35. 77"”

Z
—r

jviv. -

 

    

903‘ m

-.. ‘é- nu ‘ ‘ ' .1
----- .3...~¢;:—,§W3,.

{E
3
‘\
‘.
C

 

‘ I'M‘H’l‘

n
u

l ‘

'37:; 33%- ‘- .. ‘
- .‘w

..‘-——--—‘ “ m
.._q
_4~ vw—a

‘tm‘!|.‘ :m ‘1

:v‘
‘

.. '1
-.I,:‘.

I...

i

_<_~,.--
4 .

"‘f
“,3

1
¢
I

‘23

V“:J. ..
-r a
bJ-Z’i4'.__f. »

4

1‘ n
31
A?!

l
.1

x
-,f

r’
'11

E
1

":n a

‘-

11
U
z' '
l

 

. .
.3. H

..-...
.11..."
4‘.-
) .. mo”?
.-

<
.-.41\‘

 

-‘qn
._..—- A]

. rv

 

THESIS

I
Haas)

Date

HGANTATE

MININIHHIIWH “llWill!HillIIIHIHHIIHIJHHI

293 01694 3544

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Family Tvoe and Darenting Stvle

of Working Professional WOmen
presented by

Susan Anne Robinson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

 

M.S . degree in Nursing
3 Major professor 4%
Mav 1, 1997

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY ’

MiChigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

mi 1 5 .2090“ DEC 0620011

I LIL”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ma WM.M$‘

 

FAMILY TYPE AND PARENTING STYLE
OF WORKING PROFESSIONAL WOMEN

By

Susan Anne Robinson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

College of Nursing

1997

ABSTRACT

FAMILY TYPE AND PARENTING STYLE OF WORKING PROFESSIONAL
WOMEN

By

Susan Anne Robinson

The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine type of family system and
parenting style of 48 working professional women selected from Tiedje’s (1985)
longitudinal role conflict study. The majority (85.4%) of women were classified as having
a general mid-range type of family system based on levels of cohesion and adaptability,
and displayed more positive than negative parenting style behaviors. Type of family
system was related to positive parenting styles. Cohesion was more highly correlated with
positive parenting style than type of family system (cohesion and adaptability together).
Adaptability alone was not significantly correlated with positive parenting style. Type of
family system was inversely related to negative parenting style. Implications for assessing
families in primary care according to type of family system and parenting style are

discussed.

COPyfight by
Susan Anne Robinson

1997

To my parenting partner, husband Tom, and our personal subjects, Mindy, Peter, and of
course, Kobie.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In appreciation of my thesis committee, Linda Beth Tiedje, chair, Mary Jo Amdt,
and Linda Spence who encourage my concern for childrens’ well-being. I thank them for
educating me in the importance of our fimy “children,” dogs, who give both parents and

human children perspective in times of challenging endeavors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................ ll
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 20
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 25
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 38
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 46
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A Faces 11: Family Version ................................................................ 51
Appendix B Parents’ Report .............................................................................. 52
Appendix C UCRIHS Approval ......................................................................... 54
Appendix D Olson Permission ........................................................................... 55
Appendix E Letter to Subjects ........................................................................... 56

LIST OF TABLES

Table l-FACES 11: Linear scoring and interpretation ................................................... 23
Table 2-Demographics .................................................................................................. 26
Table 3-Children: Number per family, number of teens per family,

and age distribution ........................................................................................... 27
Table 4-Type of family system ...................................................................................... 29
Table S-Levels of cohesion and adaptability .................................................................. 30
Table 6-Positive parenting style distribution scores ........................................................ 31
Table 7-Negative parenting style distribution scores ...................................................... 31

Table 8-Mean distribution of positive and negative parenting style

and individual parenting clusters ....................................................................... 33
Table 9-Correlation of type of family system and positive parenting style ....................... 36
Table IO-Correlation of type of family system and negative parenting style .................... 39

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1- Process Model using Steinhauer Process Model ............................................. 7
Figure 2-Adaptation of Steinhauer Process Model ......................................................... 9

viii

INTRODUCTION

Balm HEW Infqmatinn

Strong families are important in a productive society. Nursing has historically
focused on families with chronically-ill children. Yet essentially healthy children are also
in need of parenting and family support. Family nursing as a specialty and the
development of periodicals devoted exclusively to family fimction, such as Emily
Nursing, reflect the development of family nursing science. Sociologists have focused on
the restructuring and redefinition of families beyond the nuclear family which now
comprises only 7% of US. households (Otto, 1988). Furthermore, Elkind (1994) claims
that the “glorified” traditional family arrangement of peace and harmony is a misnomer
and proposes new ways to re-vitalize the family beyond insistence on a particular family
structure.

Changing society has wrought additional demands and expectations upon working
parents and in so doing, has influenced parent-parent and parent-child relations including
emotional attachment, or cohesion. Given this land of abundance and opportunity,
parents, particularly working professional women, are faced with the difficult dilemma of
balancing work obligations, societal responsibilities in the community, their own individual
needs, parental duties, and family life promotion. Family life promotion, or ways in which
to bring family members together, involves decisions about time limitations, “required”
family shared time, and other activities for family attachment (McCubbin, Thompson,

Pimer, & McCubbin, 1987).

2

Aside from issues of role conflict and role strain in parents, varying degrees and
forms of parenting style have evolved which mirror shifting cultural values regarding traits
desired in children. These evolving parenting styles have profound consequences for
children and society. For example, Alwin (1990) noted the increasing value on
independence and autonomy in children along with a declining emphasis on conformity or
obedience to traditional institutional authority.

The purpose of this descriptive study is to examine type of family system and
parenting styles of working professional women with children, and to explore the
relationship between type of family system in terms of cohesion and adaptability and
parenting style. The conventional health care delivery system, designed to support only ill
children, often overlooks the needs of “healthy” children and families. The Advanced
Practice Nurse in the primary health care setting focuses on health rather than illness, and
prevention and care, rather than cure. Because of her/his very title of primary care
provider, it is essential that the APN be well versed in family fimctioning and parenting
issues and thus, provide sound guidance to strengthen families.

CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS

The two variables in this study to be examined are type of family system and
parenting style. The conceptual definitions are:
Wear

A family system is a social system that is self-defined by its members, hierarchically
organized to include the overall family and subsystems (or smaller units of interaction

among members) and promotes the development of individual qualities within the system

3

(Whitechurch & Constantine, 1993). The family system is experienced uniquely by each
individual in the family who constructs her/his own reality. Dynamics within family
systems occur at the level of subsystems (units of two or more family members, e.g.,
mother-child) (Henry, Sager, & Plunkett, 1996). Change and development are inherent in
all types of family systems. Type of family system refers to the classification of a
multidimensional construct referring to how the family operates across many dimensions
including personal growth and development, relationships, organization, and available
resources (Smilkstein, 1978). Relationship concepts include cohesiveness, adaptability,
interdependence and communication of members.

For purposes of this study, two main concepts, family cohesion and adaptability,
will be used to describe type of family system (Olson, 1983). Cohesion refers to the
degree of emotional attachment that family members have toward one another (Olson,
1983). The Olson Circumplex Model (1989) proposes the need to balance the cohesion
dimension between too much closeness (very connected or enmeshed systems) and too
little closeness (disengaged systems).

The other key relationship concept in type of family system is adaptability.
Adaptability is the family’s ability to change its interaction patterns in response to
situational or developmental stress. A desired outcome is a balance of the two extremes
of adaptability: being rigid or chaotic. Rigidity is identified as highly controlled leadership,
strict discipline, limited negotiation, strictly defined roles and unchanging, strictly enforced
rules. A chaotic level of adaptability is one in which leadership is limited and/or erratic;

discipline is laissez-faire and ineffective; negotiations are endless; decisions are impulsive;

4

roles lack clarity with few routines; and rule changes are frequent. Olson (1989)
computes type of family system as the sum of cohesion and adaptability divided by two to
yield several categories: a) balanced, b) moderately balanced, c) mid-range, and d)
extreme types of families.

For purposes of this study, two aspects of type of family system will be examined.
Cohesion will be defined as the emotional connection between family members,
specifically mothers and their children. Family adaptability will be defined as the ability to
handle change, individually and as part of a system. The union of the concepts will be
regarded as type of family system, and categorized according to Olson (1989).
Earsnn'rmnde

Parenting style refers to the way parents react to their children’s behaviors and the
demands parents make on children (Baumrind, 1978; Schor, 1995). Baumrind (1978) has
organized parenting styles into three dimensions: a) authoritarian; b) permissive; and c)
authoritative. Authoritarian parents attempt to shape, control and evaluate behaviors and
attributes of their children using an absolute set of standards. These parents emphasize
obedience, respect for authority, work, tradition and the preservation of order. Verbal
give-and-take between parent and child is discouraged. This style demands high maturity
on the child’s part, and is more detached and “less warm” than other styles. Permissive
parenting, in which the parent is tolerant and accepting of a child’s impulses, uses as little
punishment as possible and makes few demands for mature behavior. Considerable self-
regulation is allowed (and even required) by the child. The third style of parenting,

authoritative parenting, is composed of the following elements: a) an expectation of

5

mature child behaviors and clear setting of standards by the parents; b) firm enforcement
of rules and standards mutually agreed upon; c) encouragement of children’s independence
and individuality; d) open communication between parents and children with verbal give-
and-take encouraged; and e) recognition of rights/mutual respect for parents and children.

Dibble and Cohen (1974), in developing the Parents’ Report, simplified parental
style into two categories: a) positive or socially desirable parental behavior; and b)
negative or socially undesirable parental behavior. Negative categories include
“detachment,” “control through guilt,” “lax enforcement of discipline,” and “control
through hostility.” Examples of positive categories are “positive involvement,” “control
with positive discipline,” and “child-centeredness.” Relating Dibble and Cohen (1974) to
Baumrind (197 8), the authoritative parenting style encompasses more socially desirable
parental behaviors while the authoritarian and permissive styles include more socially
undesirable behaviors. According to Baumrind (1978), authoritative discipline tends to
foster in children a “particular kind of social, or ‘instrumental,’ competence which is
associated with success in Western society” (p. 245).

For purposes of this study, parenting style will be conceptually defined as the
positive (or socially acceptable) and negative (or socially unacceptable) ways in which
parents act and react to children’s behaviors. Parenting style, including parental demands
and expectations, is influenced by societal expectations.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
For purposes of this study, type of family system and parenting style is most

closely aligned with the work of Steinhauer (1983), a process-oriented and dynamic

6

model of family functioning, which is equally capable of describing successful and
unsuccessful patterns of type of family system (cohesion and adaptability) and parenting
style (positive and negative). (Figure 1) The model emphasizes understanding each
parameter as having a separate identity yet having ongoing contact with adjoining
parameters and subsystems (parameter to parameter, interpersonal to social, etc.) so that
change can occur at any or several levels. Any point of contact between two subsystems,
such as parents and children or enmeshed parent-child, is a site of either actual or potential
tension.

Pressure for change at a point of contact can come fi'om within (for example, when
a family member unilaterally changes) or from without (when a therapist facilitates
change). Whether the new input will be accommodated (leading to a new balance and
equilibrium) or rejected, will depend on a number of factors including a family’s adaptive
potential or level of adaptability. A family’s adaptability, according to Steinhauer (1985),
includes the capacities to: define, negotiate and accomplish tasks; adjust roles as needed to
ensure complementarity and role performance; provide and tolerate communication; and
accommodate members’ needs for autonomy. An unbalanced point of contact between
subsystems generates actual tension and pressure for change until a new balance is
established between the two or more subsystems. For example, a mother experiencing a
new, financially-necessary firll time job in another city (necessitating a long commute) may
grieve her old career and work associates, diser having less time with her family, feel
pressure to provide for the family financially, and detest a longer travel time. Her children

may experience the mother’s tensions indirectly through their own anxieties: Who will

Paternal Subsystem Maternal Subsystem

 

Marital Family
Subsystem Subsystem

 

 

 

 

Child Subsystem Social Subsystem

Figure 1. Steinhauer Process Model of Family Functioning (Steinhauer 8:
Dickman, 1983, p. 106).

8

help with homework or shuttle to extracurricular activities? Is there enough money to pay
for the activities? Change may ensue after the first unacceptable school report card (or
other negative behavior) which one or both of the involved subsystems perceive as
attributable to the mother’s employment. Change may also be positive as more shared
parenting evolves (i.e., father may help with homework or shuttling children to activities in
the mother’s absence). If the point of contact is in balance (i.e., the majority of maternal
and child behaviors are positive), no conscious anxiety or pressure for change is evoked.

Some actual tension is a prerequisite for appropriate adaptation and normal
development. There is an optimal range of experienced tension; too much tension is
overwhelming and disabling, whereas too little tension impedes the appropriate
identification and solution of difficulties that are undermining adjustment and ongoing
development. As Steinhauer (1983) emphasizes, pressure for change can be internally or
externally generated. In the above example, a substandard report card may not be high
priority or problematic for the mother or child, but may be viewed by school officials (the
larger society) as being socially undesirable. Internally generated tension efl‘ects change in
the family system.

Adaptation of the Steinhauer (1983) model is presented in Figure 2 as it relates to
this research project. Specifically maternal subsystem (working professional mothers),
parenting style (positive and negative), and type of family system (cohesion and
adaptability) will be examined. Additionally, the relationship between type of family
system and parenting style will be examined. “Anxiety or pressure to change” experienced

by the individual or subsystem will reflect adaptability. Parenting style is a response to

Maternal Subsystem
(Positive or Negative
Parenti . Style)

Type of Family
~ ubsystem (Cohesion
and Adaptability)

 

Social Subsystem

Figure 2. Adaptation of Steinhauer Process Model of Family Functioning
(Steinhauer & Dickman. 1983, p. 106).

1 0
internal (family system) and external (societal) tensions. Type of family system and
parenting style are dynamic processes operating individually and as subsystems.
“Anesthetized” families may tolerate years of progressive disengagement, rigidity,
enmeshrnent or socially unacceptable (negative) parenting, or a combination of these
behaviors, without experiencing enough conscious tension to precipitate needed
adaptations. Similarly, chronically excessive tension levels result in stress overload,
particularly when multiple areas, such as type of family system and parenting style
contribute to increased tension in the entire system.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study is to examine type of family system and parenting styles
of working professional mothers and to explore the relationship between type of family
system (cohesion and adaptability) and parenting styles. This study is significant in that
identifying type of family system and parenting styles of working professional women will
aid in understanding the needs of “healthy” children and families fi'om a “preventative and
care” standpoint rather than a “cure” orientation. In turn, health care providers caring for
employed women and their families may base care on more complete and accurate
information. The current newsstand focus, replete with “cookbooks” on child care,
reflects a market hungry for descriptions of the two-career, post-modem family. It is the
intent of this research to add to that body of knowledge. Specifically, the focus of this
study is to respond to the following research questions:

1. What is the type of farrrily system (cohesion and adaptability) perceived by the

working professional mother?
2. What is the parenting style (positive or negative) of the working professional

ll
mother?

3. Is the type of family system (cohesion and adaptability) related to the style of
parenting, (positive or negative) in the families of working professional
mothers?

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The empirical evidence relevant to the problem under investigation falls into three
main areas of study: a) Maternal employment; b) type of parenting style (positive and
negative); and c) family system (cohesion and adaptability).

Maternal sinnlsmmt

Prior to the 1980s most efforts to explain why parents rear their children the way
they do focused on social class (Belsky,1990). However the more contemporary
approach has been an increased attempt to move beyond “social-address” models of
environmental influence. Today research more commonly examines processes that have
an impact on parent-child relations, for example, parental responsiveness, attachment
security, and/or the overall socioemotional development and functioning of children. Two
themes cut across research on the multiple determinants of parenting: a) the influence of
parent-child relations upon child development and b) the effects of day care (Menaghan &
Parcel, 1990).

Most studies indicate that maternal employment has an overall positive impact on
children and family life. Employed women cite self-actualization; expanded role models
for children; enhanced children’s maturity and self-reliance; and improved financial status
for the family as positive aspects of employment (Menaghan & Parcel, 1990). When a

mother’s experience of her role is negative (either as employed mother or homemaker),

12

detrimental efl‘ects are more likely to accrue to her children (Spitze, 1988). Additionally,
research has shown that employed and unemployed women spend equal amounts of face-
to-face time with their children (N ock & Kingston, 1988). Possible explanations for this
similarity are that stay-at-home mothers (while at home) may not spend all of their time
1:1 with children and may sufl‘er fi'om parent burnout or lack of parenting skills.
Employed mothers may tend to maximize the amount of time they do have with their
children and thus have an increased 1:1 interaction time. When mothers are employed, it
is homemaking rather than child-centered activities that suffer. Hill and Stafl‘ord (1985)
found that employed women make time for their children by sacrificing time they would
otherwise devote to housework or leisure.

Elkind (1994) does not specifically discuss the individual parenting style of the
working mother but identifies the overall parental shift in the postmodern, permeable, dual
career family fi'om unilateral to mutual responsibility and a climate of authoritative
parenting. Type of family system is seen as moving away fi'om togetherness and towards
autonomy or the need of each family member to be able to “go it alone” (Elkind, 1994, p.
75). None of the studies found specifically examine the relationship between employment
status of the mother and type of family system, and/or parenting style.

The literature focuses on short term rather than long term benefits and/or
deleterious consequences to children and families, in part due to methodological
limitations which restrict cause-effect relations directly impinging on children and families.
Barling and VanBart (1984) found that the higher the mothers’ interrole conflict, the

greater the likelihood that their sons manifested conduct problems and their daughters,

13

immaturity. Many questions of why and how children’s behavior is affected by mothers’
employment remain unanswered. Because maternal employment has become the rule
rather than the exception in just the past 25 years and thus a relatively new societal
concept, long range efl‘ects of maternal employment can now be assessed (Hofl'man, 1989;
Spitze, 1988). In general, the literature points to a positive association between maternal
employment and parenting. The need to look at family processes (i.e., division of family
tasks) rather than simple structure, (i.e., maternal employment vs. non-employment,
paternal employment vs. non-employment) is indicated. Factors which efl‘ect a positive or
negative maternal employment experience, and thus positive or negative consequences for
children, are increasingly being considered.

Parenting and:

As background, it is important to note that mothers play a determining role in the
way their children develop, either consciously and conscientiously, or by default
(Baumrind, 1967). Even among maternal caretakers of the same culture or subculture,
disagreement exists concerning which values are important to inculcate in children and
how children should be reared to become responsible members of society. The concept of
parenting style reflecting parental disciplinary practices arose as an indicator of a family’s
resources leading to child competence in meeting societal expectations (Amato &
Ochiltree, 1986).

An individual’s life history precedes the role of parent and impacts one’s parenting
style. Repeatedly it has been found that adults who are psychologically healthy and

mature are more likely to provide care that promotes healthy psychological development

14
in their ofl’spring (Belsky, 1990).

Research on parenting style is often correlated with child behavior as a reciprocal
process; clear evidence emerges that mothers react to disobedient, negative, and/or highly
active children with negative, controlling behavior (Anderson, Lytton, & Romney, 1986).
Although the more recent work of Bugental, Blue and Cruzcosa (1989) reveals that
parents vary in their susceptibility to such child efl‘ects, child temperament also factors into
parenting style but is beyond the scope of this present study.

Because of these influences and individual difl'erences in both parent and child,
Dibble and Cohen (1974) propose the concept of self-report in order to raise parent
awareness of competencies and areas of vulnerability. The original intent of their work
was to better understand genetic, familial and experiential contributions to personality
development in twin children but their work has ramifications for guiding the parent in
analysis of parenting style. By measuring a parent’s perception of his or her own parental
style in relation to a particular child, parental attitudes are illicited and encourage the
parent to accurately assess both actual and ideal parenting behaviors (Parents’ Report).
Their companion instrument, the Childhood Personality Scale, allows the parent to report
the child’s general personality and competence but consideration of a child’s innate
temperament is beyond the scope of this present study.

In addition, Dibble and Cohen (1974) classify positive or socially acceptable
parenting style into behavior clusters such as “acceptance of child as a person,” “child
centeredness,” and “control through positive discipline.” Negative or socially

unacceptable parenting style clusters include “detachment,” “lax enforcement of

15
discipline,” and “control through hostility.” Using this method of categorizing takes into
account the interdependency of parent, child and society.

Other research on parenting style is devoted to actual child outcome. In contrast
to the self-report method of Dibble and Cohen (1974), Dornbusch, Ritter, Leidennan,
Roberts and Fraleigh (1987) in an analysis of 7,836 San Francisco Bay high schoolers,
found that negative or socially unacceptable parenting styles (which they labeled as
authoritarian and permissive parenting styles) were negatively associated with grades.
Authoritative parenting (more socially acceptable or positive parenting style) was
positively associated with grades. Parents that inconsistently combined authoritarian
parenting with other parenting styles had children with the lowest grades. In addition,
Steinberg, Elrnen and Mounts (1989) found that authoritative parenting facilitates, rather
than simply accompanies, school success.

Parenting style has also been linked with child self-esteem. Children are likely to
internalize the negative evaluations implied by inattentive or negative parents. A child
whose parents are unresponsive to his/her mastery attempts is unlikely to form a self-
irnage of eficacy and control (Amato & Ochiltree, 1986).

Yet another child outcome of parenting style is social competence, ranked highest
in children fiom authoritative homes, homes in which positive parenting style occurs
(Schor, 1995). For girls, this authoritative parenting style is associated with purposeful,
dominant, and achievement-oriented behaviors. Boys fiom authoritative homes
demonstrate fiiendly, cooperative and socially responsible behavior. In contrast, among

children of permissive parents, girls are less assertive and independent, and boys, less

16

achievement-oriented. Both sexes scored well on social responsibility with permissive
parenting.

In summary, parenting style is a reflection of societal expectations and the life
histories of parents which ultimately influence child outcomes. A child’s innate
temperament also factors into the parenting style illicited. The parenting style in general
can be regarded as socially acceptable (positive) or socially unacceptable (negative).

E '1 l . l l l T

Research is more limited in the area of family cohesion and adaptability as coined
by Olson (1983). Olson (1983) merges the concepts to form varying degrees or
categories of “balance.” Many abstracts describe Olson’s tool and how the Circumplex
Model was normed using as subjects chronically-ill children or destructive parent-child
dyads (Garabino, Sebes, & Schellenbach, 1984; Rodich, Henggler, & Hanson, 1986).
Several abstracts and dissertation proposals propose examination of the relationship of
cohesion/adaptability and outcomes such as problem-solving, marital satisfaction, dual
career-couples and family satisfaction. Two of the four studies on dual career couples are
in progress. The completed studies focus on dual-clergy marriages and spouse-work
relationships which pose additional unique dynamics. No studies to date examine dual
career families using the Olson tool to measure cohesion and adaptability.

Several studies (Bryant, 1992; Bryant & Zick, 1996; Nock & Kingston, 1988)
examine parent-child shared time (e.g., eating dinner and exchanging information) from a
family economist perspective. However in estimating a product firnction, Leibowitz

(1974) contends measures of the activities undertaken and the exclusivity of the use of

17

time (e.g., parents’ attention focused exclusively on the child) are indicated. How time is
spent with children (“quality”) is more important than how much time is spent. Time
spent belittling a child in a socially unacceptablemanner, (i.e., negative parenting), or
encounters in which disengagement is prevalent while parent and child perform a task
together, (i.e., indications of type of family system) are viewed as more important than
simple task completion. One way to quantify quality of time spent is to look at levels of
interaction identifying which behaviors are necessary but not sufficient in parent-child
relations.

Enmeshment, as described by Olson (1983), is the highest level of cohesion in
which there is too much consensus within the family and too little independence. Barber
and Bueler (1996) propose that cohesion and enmeshment are not comparable concepts,
particularly when examining preadolescents/adolescents. In their study of 471 students in
5th, 8th and 10th grades, enmeshment, as a psychological control, was related positively
with youth problems; cohesion was found to be a supportive interaction positively related
to individual and family function. The researchers contend that cohesion and enmeshment
are independent constructs when applied to adolescents, not difl‘erent degrees of the same
construct. They claim that intrusion into a child’s psychological development
(enmeshment) inhibits individualization and social interaction skills.

Type of family system has been described in terms of parental involvement
(LaRossa, 1988). The three identified areas of involvement are: a) Engagement (direct,
one-on-one interaction); b) accessibility (being nearby and available to meet a child’s

need); and c) responsibility (being accountable for the child’s care and welfare). The

18

emphasis of the research is placed on maternal versus patemal time spent in each of these
areas rather than on describing and comparing one area of involvement with another (e. g.
engagement, which would include emotional attachment/cohesion, and a more
“disengaged” involvement, accessibility). Likewise, the Circumplex Model of Marital and
Family Systems (Olson, Russell & Sprenkle, 1983) does not differentiate between the
levels of interaction which may be critical in assessing family dynamics in firture studies:
Can balanced and responsible families have limited engagement interaction? Can a family
be balanced and responsible yet not be accessible?

McFarlane, Bellissirno and Norman (1994) is perhaps the most noteworthy if not
only, study most directly related to the present research. The study assessed the
association between parental style, family functioning and adolescent well-being. Results
indicated that the parental style was the main determinant of both family functioning and
well being of adolescents. Several tools were employed including IDD (Inventory to
Diagnose Depression), PBI (Parental Bonding Scale to assess parental style), Adolescent
Stress measure, FAD (Family Assessment Device) and FACES 111. Although the
parenting style tool (PBI) used varies from the tool used to measure parenting style in the
proposed research, parenting style is described and compared with type of family system.
McFarlane, Bellissirno and Norman (1994) found that both mother and father parenting
style (including afl‘ection, warmth, empathy and reciprocity to coldness and indifference)
were associated with a type of family system. Over protection as a parenting style
(excessive intrusion and infantilization versus independence and autonomy) was negatively

associated with a balanced type of family system. A limitation to the study is lack of a

19

concise definition of type of family function (reflective of family system in terms of
cohesion and adaptability) so that this research can be compared with similar studies.
C . . E l 1'

Overall in reviewing the literature, a lack of consensus on terms to define one
particular concept (e.g., cohesion) and a multiplicity of tools measuring like concepts is
observed. Adaptability as a separate characteristic of family system type is not mentioned
in the literature except for Olson (1983) and his followers specifically using FACES II and
FACES III. Other problems in measuring parenting style and type of family system
involve older instruments which are geared solely toward the family in distress (a
chronically ill child, an ill parent or behavior problems). Also, older tools were developed
on more traditional families in which mothers were not employed.

Types of families that have been studied using the Olson (1989) model present
unique situations (e.g., farm families, military families, single parent families, missionary
families or extended families) or are in relation to a specific problem (e. g., alcoholism,
chemical dependency, incest, handicapped, learning disabled, mental illness or violence- .
abuse). As mentioned earlier, only two studies examine dual career families and this
research pertains to shared careers, a clergy couple and a joint business venture. No
studies to date look at dual career families with separate occupations.

An obvious gap in the literature is the correlation between type of family system
and parenting style in general. The literature addresses one concept or the other but does
not integrate the two concepts.

The intent of this study is to examine the type of family system and parenting style

20

of working professional women and the relationship between type of family system and
parenting style. Present dynamics operating in a family may help health care providers to
identify actual and potential areas of family system imbalance (in terms of cohesion and
adaptability) and deficits in parental style. Parents and health care providers can use this
data to develop interventions which can potentially improve family processes.
METHODOLOGY

Type of family system and parenting styles are the major constructs of this study.
The descriptive, non-experimental and cross-sectional study examines the relationship of
the type of family system and parenting styles.
Wale

The sample for the study was derived from a longitudinal study with an original
sample of 158 working professional mothers recruited to address issues of role conflict,
chronic stress and strain, marital, parental and life role satisfaction and function (Tiedje,
1990). The present study was in conjunction with the original study of Tredje (1985) and
continued in the summer of 1996 with Sigma Theta Tau funding. The respondents were
residents of Chicago, Detroit, Lansing and Ann Arbor, and were employed in banking,
advertising, accounting, law, or higher education instruction. The respondents at the time
of initial contact (beginning in 1985) were married, had a preschool child, and were
employed 30 hours a week or more. For the purposes of this study, a subset of these
subjects was selected from a Summer 1996 questionnaire. Respondents were asked to
respond to the questions:

1. Have there been any major changes or events in your life since the last time we

21

contacted you in 1993? We’re interested in both good and bad things.

2. Are there other experiences you may not have shared with us before, that you

think are important for us to know?

A sample size of 54 was proposed based on the 54 women who mentioned
children in response to the above questions. Permission had already been obtained for use
of the sample by Tiedje; human subjects approval was granted for the summer
questionnaire and again in October 1996 for this subsample. Permission to use the Olson
Circumplex Model (1983) was also obtained from the principal investigator.

The questionnaires, consisting of a short demographic inquiry and two
aforementioned tools (Appendices A and B) were mailed October 17,1996 to the selected
54 working professional mothers with the request to respond within four weeks; thirty-
seven women responded within this time fi'ame yielding a response rate of 68.5%. lies
Mm (Elkind, 1994) was awarded to the first ten respondents as an additional
incentive for timely response. F ollow-up phone calls and/or letters to the remaining non-
respondents yielded a final response rate of 85.6% (N=48) as of December 16, 1996. One
final questionnaire was received two weeks later but was excluded since statistical analysis
had already been initiated.

Two instruments were used to measure the constructs proposed in this model.

The first instrument, measuring cohesion and adaptability, was FACES II (Olson, Russell,
& Sprenkle, 1983), a well-established instrument used to assess type of family system

(cohesion and adaptability). (Appendix A) This tool is consistently and abundantly

22

referred to in the literature as reliable and valid. According to Olson (1994) there are now
over 1200 studies that are completed or in progress using the FACES II self-report
assessment scale for families. Abstracts on all studies (dual career families= 4, family
relationships=3 1, parent-cth relationships=17, individual development/socialization=6)
are obtainable fi'om the University of Minnesota. Cronbach alpha figures for this tool are
cohesion (.87), adaptability (.78) with a total scale of .90. Test-retest reliability yields
coeficients of .83 (cohesion) and .80 (adaptability). Content validity was established from
the 204 question FACES 1; construct validity via factor analysis revealed loadings of .34-
.61 (cohesion) and .10-.55 (adaptability).

The 30 item questionnaire, 16 cohesion items and 14 adaptability items, asked the
respondent to decide how frequently a described behavior occurred in her family. The
ratings ranged on a Likert scale fi'om 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). A linear
scoring method for type of family system indicates cohesion and adaptability as
independent parts of a family system. (Table 1) Olson also scores cohesion and
adaptability together as a unit. Cohesion and adaptability are scored independently in this
manner: The four categories for cohesion are: a) very connected (8-7), b) connected (6-5),
c) separated (4-3), and d) disengaged (2-1). The four categories for adaptability are: a)
very flexible (8-7), h) flexible (6-5), c) structured (4-3), and d) rigid (2-1). Additionally,
the sum of cohesion and adaptability scores are divided by two to classify the type of
family system as: a) balanced (8-7), b) moderately balanced (6-5), c) mid-range (4-3), and
d) extreme (2-1). The instrument is easily administered on an individual basis and simply

scored. Furthermore, it was conducive to working professional mothers responding by

 

.....
”:4...

  

 

. _ .
32:. 552135—

 

asigé .l + 5.2.8 I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
.m. .
35.35 1.1..
a
II a
a
a.
.m. a
3.2%.». III
a
l. ..
a
s
..| n
s
3.98.80 II

n
o

=2|
F

3:85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5'
>
salt:

8.8.30

 

 

8:552... a. ace. as: H.. ”mos. H. 0.3

24
mail.

To operationalize parenting style, a second instrument, Parents’ Report (Dibble &
Cohen, 1974) was employed. (Appendix B) An abbreviated version of this tool was used
by Tiedje (1983) in the original study as part of a more lengthy interview schedule.

The original Parents Report (employed in this study) consisted of 48 behavioral
description items. Sixteen behavioral styles (three items each) with eight positive (socially
acceptable) and eight negative (socially unacceptable) styles were included. Positive
parenting style categories included: “Acceptance of child as a person,” “child

” “

acceptance of autonomy,”

,9 ‘6

centeredness, sensitivity to feeling,” positive involvement,
“shared decision making,” “consistent enforcement of discipline,” and “control through
positive discipline.” Negative parenting style categories included: “Detachment,”
“intrusiveness,” “lax enforcement of discipline,” inconsistent enforcement of discipline,”
“control through anxiety,” “control through guilt,” “control through hostility,” and
‘inthdrawal of relationship.”

Three items were included for each of the eight positive and eight negative
parenting styles. For example, responses to: a) “I explain to him/her why he/she is being
punished;” b) “I set limits for activities to help him/her stay out of trouble;” and c) “I let
him/her express his/her feelings about being punished or restricted;” were summed and
divided by three to indicate “control through positive discipline.” The parent was asked
to decide how often the specific parental style/mteraction occurred with their child(ren) in

general in the last month using a Likert scale fi'om 1 (always) to 7 (never). High scores

on the 8 socially desirable/positive categories (and low scores on the undesirable/negative

25

categories) revealed a positive or socially desirable parenting style whereas low scores on
desirable categories and (high scores on undesirable categories) indicated a negative
parenting style. As far as overall reliability, test-retest and inter-item correlations within
and between categories were performed. The reliability and validity of the instrument
were established but not reported (Dibble & Cohen, 1974). Dibble and Cohen (1974)
found that total scores (total positive and/or total negative scores) were less sensitive and
not as useful as category scores (comparing individual behaviors with overall
positive/desirable or negative/undesirable parenting style). Reliabilities, individually and
categorically, were established for this group of subjects.

The results of type of family system and parenting style using the above
instruments allowed for further correlational examination.

RESULTS

Demmnhiss

Demographics revealed a fairly homogenous group of 48 respondents primarily
residing in Detroit (N=15), Chicago (N=12), Lansing (N=9) and Ann Arbor (N=7).
(Table 2) Two respondents have relocated to the East Coast (New York and Virginia).
The mean age of the working professional women responding was 45.7 years, with 98%
between ages 39-47 (N=47). Married women composed 92% (N=44) of the sample with
four divorcees/single women. Average number of years married was 17.3.

There were 96 children among the 48 respondents. The sex of the children was
fairly evenly distributed: females (N=53) and males (N=43). Sixteen (33%) were only

children and 43% (N=21) had one sibling (two children in the family). (See Table 3 for

26

further descriptions of children.) The mean age for children was 11.9 years. The two
largest age groups of children were 12-13 year olds (N=23) and 14-15 year olds (N=20);
43% of the children were between 12 and 15 years old; 47% were teenagers (13-19 year
olds). Sixty-nine percent of respondents (N=33) reported at least one teenager in the
family; this percentage increased to 85% (N=41) when the pre-teen age of 12 was also
included. The high percentage of teens is especially salient to note in view of the fact that
parents traditionally find teen years present unique and oflen diflicult challenges. Of the
sixty-nine percent, nine respondents reported two teens, and one respondent indicated

three teens in the family.

Table 2: Demographics

N=48 Mean SD. Range
Respondent’s age (in years) 45.7 4.5 35-54
35 1 (2%)
39 5 (10%)
40-43 7 (15%)
44-47 15 (32%)
48-50 16 (33%)
51-54 4 (8%)
Marital status
Married 44 (92%)
Divorced 4 (8%)
Years of marriage 17.3 5.1 3-27
3-10 3 (7%)
12-20 31 (71%)
21-27 10 (22%)
Number of children 96 1.98 1.9 1-5
Male 43 (45%)
Female 53 (55%)
Age of children (in years) 11.9 3.7 1-20
Hours worked (per week) 46.3 1 1.2 12-65
Family income (in $1000) 104.8 58.3 28-250.

27

Table 3: Children: Number per family, number of teens per family, and age distribution

Number of children per family (N =96)

1 16 (33%)

2 21 (43%)

3 8 (17%)

4 2 (4%)

5 1 (2%)
Number of teens (ages 13-19) (N=33)

per family

1 23 (70%)

2 9 (27%)

3 1 (3%)
Ages of children (in years)

1-7 10

8-9 16

10-11 14

12-13 23

14-15 20

16-17 8

18-20 5

Forty-two percent of respondents (N=20) identified themselves as professors and
teachers; nineteen respondents (39%) identified themselves as business
women/professionals having careers in banking (N=5), advertising (N=4), law (N=2),
medicine (N=3 ), and accounting (N=2). Varied other careers included oflice manager,
product managers, computer analyst, consultants, artist, speech pathologist and registered
nurse. Many of the respondents regarded themselves as both professor/teacher and
professional and labeled themselves interchangeably in these years since the original study
(1985). For this reason, occupation did not play a major factor in demographic analysis.
Only one respondent indicated she was no longer employed.

Employed hours worked ranged from 12 to 7 0 hours per week. The majority

28

(N=32, or 66%) worked 35-55 hours per week. Nineteen of the 48 respondents (3 9%)
reported working more than 50 hours per week. Mean number of hours worked per week
is 46.2.

Seventy percent of the 48 respondents have a masters degree or higher level of
education. The distribution was masters’ degree (N=12), PhD (N=16), JD (N=3) and
MD (N=3). Five respondents reported not having completed a bachelors’ degree. There
were two missing values.

Combined family income after taxes ranged between $75,000-85,000 (N=7) and
$90,000-100,000 (N=13). Nine respondents reported family income levels of $1 $0,000-
200,000 while four women reported incomes of less than $40,000. Ten percent of
respondents did not indicate level of income. Mean income was $104,810; this figure,
however, may be misleading due to the relatively large number of missing values, the
presence of single earner households, and one respondent’s exclusion of her husband’s
income fi'om the family income figure for unknown reasons.

Wanna:

In answer to the first research question concerning type of family system, or the
level of family cohesion and adaptability, perceived by the working professional woman,
58% (N=28) reported their families as “moderately-balanced” (score = 6.5-5). (Table 4)
Four families were classified as “extreme” (less cohesive/less adaptive with scores 2. 5-1)
while three families achieved “balanced” (more cohesive/more adaptive or scores of 7.5-7)

levels. The remaining respondents (N=13) reported “rrrid-range” with scores of 4.5-3.

29
Table 4: Type of Family System (N=48)

Mean SD. Variance Possible range Actual range

Cohesion
Raw 62.1 8.5 71.9 15-80 43-77
Category 5.0 1.6 2.5 1-8 2-8
Adaptability
Raw 47.9 5.9 34.7 15-70 46-54
Category 4.9 1.5 2.2 2-7 2-7
Family type (category) (N of families)
Balanced (category score 7.0-8.0) 3
Moderately balanced (category score 5.0-6.5) 28
Mid-Range (category score 3.0-4.5) 13
Extreme (category score 1.0-2.5) 4

General mid-range type of family system (“moderately balanced” and “mid-range”
categories with scores of 6.5-3 .0) as well as mid-range levels of cohesion and adaptability
are desired in that these levels are hypothesized to be most viable for healthy family
firnctioning (Olson, 1989).

Olson ( 1989) recommends analysis of the two components of family system
separately so that for example, a family that is both ‘Very connected” and “rigid” (opposite
ends of the cohesion and adaptability scoring tool) equates misleadingly to a “mid-range”
type of family system. Raw scores on both cohesion and adaptability were analyzed.
Olson (1989) suggests using raw scores to enhance correlations. Separately, the level of
cohesion most often reported is “connected” (54%, N=26) or raw scores of 60-70
(category scores of 65-50). (Table 5) The mean score was 62.1. Olson (1989)

considers raw scores 51-70 (“connected” and “separated” categories with scores 6.5-3.0)

30

as desirable mid-range values.

The most fi'equent level of adaptability was “flexible” (raw scores 46-54 or
category scores 6.0-5.0) with mean of 47.9. Again, raw scores 40-54 (“structur ” and
“flexible”or 6.0-3.0) are desired levels of adaptability according to Olson (1989).
Respondents were clearly on the upper limits of this desired level of adaptability.
Adaptability scores had less range (22) than did cohesion scores (range=34) with a

variance of 34.7 as compared to the variance of cohesion, 71.9.

Table 5: Levels of cohesion and adaptability

Cohesion level - Range (raw score)
Very connected 6 (13%) 71-77
Connected 26 (54%) 60-70
Separated 11 (23%) 51-58
Disengaged - 5 (10%) 43-50
Adaptability level
Very Flexible 6 (13%) 55-59
Flexible 25 (52%) 46-54
Structured 13 (27%) 40-45
Rigid 4 (8%) 37-38
Wham

The second research question asks, what is the parenting style of working
professional women? Overall, positive parenting style (summing eight positive behaviors
developed from three questions each) was more frequent than negative parenting style
(sum of eight negative behaviors of three questions each) with means 5.6 (representing
“frequently” to “almost always” for the positive behaviors), and 2.8 (representing “almost

never” to “seldom” for the negative behaviors), with possible range 1-7 (“never” to

...,

31

“always”). (Tables 6 and 7) However, in both cases, idiosyncratic spikes were evident,
particularly with negative parenting style in which the mode was significantly lower (2.0)
than the mean (2.8). Amato and Ochiltree (1986) showed large variances between and
within group subjects and likewise for this group of working professional women there

was some variation in positive and negative parenting style.

Table 6: Positive parenting style distribution scores (Possible range 1-7)
Parental style Mean SD. Actual Range
Child acceptance 6.35 .54 4.7-7.0
Positive involvement 6.12 .70 4.7-7.0
Child centeredness 6.00 .67 40-70
Control through positive 5.96 .86 3.0-7.0

discipline
Sensitive to feeling 5.38 .80 27-67
Acceptance of autonomy 5.38 .53 40-63
Shared decision-making 5.18 .66 4.0-7.0
Consistent enforcement 5.03 1.05 2.0-7.0
of discipline
Positive parenting (8 clusters 5.67 .50 4.3-6.7
combined, 3 items each)

Table 7: Negative parenting style distribution scores (Possible range 1-7)
Parenting style Mean SD. Actual Range
Intrusiveness 3 .23 l .00 1.7-5.7
Lax enforcement of 3.13 .81 1.0-5.0

discipline
Control through anxiety 3.04 .89 1.3-5.3
Detachment 2.73 .70 l.0-4.3
Control through hostility 2.65 .80 1.3-4.3
Control through guilt 2.64 1.0] 1.0-5.0
\Vrthdrawal 2. 1 1 .96 l.0-5.0
Negative parenting 2.78 .48 1.9-3.7

(8 clusters combined,
3 items each)

32

Another line of reasoning is that more meaningful data can be obtained fi'om
individual cluster scores (three questions about one aspect of parenting style) as suggested
by Dibble and Cohen (1974). As mentioned previously, individual reliabilities for positive
and negative parenting style and each cluster score were performed but not available
(Dibble & Cohen, 1974). Alphas were performed in the present study on each cluster
score with the appropriate summation category (eight parental behaviors) of either
positive or negative parenting style. Collectively, alphas for positive parenting style and
individual positive clusters were .86, and for negative parenting style and negative
clusters, .75.

For each individual parenting style question, scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00. The
value for each parenting cluster behavior was computed by finding the mean of the three
questions measuring each particular parenting behavior. Table 8 is a summary of means
for the various clusters as well as total positive and total negative parenting style mean
results. Individual positive parenting scores were higher than individual negative scores
(as well as summation category scores) indicating that women in this study were more apt
to employ positive parenting styles than negative styles. Range in negative parenting
scores was smaller (2.67-4.00) than scores for positive parenting (2.33-5.00) indicating
less quantitative variation in negative parenting style than positive parenting style.

A “child acceptance” level of 6.00 or greater (“almost always” to “always”) was

present for 40 of the 48 respondents (83%). The mean for this category (6.35) was
higher than any other category, positive or negative, indicating working professional

women had a high positive acceptance of their child. Issues of child acceptance by the

33

Table 8: Mean distribution of positive and negative parenting style
and individual parenting clusters

 

6..

 

 

 

0%

#0? O!
«53%
‘1:

(2* 0
:‘ifiazfl ‘

4;
’0'

e
”(a

34

parent was not immediately obvious in the current literature reviewed, but only suggested
as a more complicated piece of a two-way relationship, parent and child, in which “mutual
respect” is fostered (Elkind, 1994).

The next most fiequently occurring individual parenting style was “positive
involvement” with mean of 6.12. The relative importance of this characteristic is
surprising in view of the literature purporting 1:1 parent-child interaction (engagement)
may not be present in parent-adolescent relations (Demo, 1992).

The smallest mean (5.03) (5=“fiequently”) occurred for “consistent enforcement of
discipline.” Of all positive parenting behaviors, this behavior was still endorsed frequently
but it was most infrequent. The literature hints at inconsistencies on many parenting issues
among a variety of caregivers, maternal, paternal and supplemental (day care), but does
not single out consistent discipline as particularly important (Menaghan & Parcel, 1990).

“Control through positive discipline” scored 6.33-7.00 (“almost always” to
“always”) in 24 cases with mean of 5.96. This positive parenting behavior had the second
highest mode with ten respondents scoring 6.33. (Acceptance of child had a mode of
6.67 with 13 respondents.) This cluster group was one of the four most fi'equently
occurring behaviors.

The next most prevalent negative behaviors dealt with issues of discipline. “Lax
enforcement” and “inconsistent enforcement of discipline” were employed with relative
frequency but not nearly as frequently as its positive counterpart mentioned previously,
“consistent enforcement of discipline.” Twenty-four respondents (50%) reported “lax

enforcement” scores of 3.33-5.00 (between “half the time” and “fi'equently”) and 14

35

respondents (29%) reported the same values for “inconsistent enforcement of discipline.”

“Withdrawal of relationship” was the least frequently encountered negative
parenting style (N=38 for scores 1.-2.67, “never” to “seldom”). The working professional
women in this study were more apt to employ any, either positive or negative individual
behavior, than not to act/react to their children at all. It can be surmised from these
findings, that these women tend to confront rather than avoid child interactions.
Beams-annulus:

The third research question addresses the question, is the type of family system
(cohesive and adaptive) related to the style of parenting (positive or negative) in the
families of working professional mothers?

I E11 .I l . I . . .

Type of family system was positively correlated with positive parenting style
(r=.49, p=.00), in answer to the third research question. (Table 9) Cohesion (r=.58,
p=.00) and raw cohesion (r=.52, p=.00) showed stronger correlations with positive
parenting style than the combined type of family system (cohesion and adaptability). The
correlation between adaptability and positive parenting style was .23 but was not
significant (p=.10). It follows that in order to achieve a desirable overall general mid-
range type of family system (categories of moderately balanced and mid-range) with a
positive parenting style, emphasis should be placed on cohesion levels rather than the
adaptability capabilities within the family since cohesion was shown here to be the

statistically significant factor.

36

Table 9: Correlation of type of family system and positive parenting style

Type of family system Cohesion Adaptability

Parenting Style
Child acceptance .22 .30* .05
Child centeredness .38* .45" .18
Sensitive to feelings .35* .36* .21
Positive involvement .29* .30“ .17
Autonomy, acceptance .35* .21 .35*
Shared decisions .35* .24 .34“
Consistent discipline .24 .34* .02
Control through

positive discipline .48M .55" .19
Positive parenting

(all 8 clusters) .49" .52" .23

*p5.05. **p5.005.

Because correlations between type of family system and parenting style were
expected to vary with individual parenting behavior clusters as well as overall, individual
parenting behavior clusters (i.e., “child centeredness,” “acceptance of child”, etc.) were
also correlated with type of family system. The strongest correlation between type of
family system and an individual positive parenting cluster was “control through positive
discipline” (F48, p=.00). This individual positive cluster was also the most significant in

relation to cohesion (r=.59, p=.00). Fifty percent (N=24) of respondents ranked this
behavior as 6 or higher (“almost always” to “always”) and an additional 25% (N=12)
indicated they employed “control through positive discipline” “at least half the time.”
Nelson (1987) defines “positive discipline” as “firmness with dignity and respect,”
allowing for “limited choices and fi'eedom with order” (p. 12). According to Nelson

(1987), positive discipline encourages self-discipline, responsibility, cooperation and

37

problem-solving skills in children. The popularity of self-help parenting books promotes
parenting styles neither too permissive nor too punitive and which embrace “positive
discipline.” This finding in the present study reflects not only current parenting trends but
is a rrrirror to what Elkind (1994) terms the postmodern society in which human (both
adult and child) diversity is honored and universal principles arise out of consensus.

”I .H I“ .,.,;. I..." M . I.” f..-.,-.r..-., .i I m .. _ .: _I .I. I“

As stated previously, Olson (1989) states more meaningful statistics can be
obtained by exanrining the two components of family system type, cohesion and
adaptability. In addition to “control through positive discipline,” “child centeredness” was
positively correlated to cohesion (F50, p=.00) but not significantly with adaptability.
Consequently it is not surprising that “child centeredness” had a stronger correlation with
cohesion than type of family system (r=.38, p=.01). Thus it would behoove a family
desiring higher levels of cohesion alone to consider ways in which to enhance “child
centeredness.”

Only two individual positive parenting behaviors were significant in terms of
adaptability alone: “Acceptance of autonomy” (r=.35, p=.02) and “shared decision-
making” (r=.35, p=.02). Obviously, “ acceptance of autonomy” by mere definition was
not significant for cohesion by itself (p=. 10). “Shared decision-making” and cohesion also
were not significant (p=.11). These findings imply that either cohesion or adaptability
must be sacrificed for the other concept. A family only desiring higher levels of
adaptability might center their efl’orts on increasing these two individual parenting

behaviors.

38

I [ll .I l . . I

Type of family system and negative parenting style were negatively correlated
(F-.53, p=.00.) (Table 10) Therefore, families with more negative parenting styles will
be less apt to achieve general mid-range type of family system. All negative behavior
clusters collectively had a stronger negative correlation than any individual negative
behavior. The negative correlation between negative parenting style and type of family

system was slightly stronger (F-.53, p=.00) than the positive correlation between type of

family system and positive parenting style (F.49, p=.00).

 

In examination of the components of type of family system and negative parenting
style, stronger and more significant correlations were achieved with cohesion (F-.53,
p=.00) than adaptability (F-.37, p=.01). In other words, cohesion tapped the concept of

negative parenting style behavior more than did adaptability.

DISCUSSION
To summarize, the study showed that indeed 37 or 77.1% of respondents had
balanced levels of cohesion (raw scores 51-70) and a slightly higher number, 38 or 79.2%
(raw scores 40-54) of respondents professed to balanced levels of adaptability. The
constructs together indicate that 41 (85.4%) of respondents did indwd exhibit an overall
general mid-range type of family system (mid-range and moderately balanced categories,

scores 3-4 and 5-6).

39

Table 10: Correlation of type of family system and negative parenting style

Type of family system Cohesion Adaptability

Parenting style

Control through -.35* -.23 -.39*
hostility

Detachment -.45** -.65** -. 1 1

Inconsistent -.43** -.52** -. 18
enforcement of discipline

Intrusiveness .04 .08 -.01

Lax enforcement -.25 -.39** -.01
of discipline

Control-anxiety -.1 l -.07 -. l 1

Control-guilt -.45** -.35* -.45"

Withdrawal -.44** -.39** -.34*

Negative parenting -.53** -.53** -.37*
(all 8 clusters)

*ps.05. Mpsoos.

Positive parenting style was also reported more than negative parenting style.
Positive parenting style was positively related to type of family system. Type of family
system was inversely related to negative parenting style. Both positive and negative
parenting styles were more related to cohesion than adaptability. Since cohesion is
defined as “emotional bonding,” it follows that this element would be more related to
positive and negative parenting styles.

Amman:

The study assumes families, at least from the working mothers’ perspective, report

a nrid-range type of family system with balanced amounts of cohesion (emotional

attachment) and adaptability (ability to change its interaction patterns in response to

40

situational or developmental stress). It is assumed that the respondents have a clear
understanding of what the research tools’ questions ask. Self reports of parenting
behaviors are treated as accurate assessments in view of the fact these women may tend to
under-estirnate their parenting capabilities, or be prone to feelings of guilt.

Although Dibble and Cohen’s (1974) tool is twenty three years old, it is assumed
that it still accurately reflects socially acceptable (positive) and socially unacceptable
(negative) parenting styles by today’s standards.

I . . .

The study is limited by the relatively small sample size although the response rate
of 86% for this subsample was high. The generalizability is confined to the similar
demographics of the subjects.

Dibble and Cohen (1974) pose the assumption that “mom” is the irnplementer of
behaviors necessary to accommodate the needs of the child when in fact “dad” may be
orchestrator. To increase the validity of their responses, questionnaires (the same or
similar tools used in this study) could possibly be completed by fathers and/or the children.
The present study is limited in that only the mothers responded, and they may accurately
report parenting from only one perspective.

The age of the tools employed in this study bear mention. FACES II (1989) has
been updated (FACES III, 1991), however alpha reliability and validity remain higher with
FACES 11, now an eight year old instrument.

W

The results of this study support existing research on the importance of rrrid-range,

41

balanced families in terms of cohesion and adaptability and the constituents of positive and
negative parenting. This research strengthens the argument for the conceptual framework
based on Steinhauer (1983) which identifies the interdependence of society, the family as a
unit (type of family system) and individual family members, particularly, the working
professional mother as the maternal subsystem. This employed mother is a mixture of past
and present history resulting in her unique parenting style.

According to Elkind (1994), postmodern children are often left without the “social
envelope” of security and protection that shielded earlier generations. Regarding a
particular individual parenting behavior cluster, the fond parental response of earlier
generations, “Because I said sol,” (authoritarian rule) is no longer in vogue. “Control
through positive discipline,” the most prominent individual parenting behavior in this
study, allows children to equip themselves in a society that emphasizes self-reliance, self-
realization and self-determination.

Implications for APN

Most obviously, FACES II (Olson, 1989) and Parents’ Report (Dibble & Cohen,
1974) have implications for identifying strong and weak areas for a particular parent
and/or for a particular family in terms of improving family life. The APN could administer
FACES II to all family members and Parents’ Report to parents and other significant
parenting figures in order to assess family function and parenting style, thereby facilitating
communication between parents and children/young adults. Reflection alone may be
helpful. Families may wish to temper their levels of cohesion or adaptability based on

levels which exceed the mid-range. Families with low levels of cohesion and adaptability

42

can seek out ways to enhance levels to the point of mid-range. Ways to enhance levels
may best be achieved by reflecting on answers to the individual questions. Responses
reporting “almost never” to “once in a while” would perhaps be more important to assess
for those behaviors which are desirable at levels “always” or “almost always.”

The assessment tools are particularly suited for administration in a primary care
setting in that results can be used for health promotion and prevention as well as
treatment, or at least direction, for treating an already existing family dysfunction or
parenting dificulty. There is no cost for administration and tools may be utilized as a
“homework” assignment given oflice/clinic time limitations.

This research can give reassurance to the working professional mothers involved in
this study that they are doing a “good” job, as well as put to rest society’s fear that
children today lack parental direction, or that the majority of postmodern families are
imbalanced. The APN as client advocate needs to communicate and positively reinforce
positive parenting behaviors observed or related to her/him. As well, the APN must
reassure mothers that no one can be the perfect parent or have the perfect family.

In this era of self-care and with APN guidance, families can discover effective and
unique ways to enhance family relations in terms of cohesion and adaptability. The APN
as consultant can help identify strengths, barriers, needs and competencies within families.
As facilitator, the APN can help set short and long term goals, promote a climate
supportive for change, and assist with steps for change in family relations. The APN
might encourage regular family meetings without her/his presence as a way of family

members communicating their goals, individually and as a family.

43

The APN as educator and client advocate, can coordinate groups for teens and
parents to explore together ways in which parent-child relations can be enhanced through
the use of these tools. Videos exemplifying positive parenting style could be developed
and distributed through parent education classes. As evaluator, the APN in primary care
can help mothers identify what is and what isn’t effective in terms of parenting, and give
voice to perceived susceptibility to already identifiable at-risk situations. .

The current era of self-help requires many publications for self-study, not only for
the APN in practice, but also for the average parent in terms of comprehension and client

responsibility. Available in May, 1997 is We:
inmmmlemmrld which claims to demonstrate ways to “fight entropy” and “take

charge of family life.” Also newly released is W
W, touted as a self-help publication which identifies myths, faulty professional
advice, cultural expectations and irrational thinking that result in parents’ ineffectual child
rearing. Having these books available in the waiting room as well as providing a

recommended parenting/family function booklist would provide firrther direction for

parents.
Lansing heralds a new quarterly publication in April, 1997, W

magazine. Editor K. Farrell views families as important and sees the magazine’s purpose
as doing something that will help bring families together (Douglas, 1997). Local APNs in
family practice (and graduate students completing research on family firnction) should
consider sharing their findings with the general public via such publications as well as

making such publications readily available to their clients. Perhaps a monthly feature

44

could spotlight an example of a mid-range family and positive parenting encountered in the
APN’s practice.

As a final step in this study, the author will submit a copy of the thesis to Olson
(1989) per request to add to the meta-analysis of type of family system research.
Eututatesearclr

Olson (1989) posits that cohesion and adaptability are the sole determinants of
mid-range balance function. Further research is needed to substantiate these determinants
or introduce other suitable factors contributing to family balance.

One of the remaining unanswered questions is: “What do children and parents
want/need?” Do children want to see parents as powerful, authoritarian figures? Do
parents prefer children to remain independent? How can parents judge where to draw the
line and decide how much involvement, time-wise and discipline-wise, to give children?
Development of a self-report measure for teens, in particular, to record desire for control
over various family and individual functions may help families to more fully understand
their type of family system. Discussing teen responses with teen and parent may possibly
help them understand their type of family system.

Further research should be aimed at methods as to how one enhances cohesion
and adaptability in families. Should limits be placed on amounts of time spent in fiont of
the t.v.? Should family meals together be “required,” and if so what are the criteria?
How can children deal with societal pressures from peers, and parents?

Perhaps the most crucial question to be addressed by the APN as change agent is,

what are the child outcomes we, as a society, wish? Are there any characteristics which

45

we can agree on? Perhaps arrival at the general can be possible by attention to the
specific. One might also consider, either through self-analysis or with guidance of the
APN, whether a parent is more focused on family type (cohesion and adaptability of all
family members) or parenting style (positive or negative), or a little of both. This focus
may be determined by examining individual parenting behavior clusters for strength of
correlation with cohesion, adaptability and the positive or negative parenting style. A
firture direction for research would be to examine farnily-focused (adapting to needs of all
family members equally) and child-focused families (“child centeredness”) and decide what
is the balance.
Censlusiorr

It is hoped that this current study has helped define the family in terms of cohesion,
adaptability and parenting style. Parenting moments are only one of many in a series of
events that either promote, defer or prohibit family overall mid-range function. \Vrth
children, these moments contribute to their well-being or the opposite-- the development
of detrimental attitudes and poor social integration. In a democratic society, it is the job
of everyone to continually clarify the approaches which lead to effective parenting,

reinforcing these behaviors among ourselves, parents and children.

REFERENCES
Alwin, D.F . (1990). Cohort replacement and changes in parental socialization

values. We 52, (4), 347-360.

Amato, P.R., & Ochiltree, G. (1986). Family resources and the development of
child competence. Wilt, 48, (2), 47-56.

Anderson, K. E., Lytton, H., & Romney, D.M. (1986). Mothers’ interaction with
normal and conduct-disordered boys: Who afl‘ects whom? Wm, 22,
604-609.

Barber, B.K., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Difl‘erent
constructs, difl’erent efl‘ects. MW, 58,, (5), 433-441.

Barling, J ., & VanBart, D. (1984). Mothers’ subjective employment experiences
and the behavior of their nursery school children. Wm, 51,
(1), 49-56.

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in
children. M, 2, (3), 239-276.

Belsky , J. (1990). Parental and nonparental child care and children’s
socioemotional development: A decade in review. WM 52,
(11), 885-903.

Bilfulco, A.T., Brown, G.W., & Harris, TO. (1987). Childhood loss of parent,

lack of adequate parental care and adult depression: a replication. Journal of Aflectixe

121mm, 12, (2), 115-128.

46

47

Borcherdt, B. (1996). WWW NY:

Haworth.
Bryant, W.K. (1992). Human capital, time use and other family behavior. Journal

niEamihLandfiacnnmielssnes 13(4), 395-405.

Bryant, W.K., & Zick, CD. (1996). An examination of parent-child shared time.

loumalntManiaseandrheEamilx it, (2), 227-237.

Bugental, D.B., Blue, 1., & Cruzcosa, M. (1989). Perceived control over
caregiving outcomes: Implications for child abuse. Qeyelgpmemalfimholggy, 25, 532-
539.

Demo, DH. (1992). Parent-child relations: Assessing recent changes. .ImrmaLgf
Mammanmefiamilx, 5.4., (2), 104-117.

Dibble, E., & Cohen, .DJ. (1974). Companion instruments for measuring children’s
competence and parental style. Amhiyes QfGeneral Psychiatry, 3_Q, (6), 805-815).

Dohefly, W. (1997). WWW
Wrist. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longrnan.

Dombusch, S.M., Ritter, P. L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D.F., & Fraleiglr, M.J.

(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child

mm. 58, (5), 1244-1257.
Douglas, K. (1/23/97). Focus on family. WW. Lansing, MI.
Elkind, D- (1994). WWW Cambn'dsei Harvard

University.

48

Garbarino, J ., Sebes, J ., & Schellenbach, C. (1984). Families at risk for destructive
parent-child relations in adolescence. Chfldllexelnpment, 55, 174-183.

Harnpson, RB, Hulgus, Y.F., & Beavers, W.R. (1991). Comparisons of self-report
measures of the Beavers’ systems model and Olson’s circumplex model. My
M21022, 4, (3), 326-340.

Henry, C.S., Sager, D.W., & Plunkett, SW. (1996). Adolescents’ perceptions of
family system characteristics, parent-adolescent dyadic behaviors, adolescent qualities, and

adolescent apathy. WM, 45, (3), 283-292.
Hill, CR, & Stafford, PP. (1985). Time dairy estimates of quantity, predictability,

and variety. In F.T. Juster & F.P. Stafl‘ord (Eds), WM. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.

Hofl‘man, L.W. (1989). Efl‘ects of maternal employment in the two-parent family.
Ameficanksmhnlnsist 44. (2), 283-292.

LaRossa, R (1988). Fatherhood and social change. W, 31, (11), 451-
457.

Leibowitz, A (1974). Home investments in children. WWW
82,(3),111-131.

McCubbin, H., Thompson, A, Pimer, P., & McCubbin, M. (1987). Emma
“WW. Minneapolis: Burgess.

McFarlane, A.H., Bellissirno, A., & Norman, GR. (1994). Family structure, family

firnctioning and adolescent well-being: The transcendent influence of parental style. Journal

WM 3.6, (5), 847-864.

49
Menaghan, E.G., & Parcel, TL. (1990). Parental employment and family life:
Research in the 19803. W, 52, (4), 1079-1098.

Nelson, J. (1987). Walla; NY: Random House.

Nock, S.L., & Kingston, PW. (1988). Time with children: The impact of couples’
work-time commitments. 8mm, 61, (1), 59-85.

Olson, D.H., Bell, R., & Portner, J. (1989). FACES H. Department of family social
science. St. Paul: University of Minnesota.

Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D.H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital
and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types and clinical
applications. Eamflyfimss, L8, (3), 3-29.

. (1983). Circumplex model of marital

 

and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Eamily Ems, 22, (3), 69-83.

Otto, LB. (1988). America’s youth: A changing profile. Family Belgians, 31, (10),
385-391.

Rodich, J.D., Henggler, S.W., & C.L. Hanson. (1986). An evaluation of the family
adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales and the circumplex model. humalgflAbngnml
Qhfldlsyshnlm, 1.4., (1), 77-37-

Schor, EL. (1995). The influence of families on child health: Family behaviors and

child outcomes. Eediatfieflh’nimflflnnhAmenca, 42, (2), 89-102.
Smilkstein, G. (1978). The family APGAR: A proposal for a family function test and

its use by Physicians. laumalnffiamilrtfitastise 6, (6), 1231-1239.

50

Spitze, G. (1988). Women’s employment and family relations: A review. W
Martiaseandrheliamfly, 59, (3), 595-618.

Steinberg, L., Elrnen, J .D., & Mounts, NS. (1989). Authoritative parenting,
psychosocial maturity and academic success among adolescents. Childfleyelepment, 50, (6),
1424-1436.

Steinhauer, PD. (1985). Beyond family therapy: Toward a systemic and integrated
view. EsrLthatnsLhnimenhAmefisa 8, (4), 923-945.

Steinhauer, PD. and Dickrnan, D. (1983). Baehelegieal emblems efl the ehild in the
famfly. NY: Basic Books.

Steinhauer, P.D., & Tisdall, G.W. (1984). The integrated use of individual and family
psychotherapy. Canadian leutnal nstyshiatnr, 22, (2), 89-97.

Tiedje, LB. (1985). Role conflict study of working professional mothers. Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University.

Whitechurch, G.G., & Constantine, LL. (1993). Systems theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds), WW
WWW N.Y: Plenum.

Whiteside-Mansell, L., Pope, S.K., & Bradley, RH. (1996). Patterns of parenting

behavior in young mothers. EamflyRelatiQns, 45, (3), 273-281.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

FACES H: Family Version
David Olson, Joyce Partner and Richard Bell

1 2 3 4 5
Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always
Describe your family:

1. Family members are supportive of each other during dificult times.

2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion.

3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other
family members.

4. Each family member has input regarding major family decisions.

5. Our family gathers together in the same room.

6. Children have a say in their discipline.

7. Our family does things together.

8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions.

9. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way.

10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person.

11. Family members know each other’s close friends.

12. It is hard to lmow what the rules are in our family.

13. Family members consult other family members on personal decisions.

14. Family members say what they want.

15. We have difi‘reulty thinking ofthings to do as a family.

16. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed.

17. Family members feel very close to each other.

18. Discipline is fair in our family.

19. Family members feel closer to people outside the family than to other family

members.

20. Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.

21. Family members go along with what the family decides to do.

22. In our family, everyone shares responsibility.

23. Family members like to spend their fiee time with each other.

24. It is dificult to get a rule changed in our family.

25. Family members avoid each other at home.

26. When problems arise, we compromise.

27. We approve of each other’s friends.

28. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds.

29. Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family.

30. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other.

51

APPENDIX B

 

 

 

NegativechociallyUndesinble BehavionflyDescr-iptiveltems
Variables -

Detachmart 25.1forgetthingsheshehntoldme.
26.1prefergoingplacesanddoingthirrpwithomhirn/her.
27.1mmofwhathe/shethinksorfeels.

Intrusiveness 28.1ukotberswhnthelshedoeswhilehe/sheism'qumme.
29.1checkonwhathelsheisdoingandwbcmbe/sheisseeing

alldnringtheday.
30.1getangryabouttbelin1ethinphelshedoea

Inenforeementofdiseipline 11111me.
32.1allomhingstobeleftundcne.
33.11amyaeII'betalkedoutofthinga

Inernuisterrtenfcreernentof 34.1forgetru1esthathlvebeamade.

discipline 35.1enforeemlesdependinguponmymood. '

36.1mm

 

Controltln'oughnxiety

37.1mhimdreraboutfetuepuidmentstoprevarthimher
ficmactingbadly.

38.1keeprunindinghirniherofputbehlvicr.

39.11e11hirnlherthatlwonyabonthcwhelshewillmout
becauseofhislha'badbeluvior.

 

Connolfln'oughgnilt

40.11ethirnlherhcwthatlf’eellrnnifhelshedoanotdowhat
be/sheistold.

41.11ethimlherknowdllhvedcneforh'mlberwhenlwant
hindbertoobey.

42.11amfnerknowthatifbe/fiemllyemed.helshe
wouldn’tdothingstoesnsemetowary.

 

Controlthmughhostility

43.13peekinutrcngwayinordatomchhimlhahowto
behave

44.1me
45.110semytemperwheabeldredcesnotdouluk.

 

Withdrawal of relationship

46.1midtalkingtohimlherwhenlmdinppoirnedin
him/her.

47.1woidlockingatlrimlhcwhen1amdisappointedir
m.

«.Iwmwfimbdngwihmychfldwbahelshedispm
me.

53

APPENDIX C

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

October 16. 1996

 

ro: Susan A. Robinson
407 Park Meadows
Lansing. MI 40917

RE: IRBI: 96-624

TITLE: TYPE OF FAMILY SYSTEM AND PARENTING STYLE OP
HORKING PROFESSIONAL MOTHERS

REVISION REQUESTED: N/A

CATEGORY: l-C

APPROVAL DATE: 10/16/96

The University Committee on Research Involving human Subjecte'IUCRIfiSI
review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to edvrse that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately

rotected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate.
Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project and any revreaone listed
above.

 

RINIWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project beyond one year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e original I revel letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek te certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedit renewals possible. Investigators
wishing to continue a roject beyond that tame need to submit it
egern or complete ew.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review changes in roceduree involving human
subjects, rior to ' tietron of e change. If than is done at
the time o renewal. please use the reen renewalIform.
revise an approved protocol at an 0 er tame during the year
send your written request to the. IRS Chair. requesting revised
approval and referencing the project's ran 8 and title. Include
in your request a description of theIchange and any revised
instruments. consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS]
cannons: Should either of the following arise during the course of the
work. investigators must not: UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effects. comp ernts, etc.) involving uman
subjects or 521 changes in the research envrronment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human '::3°Ct' than
exrsted when the protocol was previously reviewed approved.

f we can be of any future hel , lease do not hesitate to contact us
t (517)355-2180 or FAX (51714 2- l71.

LI"

I
I

' cerel

   

 

vid 8. Hrigh .D.
UCRIHS Chair
DBfl:bed

cc: Linda Beth Tiedje

54

APPENDIX D

UNIVERSITY or MINNESOTA

 

- ' :00 "(Neal Noll
TwisCflesClflN -""'"'"""'“""“ ms UdofdAvnu-c
Collar tiff-MW 3;. Paul. us}: 108

612-625-7250
F at: 6!: 425422 7

PERMISSION TO USE FAMILY INVENTORIES

I am pleased to give you permission to use the instruments included in Family
Inventories. You have my permission to duplicate these materials for your clinical work.
teaching. or research project. You can either duplicate the materials directly from the
manual or have them retyped for use in a new format. If they are retyped.
acknowledgements should be given regarding. the name of the instrument. developers'
names. and the University of Minnesota.

If you are planning to use FlLE. A-FILE. and F-COPES. you need to obtain
separate permission from Dr. Hamilton McCuben. His address is 1300 Linden Drive.
University of Wisconsin. Madison. WI 53706.

Separate permission is also required to use the ENRICH inventory in either
clinical work or research. This is because the inventory is computer scored and is
distributed through the PREPARE/ENRICH office. Contact Dr. David Olson at
PREPARE/ENRICH. P.0. Box 190. Minneapolis. MN 55458.

In exchange for providing this permission. we would appreciate a copy of any
papers. thesis. or reports that you complete using these inventories. This will help
us in staying abreast of the most recent development and research with these scales.
Thank you for your cooperation.

In closing. I hope you find the Family Inventories of value in your work with
couples and families. I would appreciate feedback regarding how these instruments are
used and how well they are working for you.

Sincerely

lrm

David H. Olson. PhD.
Professor

FAMILY INVENTORIB PROJECT (PIP)
Dinner.- Dan’flf. Olsen. ”.0.

55

APPENDIX E

October 12. 1996

Dear Role Conflict Correspondent:

I am a graduate nursing student working with Linda Beth Tiedje and am studying
for my masters in nursing/family nurse practitioner. From a personal stance, I am
a “breadwinner” in a dual career family (working, and now going to school) and a
mother of two school-age children, certainly grounds for role conflict!

My masters thesis is concerned with family flinction and parenting styles of
working professional women. You are one of 54 respondents specially selected
fi'om the Summer 1996 questionnaire of the role conflict study who mentioned
children in their recent major life changes/events. The questionnaire 1 am mailing
can be completed within 20-30 mimttes. The data will be used for my master’s
thesisandwiflconm’btnemfimilymnsingreseamhinthepfimarycaresetfing. All
information will be kept completely confidential. Your participation is completely
voluntaryand youmayrefitsetoansweranyparticularquestion.
PleaserennntheenclosedquestionnairebyNovember 1, I996. Wewillaward the
firstten respondentsfienhatmbybavidfilldnd. Thebookhaspersonally
andprofessionallygivenmenewinsightsintofimilyliving. lfyou haveany
questions. the contact person is Sue Robinson. (517)-321-5295.

Please lmowhowvetymuchweappreciateyouroooperation!

Sincerely,

sue Robinson, KN, B.S.N.

ucnms APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

OCT 1 6 1997

SUBMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION ’
one MONTH man To
ABOVE DATE TO com-mus

56

"IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII