G

UCRIHS Approval Letter

91

 

OFFICE OF
RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

lniverslty Commlllee 0

Research Involvlng

Human Sublecl:
(UCRIHS)

Michigan Slate Universily
346 Adminislralion Building
East Lansing, Michigan
48824-1046

517/355-2180
FAX: 517/432-1171

rmnmmmmamanmw
IDS! is Institutimal Diversity:
EmMmSMNMM

MSU is an ammume-aclion.
awmammmwnmwm

  

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

 

February 17, 1998

TO: David Imdg . .
2038 Human Ecology Building

RE: IRBfi: 98-101
TITLE: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS BETWEEN THE FAMILY PARADIGM
ASSESMENT SCALE AND THE PARENTAL ATTITUDE SCALE
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 02/17/98

The university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS)
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 apprepriate.
bgrefore, the UCRIHS approved this proyect and any reVisions listed
a ve.

RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a prOJeet be and one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a.
progect is renewed) to seek update certification. There.is a
maXimum of four such expedite renewals saible. Investigators
wishin to continue a progect beyond tha time need to submit it
again or complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in rocedures involving.human
subjects. rior to initiation of t e Change. If this is done at
the time o renewal, please use the green renewaloform. To
revise an approved protocol at an 0 her time during the year
send your written request to the. CRIHS Chair, requesting revised
approval and referenCing the progect's IRB # and title. Include
in our request a description of the.change and any revised
ins ruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/

CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work, investigators must noti UCRIHS promptly: (1) roblems
(unexpected Side effects. comp aints, e c.) involving uman
eubjects or $2) Changes in the research environment or new
intormation indicating greater risk to the human sub'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us
at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517I4 2- 171. -

,, IT

Sincerely,

 
 
  
  
   

   
 

id E. right. Ph D.
CRIHS Chair '
DEW : bed

CC: Kelly Lyttle

92

Consent

The following survey is being conducted by a graduate student at
Michigan State University. The information obtained will be used to write a
Master’s thesis, which is part of the graduation requirements for this
individual.

This survey contains questions for parents that ask them about certain
aspects of their families and their relationship with their children. The
purpose of this study is to examine the nature of certain relationships between
parents and their elementary aged children.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you do not wish to
participate, you do not have to fill it out.

All information in this survey will be completely anonymous and
confidential. There are to be no names written anywhere on the -
questionnaire. The researcher is only interested in the answers to the
questions, and not who, specifically, gave these responses.

Any questions or concerns about this survey may be directed to Dr.
David Imig, Department of Family and Child Ecology, at Michigan State
University. The number is: (517) 35: - 3998.

:You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this survey.

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THES project EXPIRES:

FEB 1 7 I999

Slim-HT RENE-wan, pOPngaTlON
(‘t-iz: .‘J'C‘iTl-l Pf-éibn‘ 2.;

Aer) \. .2 DATE Tocommue

93

Michigan State University
College of Human Ecology

Investigator: Kelly Lyttle
Master’s Student
Family & Child Ecology

Dear Parent,

I am currently conducting a study investigating the different ways families parent
their children. This study is part of my Master’s degree program in Human Ecology at
Michigan State University. The results of this study will be utilized to extend the
knowledge of professionals in treating families who are in crisis and to enhance programs
designed to support and enhance the skills of parents.

If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to fill out two short
questionnaires which will take less than half of an hour. This study is focused on
individual responses, so please don’t work on this with anyone else. If at any time, you
have any questions or do not understand the directions, feel free to call me for help. It is
important that you answer each question as honestly and accurately as possible in order
to provide the most precise results. I would appreciate if you could fill out the enclosed
questionnaires and send it back to school with your child within one week The office at
your child’s school will be collecting the questionnaires for me.

You do not need to put your name on the questionnaire and the information
provided by the questionnaire will be kept confidential. There is no way for the
information to be traced back to you if you do not put your name on the questionnaire.
At any time that you feel uncomfortable or wish to stop participating, you may do so, at
any time with out any negative result.

I will happily send you a copy of the results at the time of completion, if you so
desire. Contact the researcher at the number below if interested in a copy of the results.

Thank you for your time and participation,

Sincerely,
Kelly Lyttle
Phone: (517) 887: 7430

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR

Tl-llS project EXPIRES:

FEB 1 7 I999
SUBMIT RF" TWA-l. .n '-“-"'l.l(‘ IleON
CH?!” "'31 .-: *3

ABOVE 11A. i: To coil} iNUE 94

"‘tunIIIIIiIt