MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

“33,3155 remove this checkout from
.—_ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beIow.
kin ’
i I 0,9514!

9’31“ 1995

 

 

COMPARISON OF FATHERS, AND MOTHERS, SPEECH TO THEIR

PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

BY

Carla Leddy Barnes

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1986

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF FATHERS' AND MOTHERS’ SPEECH TO THEIR
PRESCHOOL CHILDREN

BY

Carla Leddy Barnes

This study examined fathers' and mothers' speech to
their preschoolers tx> determine whether fathers'
contributions to their children’s language learning was
different from mothersfl Some researchers have suggested
that mothers, compared to fathers, are warmer and more
sensitive; they provide greater linguistic support for
their children by adjusting their speech to the childrenfs
abilities as well as by asking questions that their
children can answer with a minimum of effort. By way of
contrast, fathers have been thought to be less sensitive to
their childrenfs language abilities; they have been viewed
as making greater demands upon their children by asking
difficult questions thereby raising their children's
performance. It is also thought that the type of questions
that parents ask of their children may be of particular
importance in the development of representational thinking.
Sigel has hypothesized that parents use distancing
strategies (special verbal behaviors) to advance their
children's development of representational thought. His
three levels of distancing strategies were used in this

study to assess the cognitive demands of parents'

questions.

Sixteen families participated in the study. The
children were divided into two groups: 4 boys and 4Igirls
with a mean age of 2 1/2 years; and 4 boys and 4 girls with
a mean age of 3 l/2 years. Each parent-child dyad was
audio- and video-taped in their home for a maximum of 30
minutes while playing with play-doh and looking at a
picture book.

The results provided no evidence to suggest that
mothers were warmer and more sensitive to their children
than were fathers. Nor was there evidence to suggest that
the questions asked by fathers placed greater cognitive
demands upon the Children than didtfluequestions asked by
mothers. It was found, however, that the sex of the child
influenced the warmth and sensitivity responses; mothers
and fathers of daughters exhibited greater warmth and
sensitivity than did the mothers and fathers of sons. The
results of this study also indicated that mothers and
fathers were equally demanding of their children; the
frequency of their use of all levels of distancing
strategies was comparable. Furthermore, it was found that
the task in which the dyad was engaged influenced the
frequency vdxfli which various levels of distancing

strategies were used.

THIS DISSERTATION IS DEDICATED TO

MY HUSBAND

PATRICK DWYER BARNES

AND

TO THE MEMORY OF MY MOTHER

MARY KOPCHAK LEDDY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank the members of my dissertation
committee,Inu Hiram Fitzgerald, Dr.Efllen Strommen, Dr.
Raymond Frankmann, and Dr. Blaine Donelson, for the
guidance they gave me while conducting this research. A
special thank you goes to Hi who served as the chairperson
of my dissertation committeeauuias my academic advisor.
Throughout my doctoral education Hi was my mentor and
friend.

I want to thank the directors and boards of the
following day care centers for their cooperation in the
recruitment of families for this study: Eastminster Day
Care Center, Little Peoples Day Care Center, Michigan Early
Childhood Center, and Spartan Child Care Center.

A very special thank you goes to the families who
participated in my study. All of the families graciously
welcomed me and my video-equipment into their homes. It
was a great experience; I had an marvelous time!

Several people helped transcribe the audiotapes and
code the data. I am grateful for the able assistance of
Julie Barnhart, Suzanne Cox, Mark Doane, Jill Haar, Judith
Martens, Amy Mondelli, Rita Simmons and Kathy Starr.

A final and heart-felt thank you goes to my family.
This study as well as the completion of the doctoral
program was made possible because of the sustained support,

encouragement, and love given to me by my husband Pat.

ii

Without his cooperation and assistance my dream would not
have become a reality. My beautiful children, Michael and

Jendy, were supportive and helpful in their own way.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ x
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1
Statement of the problem .................... 1
Review of the literature .................... 3
Frequency of verbalizations ............... 3
Use of imperatives.... ................. ..10
Use of negative commands ................. 14
Use of diverse vocabulary.. ........... ...15
Use of interrogatives .................... 16
Theoretical issues ......................... l9
Hypotheses ................................. 23
II. METHOD ....................................... 25
Subjects ................................... 25
Procedure .................................. 26
Tasks. ..................................... 26
Statistical analysis ..................... ..28
Measures.............. ..................... 29

Conversational measures and

reliablities......... ................... .31
Time length of task .................... 31
Number of Utterances...................3l
Mean length of utterance ....... ........31
Mean length of conversational turn.....32
Utterances per minute .................. 32

Type of Sentence.. ....................... 32
Declaratives... ...... ... ............. ..33

Direct statement ................... ”33
Repetition ........................... 33
Yes/no. .............................. 33

iv

Interrogatives. ....................... .34

Yes/no ...... ...... ................ ...34
Wh/questions.......... ............... 34
Repetition questions .............. ...34
Tag questions.......... ........... ...34
Indirect questions... ................ 35
Occasional questions.. ............... 35
Test questions....... ................ 35
Imperatives.. .......................... 35
Exclamations ........................... 36
Distancing strategies .................... 36
Warmth and sensitivity ................... 38
Child engagement ......................... 40
III. RESULTS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000 000000 000000042
Father—child interactions .................. 42
Interrogatives.......... ............... ..43
Declaratives, Imperatives
and exclamations...... ................... 46
Interrogative subtypes ................... 47
Yes/no questions.. .................. ...47
Wh/questions..... ................... ...48
Repetitions000000000 000000000000 000000048
Tag questions...... ....... .............48
Indirect questions .................. ...48
Test questions..... ................. ...48
Declarative subtypes ................... ..49
Yes/no statement.... ................. ..49
Distancing strategies .................... 49
Mother-child interactions .................. 52
Warmth and sensitivity ................... 52
Child engagement... ................... ...53
Child age and sex .......................... 56
Additional measures of parent—child
interactions ........ . ..... ....... .......... 58
Length of interaction time.. .......... ...59
Parent MLUSO000000000000000000 00000000 00059
Child utterances per minute ............ ..59
Parent utterances per minute ........... ..59

Parent conversational turns

per minute.... ...... . .................... 59
Child conversational turns

per minute ............................... 60
Child and parent MLTs .................... 6O
Descriptive analysis ..................... 60
First utterance.. ... .............. 60

Content of parental first
utterance ...... . . ..................... 61
Termination of activity ............... .62
Summary .................................. 63
IV. DISCUSSION ................................... 6S
Contribution of task ....................... 65
Sex of child ...... .. ....................... 70
Warmth and sensitivity..... .............. 70
Tag questions .......... . ............... ..71
MLTs and utterances per minute ........... 72
Age of child ............................... 72
MLUs and questions ....................... 72
Distancing strategies ...................... 73
Type of sentence .......................... .75
Declaratives ........................... ..75
Interrogatives .......................... .76
Imperatives... ........................... 77
Child engagement ........................... 78
Summary .................................... 79

APPENDICES
Appendix

A. Recruitment letter ............................. 82
B. Consent form......... ......... . ................ 83
C. Transcription and editing guidelines .......... .84

D. Scoring instructions and forms for
conversational measures......... ............... 89

E. Scoring instructions and form for

types of sentence ..... ...... . ................. 95

vi

F. Scoring instructions and form for
parental distancing strategies.........

G. Scoring instructions and forms for
warmth and sensitivity measures.........

H. Scoring instructions and form for
child engagement measures...............

I. Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,
Evalue table80000.00000000000000000000

REFERENCES ............. . ................ .. ...... ..

vii

.100

.107

.109

.112

.123

Table

10.

11.

I-l.

I-2.

I-3.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Percent of sentence types used by fathers and
mothers during both tasks combined... ............. 43
Percent of sentence types used by fathers and
mothers during the play-doh and picture book
activities ....... . ..................... . .......... 44
Percent of low, medium, and high level
distancing strategies used by
fathers and mothers ........ . ...................... 50

Percent of levels of distancing strategies used
by fathers and mothers with their daughters
and sons .......................................... 51

Percent of low, medium, and high level distancing
strategies used by fathers and mothers during
each activity ..................................... 52

Percent of child engagement responses during
play-dob and picture book tasks........... ........ 54

Percent of nonengagement response by sons
and daughters during each task........ ............ 55

Percent of levels of distancing strategies
received by older and younger children ............ 57

Percent of child engagement responses by old and
young children during both tasks .................. 58

Percent of type of parental first
utterance at each task.. .......................... 62

Percent of termination of play-doh and picture
book tasks ........................................ 62

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,

F values of sentence types: declaratives,
interrogatives, imperatives and

exclamations .................................... 112

Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,
F values of interrogative sub-types ............. 113

Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,
F values of declarative sub-types ............... 114

viii

I-8.

I-9.

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,

F values of levels of distancing strategies ..... 115

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,

F values of parent warmth and sensitivity ....... 116

Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,

F values of child engagement responses .......... 117

Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,
F values for child and parent mean length

of utterances..... ................. ...... ....... 118

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,
F values for length of interaction during

each task ..... ......................... ......... 119

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,
F values for child and parent utterances

per minute....................... ............... 120

Analysis of variance, repeated—measures,
F values for child and parent conversational

Burns per minute ............. . .................. 121

Analysis of variance, repeated-measures,
F values of child and parent mean

Iength of turn .............. . ................... 122

ix

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Percent of questions asked by fathers and
mothers of their sons and daughters.... ........... 45
Percent of questions asked of younger and older
daughters and younger and older sons during
the_play—doh and picture book tasks........ ....... 46
Mean ratings of parental warmth and parental
sensitivity toward daughters and sons ...... . ...... 53
Percent of no-time—to-respond to fathers and
mothers by young and old children........ ........ 55
Percent of passive engagement responses by
sons and daughters to their mothers and
fathers during each task .......................... 56

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Until recently developmental psychologists paid little
attention to fathers’ contributions to the development of
their children. Fathers were ignored largely because it
was thought that they played a less influential role than
mothers in child development; childcare and child
development were considered the domain of mothers (Lamb,
1975; Lynn, 1974; and Nash, 1976). Thus, hundreds of
research studies have focused on mother—child interactions
and relationships. In recent years, however, interest in
father-child interactions and relationships has become
increasingly evident (see Fitzgerald and McGreal, 1981; and
Parke, 1981). Investigations of paternal contributions in
specific areas of child development are not as infrequent
as once was the case. But in the area of language
acquisition there is a dearth of studies on fathers' speech
to their young children. ngreat deal is known about how
mothers talk to and interact with their young children;
much less is known about fathers' speech. Until recently,
it could be said that "parent" and "adult" were nearly

synonomous with "mother" and "woman" in the language

literature.

Paternal speech and verbal interaction with young
children is an area that needs to be further explored in
order to determine father's influence on children's
language learning. The question explored in this study is:
Do fathers make a specific contribution to children's
language development that is different from or comparable
to mothers’ contributions? In other words, are fathers and
mothers verbal interactions with their children different
or comparable? .In order to provide the background on which
this study is based, the following areas of parental speech
were examined: the frequency of verbalizations, frequency
of use of imperatives and negative commands, and use of a
diverse vocabulary as well as various kinds of

interrogatives.

Review of the Literature

Frequency of verbalizations

 

 

One of the first studies on fathers’speech to their
young children raised the question of how much fathers
actually talked to their infants. Rebelsky and Hanks
(1971)studiedli)fathers'vocalizationstxatheir infants
(7 boys and 3 girls) for three months. Beginning at 2
weeks and extending through 12 weeks of age a 24—hour
recording was made of each infant at two—week intervals.
It was found that fathers talked to their infants an
average of 37.7 seconds per day. Not only did fathers
spend little time vocalizing to their infants but all of
the fathers of female infants decreased their vocalizations
during the time period studied. Although this study has
not been replicated, later observational home studies
conducted by Field (1978) and Pedersen (1980) indicate that
fathers talk to their children considerably more than a few
seconds per day; moreover, the amount of paternal
vocalizations appears to depend upon the age of the child.

Studies that compared the frequency of parental speech
to their children in dyadic situations report that mothers
talk more than fathers to their infants: at 2 weeks to 3
months (Rebelsky and Hanks,1971), at 6 months (Landerholm
and Scriven, 1981) and at 8 months (Lamb, Frodi, Hwang,
Frodi and Steinberg, 1982).

Although the speech of mothers and fathers was not

compared in the Rebelsky and Hanks study, they did compare
the frequency of fathers’ speech in their sample with the
frequency of mothers' speech obtained in studies by other
researchers. The fathers in Rebelsky and Hanks’ study
indeed vocalized less tfluum mothers in other samples.
Contrary to Rebelsky and Hanks' findings, Parke and Sawin
(1980) found no differences between the amount of maternal
and paternal speech to their newborns through 3 months of
age. The method of data collection employed by Parke and
Sawin was quite different from that used by Rebelsky and
Hanks. Parke and Sawin observed parent-infant interactions
that were centered around specific tasks determined by
the researchers, whereas Rebelsky and Hanks attached
microphones to the baby’s clothing. Recording equipment
was then activated by the sound of human voices. In
support.of Rebelsky and Hanks, Parke and Sawin found that
fathers vocalized more to their sons than to their
daughters.

In the Landerholm and Scriven study (1981) mother's
social-verbal behaviors with their 6 month olds occurred
more frequently than father’s social-verbal behaviors.
Social-verbal behaviors were defined by nine variables,
four of which were nonverbal. Consequently, it is not
clear that the finding is significant because of the
frequency of verbal behaviors. It could well be that

nonverbal variables, particularly two—-smiled more at child

and smiled more in genera1—-accounted for the differences
between parents.

Lamb, Frodi, Hwang, Frodi, & Steinberg, (1982)
observed 51 Swedish couples with their 8—month-olds. A
vocalization was recorded each time a parent spoke to or
made vocal sounds directed to the child. Mothers’
vocalization behaviors occurred significantly more
frequently than did fathersfi

By way of contrast, Belsky (1980) observed forty 15-
month olds and their parents in a home study of parental
influence on infant exploratory competence and found that
mothers and fathers did not differ in their amount of
vocalizations. Other studies cu? mother-child and father-
child dyads found that fathers vocalized as much as mothers
when the children were 19-months old (Golinkoff and Ames,
1979), 24—months-old (Stoneman and Brody, 1981; Dalton-
Hummel, 1982; and Wilkinson, Hiebert, and Rembold, 1981),
30-months-old (Wilkinson, et al, 1981), and 36-months-old
(Malone and Guy, 1982). These findings support the notion
that fathers engage in as much verbal interaction with
their children as mothers but only when the children are
able to talk.

In a naturalistic study on paternal involvement with
their first borns, Rendina and Dickerscheid (1976) observed
40 fathers (in the presence of their wives) interacting
with their children. Each child was assigned to one of two

developmental levels: Level 1 included children, ranging

from 5- to 6— months of age, who neither walked nor talked,
while Level 2 included children, ranging from 11— to 15-
months of age, who walked alone and spoke understandable
words. Fathers of Level 2 children spoke significantly
more to their children than did fathers of Level 1
children. Although no mother-father comparisons were made,
this study lends support to the idea that fathers begin to
vocalize substantially moretx>their young children when
the children are capable of speaking comprehensible words;
until that time father's verbalizations are limited.
Golinkoff and Ames (1979) observed 6 boys and 6 girls,
aged 19 months, with their parents in a lab playroom. Each
child was observed in three 10-minute play situations:
(1) mother-father-child engaged hifree p1ay;(2) mother—
child engaged in structured play; and (3) father—child
engaged in structured play‘. The purpose of the study was
to compare free play vs structured play. In the structured
situation parents were instructed to teach their child how
to play with a complex toy. Only one difference emerged
between the mother-child and father-child dyads; parents of
sons took more conversational turns than parents of
daughters. (A conversational turn is defined as all
utterances of one speaker until the other person speaksJ
Using the same measures as Golinkoff and Ames (1979),
Stoneman and Brody (1981) observed eighteen 24—month—olds

(equally divided by sex) engaged in free play with their

parents. The purpose of their study was to compare parent-
child dyads with the family-triad, rather than tasks as had
Golinkoff and Ames. It was found that mothers addressed
more utterances to their daughters than to their sons. (An
utterance is defined as a word or string of words
identified by a pause or by grammatical completeness.
Quantity of speech is the total number of utterancesJ
While Stoneman and Brody found that fathers in their sample
did not talk more to their sons than daughters, they did
speak more utterances and took more conversational turns
with their sons than did mothers. This difference may have
been influenced by the children's ages, 24 months as
opposed to 19 months in Golinkoff and Ames, or by
differences in tasks and situations.

Malone and Guy (1982) observed ten 3-year-old boys in
their homes conversing separately with each parent. The
number of utterances made by each parent was comparable,
but mothers' mean length of utterances (MLU) was greater
than fathersV MLUs. This suggests that mothers speech to
sons is more complex than fathers' speech. In this study
MLU was defined as the total number of intelligible words
divided by the total number of utterances. However, the
majority of researchers, including those cited elsewhere in
this review, define MLU as the average length of utterances
in morphemes rather than in words. But whether or not
intelligible words or morphemes are used to determine MLUs

may not be an important issue. Nelson, Carskaddon and

Bonvillian (1973) found that scores for MLUs in words were
comparable to scores for MLUs measured in morphemes.

Using the same measures as Golinkoff and Ames (1979),
Wilkinson, Hiebert, and Rembold (1981) observed nine girls
and nine boys in their homes playing with their mothers and
fathers. Each dyad was observed when the child was 24-
months-old and again at 30 months. No differences were
found between maternal and paternal speech on any measure
at either tinma of observation. Dalton-Hummel (1982)
assessed the verbal interaction of 16 sets of parents with
their 2-year-old daughters (n=9) and 2-year—old sons (n=7)
during a free play situation. The independent variable was
the time fathers spent with their young children. Low-
time~investment (LTI) fathers were with their children less
than 45% of the child7s waking hours; high-time-investment
(HTI) fathers were with their children more than 50% of
their child’s waking hours. No differences were found
between mothers' and fathers’ speech nor were differences
found between LTI and HTI fathers.

Summary: The reviewed studies suggest that differences
between the frequency of mothers' and fathers' speech
directed to their young children is related to the child7s
age and verbal ability. Fathers talk less than mothers to
their infants. As children grow older and their verbal
abilities increase, the frequency of fathers’ and mothers’

speech to their young children becomes almost equal.

Sex Differences: Of the 13 studies reviewed sex

 

differences were observed in five. The differences
included: (1) parents of l9-month—old sons took more
conversational turns during structured play activity than
did parents of daughters; (2) mothers spoke more
utterances to their 24-month—old daughters during free play
activity than to their sons, while fathers’ number of
utterances were comparable to both sons and daughters; (3)
mothers' MLUs were longer than fathers'ixxa sample that
included only boys aged 36 months;anui(4) fathers in two
studies vocalized more to their sons than to their
daughters.

Triadic Situation: Two researchers, Clarke-Stewart

 

(1978) and Pedersen (1980), chose not to compare mother-
child dyads with father-child dyads because of the issue of
ecological validity. That is, they speculated that during
daily living fathers spend a greater amount of time
interacting with their child in a triadic situation
(mother-father-child) rather than 1J1<a father-child dyad.
This, indeed, was true of Pedersen/s sample; his sampled
fathers spent an average of 30 minutes a day with their
children. Clarke-Stewart reviewed other researchers home
observation reports and estimated that fathers’presence
with their children never exceeded 3 hours per day and that
the amount of father—child interaction was considerably

less. lxlother words, father presence was not equated as

father-child interaction.

Pedersen, Anderson, & Cain (1980) observed 41 families
and their 5-month-olds (23 boys and 18 girls) on two
occasions and found that mothers verbalized to their
children more than fathers in the triadic situation.
Clarke-Stewart (1978) conducted a longitudinal study of 7
boys and 7 girls and their families. Two observations
(mother—father-child and mother-child) were made when the
children were215—, 20-, and 30— months of age. She found
that mothers verbalized more than fathers. Golinkoff and
Ames (1979), Stoneman and Brody (1981), and Wilkinson,
Hiebert, and Rembold (1981) also found that mothers talked
more than fathers in the triadic situation.

Use of Imperatives

 

An imperative is defined as a request for an object or
action in the form of a command or an order. "You" is the
implied or stated subject. Gleason (1975) cited data from
two unpublished observational studies that noted that
fathers produced more imperatives than mothers. In the
first study six preschool boys were observed playing with
each parent individually inailaboratory setting. In the
second study, three families (with a child of each sex,
ranging from 2- to 5— years of age)‘were observed during
meal time. Not only did the fathers produce more
imperatives in both situations but more imperatives were
directed to their sons than to their daughters. Additional

support for this finding was given by McLaughlin, Schutz

10

and White (1980) in a study of 12 five-year—olds (24
parent—child dyads). Fathers produced the most imperatives
and directed them mainly to sons. Fathers in Malone and
Guy’s (1982) sample also produced more imperatives than did
mothers.

In a 1982 study by Bellinger and Gleason, fathers
uttered more imperatives than mothers to their 2 1/2- to 5-
year-old children but no child sex differences were found.
McLaughlin’s (1983) home observations of 18- , 30- and 42-
month olds (8 children in each age group divided evenly by
sex) engaged in parent-child dyad free play indicated that
fathers verbalized more imperatives than mothers to their
30—.and 42— month olds but an approximate number of
imperatives was directed by parents to their 18— months
olds; no child sex differences were found.

Rondal (1980) observed 5 French-speaking Belgian boys
in their homes and found that parental production of
imperatives was comparable. lfiuaboys ranged from 18- to
36- months of age. Studies by Golinkoff and Ames (1979)
with 18-month-olds, and Dalton-Hummel (1982) with 24-month-
olds found no evidence to support parental differences in
the frequency of use of imperatives.

Summary: Of the 10 studies reviewed, 6 supported the
notion that fathers produce more imperatives than mothers;
three of these studies gave evidence that fathers direct

more imperative statements to theirs sons than to their

11

daughters. One studyluuisons onLyiJIthe sample. Four
studies lent no support to the idea that there are
differences in the frequency of use of imperatives between
mothers and fathers. Discrepancies between the findings in
these ten studies may be related to child age, task, or the
operational definition of imperative.

Child Age. The four studies (Dalton-Hummel, 1982;

 

Golinkoff and Ames, 1979; Rondal, 1980; and Wilkinson,
Hiebert, and Rembold, 1981) that found no difference
between mothers'and fathers'use of imperatives all had
child subjects who were 24 months of age or younger. None
of the investigators who found parental differences had
subjects that young. It was interesting to note that
McLaughlin's (1983) data on 3 age periods (18 months, 30
months and 42 months) showed that the greatest number of
imperatives was directed to lB-month-olds and that there
were no differences between parents' use of imperatives to
that age group. Differences were found between parents
when the children were older. Even though imperative use
declined over time, fathers' imperative use decreased less
than mothers' use. Differences between parental imperative
use was related to child age. Another investigator
presented a similar pattern in his data. Rondal (1980),
who reported no differences between parents, found, as did
McLaughlin, that more imperatives were uttered to the

younger children thantxathe older ones, that imperative

12

usage decreased over time for both parents, and that the
decrease was greater for mothers than for fathers. It is
not surprising that Rondal reported no statistical
differences since his sample size was small (5) and each
child was of a different age.

Task. The task situations in the studies by Bellinger
and Gleason (1982) and McLaughlin, Schutz, & White (1980)
were designed to promote the production of imperative
statements. The purpose of Bellinger and Gleason’s study
was to find out what kind of directive statements (that is,
imperative vs indirect forms) parents make to their
children, thus, they used a toy (a take—apart car) known to
elicit controlling speech. McLaughlin, Schutz and White's
(1980) task instructions to the parents as well as the
nature of the activity were designed to encourage parental
control statements. It should be mentioned, however, that
McLaughlin (1983) and Malone and Guy (1982) observed
parent-child dyads during free play in which no special
instructions or activities that were known to encourage
imperative statements were giventxathe participants.In
both studies fathers used a significantly larger percentage
of imperatives when compared to mothers.

Definition. Wilkinson, Hiebert, and Rembold (1981)

 

did not identify'and count the imperatives; instead, they
had a directive measure that was defined as a request for
action or object in the form of an imperative, a statement

or an interrogative. It may be that a separate analysis of

13

imperatives would have yielded a different result.

Use f Negative Commands

 

Paternal use of negative commands or prohibitions was
noted in three studies. A laboratory study by Langlois and
Downs (1981) was designed to examine parents' differential
treatment of 3- to S-year-old boys’ and girls' sex-typed
behaviors. Parent-child dyads were observed while playing
with sex-typed toys, e4L, an army set and a dollhouse set.
It was found that fathers more frequently discouraged their
sons’ play with inappropriate sex-typed toys than they did
with their daughters. Also, older children, more so than
younger ones, were discouraged from playing with
inappropriate sex-typed toys.

Two studies conducted by Snow, Jacklin, and Maccoby
(1983), one with 68 father-child dyads (lZ-month-olds
equally divided by sex) and the other with 39 father-child
dyads (23 boys and 16 girls, age 12 months) were designed
to determine whether or not fathers would exhibit different
behaviors toward their daughters and sons. Each dyad was
secretly observed throughaione-way viewing mirror while
sitting in a waiting room. Several items such as ashtrays
with cigarette butts and a pitcher filled with water were
intentionally placed in the waiting room by the
researchers. It was hoped that these items would tempt
children to touch them and that the fathers would

discourage their childfs handling of the objects. Various

l4

toys, including sex—typed toys, were available, also.It
was found that fathers used more physical and verbal
prohibitions with their sons than with their daughters.
However, the boys touched the forbidden items more
frequently than the girls; thus, the boys were more
provocative than the girls.

Gleason and her colleagues (1975 and 1978) observed
that fathers made threats to their sons and jokingly called
them names that had pejorative overtones. No incidents of
similar behavior were observed in mothers.

Summary: These studies found that fathers vocalized
more prohibitions to their sons than to their daughters.
The studies reviewed in the previous section (Use of
Imperatives) did not include a prohibitive speech measure.
It is interesting to note that in McLaughlinfs study (1983)
parental imperatives were rarely prohibitive; imperatives
were used to direct the children on what-to—do rather than
what-not-to-do.

Use of Diverse Vocabulary

 

Gleason and Rondal reported that fathers when talking
to their young children use a more diverse lexicon than
mothers. These reports are based upon anecdotes and type-
token ratios (TTR). Anecdotal data, cited by Gleason and
her colleagues (1975, 1978, anui 1983), described
conversations 1J1 which fathers used words (€h9.,

”intimidate" and 'aggravate') that are incomprehensible to

15

2- or 3-year—olds. Rondal (1980) reported descriptive data
indicating that fathers’TTRs were greater than mothersfl
A type—token ratio (TTR) is the ratio of the number of
different words (types) spoken in the sample to the number
of same words (tokens) spoken in the sample.

In contrast, Wilkinson, Hiebert, and Rembold (1981)
found no differences between parental TTRs. McLaughlin,
Schutz, and White (1980) also found that TTR alone was not
a significant variable. In a sample of 20 sets of parents
with their daughters, Lipscomb and Coon (1980) found no
difference between parent’s TTRs. However, they did find
that the child's age as well as the child's speech ability
effected the parent's vocabulary use. That is, both
mothers and fathers used a more complex vocabulary with
their older daughters (32— to 43-months of age) than with
their younger ones (10- to 29- months of age). Rondal
(1980) also found that parental speech increased in lexical
diversity as the child's language ability increased.

Summary: To date the idea that fathers use a more
diverse vocabulary than do mothers when talking with their
young children is supported by anecdotal material only. No
statistical measures (n1 TTR have yielded significant
differences between mothers' and fathers’ use of TTRs. The
complexity of parental speech appears to be related to
child age and child language ability.

Use f Interrogatives

 

Descriptive data from two exploratory studies

16

(Gleason, 1975; and Gleason and Weintraub, 1978) suggested
that fathers ask more questions of their children than
mothers, and particularly wh/questions (iJL, who, what,
when, where, why, and how). Giattino and Hogan (1975)
found support for these suggestions based upon their study
of the verbalizations of one father with his three—year-old
daughter. They found that the father most frequently used
interrogative sentences and that more than half of his
interrogatives were wh/questions. Fash and Madison (1981)
also reported that fathers asked more questions than
mothers. However, their findings werernot statistically
significant.

During free play with their 18-, 30-, and 42- month
old children, mothers asked the most yes/no questions
whereas fathers asked the most wh/questions (McLaughlin,
White, McDevitt, and Raskin, 1983). In compared parental
speech to sons during 3 activities (play time, story time,
and meal time), Rondal (1980) found that fathers asked more
clarifying or wh/questions than mothers during each
activity. In a structured game activity fathers preferred
prompt or test questions tLe., speaker of a question has a
specific: response 111 mind), whereas mothers favored
indirect questions (McLaughlin, Schutz, and White, 1980).

In contrast to these reports, Malone and Guy (1982)
found that mothers, rather than fathers, asked

significantly more questions as well as a larger percentage

17

of wh/questions. No parental differences in question use
were reported by Golinkoff and Ames (1979) or Wilkinson,
Hiebert, Rembold (1981). Golinkoff and Ames reported that
parents preferred yes/no questions and that both parents
used "what” questions more frequently during free play than
during structured play.

Summary. Of the nine studies reviewed that compared
mothers' and fathers' speech, three supported the notion
that fathers asked more questions than mothers, one
supported the idea that mothers asked more questions than
fathers, and two offered no support for either position.
The three studies that supported the idea that fathers used
questions more frequently than mothers were found in
descriptive studies in which no statistical analyses were
made. Evidence was offered in five studies that fathers
preferred wh/questions; however, in one study yes/no
questions were preferred, while in yet another study test
or prompt questions were favored by fathers. Statistical
significance was found in those studies that reported
differences in the type of question used by mothers and
fathers.

One of the studies that found noedifferences between
parents used a question measure that did not distinguish
between types of questions; a less general operational
definition of question may have yielded additional and

different information.

18

Theoretical Issues

The question addressed tn! the literature review
concerned the kind of language learning environment that
mothers and fathers provide for their young children. The
reviewed studies included the following variables: task,
situation, age of child, sex of child, language ability of
child, birth position of child, sex of parent and
involvement of parents A combination of these variables
appears to influence the type of speech mothers and fathers
use when interacting with their children. The review
provides evidence for similarities as well as differences
in mothers' and fathers' speech. Although there appear to
be no differences in the parental use of some speech
measures, parental differences are certainly suggested in
the areas of imperative and interrogative use. Both of
these areas need further exploration.

The type of questions that parents use with their
young children is an issue of particular interest as it
may be a variable of major importance in a child's
development of mental representation. According to
Piagetian theory, children in the preoperational stage of
cognitive development are making a critical shift in their
thought processes-- from sensorimotor to representational
thinking. Piaget described this shift as an acquisition of
a semiotic function that enables a child to think in

symbols or signs (words). Once this shift is made a child

19

is then able to engage in mental representation with words
and not just imagery (Gallagher and Reid, 1981; Ginsburg
and Opper, 1979; Piaget and Inhelder, 1969; Sigel and
Cooking, 1977; and Sigel, 1981).

Piaget (1971) believed that children's social
experiences or interactions with others were necessary
conditions for cognitive development. However, he did not
define social experiences nor did he explicate on the
relationship between specific social interactions and
cognitive development. Sigel and his colleagues (1960;
1970; 1972; 1977; and 1982) suggested that social
experiences relevant to the development of representational
thinking occur in the form of distancing behaviors or
strategies. Sigelfs distancing theory suggests that there
are specific verbal behaviors (distancing strategies) that
parents use to enhance their child's development of
representational thought. These verbal distancing
strategies help the child "to mentally reproduce the past,
anticipate the future, and assess alternatives in the
present, transcending immediate spatial and temporal
perceptions" (Flaugher and Sigel, LL 1, 1982). Three
levels of mental operational demands have been identified
by Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, Flaugher, and Rock(l983):
Level l-- low distancing strategies, which focus upon the
present, are parental statements or inquiries that

encourage a child to label, to describe or to demonstrate a

20

current situation; Level 2—— medium distancing
strategies, which focus upon the past, are utterances that
encourage ea child to reproduce a situation, describe
similarities and/or differences based upon information
from previous experiences; and Level 3—— high distancing
strategies, which focus on the future, are parental
utterances that challenge a child to evaluate, to infer, to
propose alternatives, and to resolve conflicts. These are
but a few examples of the mental Operational demands that
can be made upon children through the use Of parental
distancing strategies. Of course, statements as well as
inquiries can demand mental Operations but my current
concern is with interrogatives.

The empirical evidence for Sigel’s distancing
hypothesis comes mainly from experimental studies in
nursery school settings. Children in experimental groups,
whose teachers were trained in the use of distancing
strategies, performed significantly better on transfor-
mation Object tasks than did the control group children
(Sigel, 1977 and 1981; Sigel and cocking, 1977). In a
laboratory study in which parents were instructed to teach
their 4-year-Olds origami (paper folding), it was found
that parents who rated high on distancing strategies had
children VHH) performed significantly better on
representational taskstflnumthose children whose parents

rated low on distancing behaviors (McGillicuddy-DeLisi,

21

Sigel, and Johnson, 1979).

Not only are parental questions to their children Of
interest in understanding the development Of mental
representation but several researchers have posited that
parents make differential contributions to childrens'
cognitive development. For example, it is assumed that
because fathers use a greater number of wh/questions than
mothers, they make greater cognitive demands on their
children and, intellectually, challenge them in ways that
are different from anhers (Gleason and Greif, 1983;
Gleason and Weintraub, 1978; McLaughlin, White, McDevitt,
and Raskin, 1983; and Rondal, 1980L

Fash and Madison (1981) counted parental utterances
that referred to past and future events. Although
differences in referral to future events was not
significant, fathers referred significantly more Often to
past events than did mothers. Ukuaauthors suggested that
this difference may be indicative Of fathers' requirement
for a higher level of language comprehension or cognitive
processing from their children. Fathers are viewed as
demanding that children exert themselves in order to be
understood, whereas mothers are described as warm,
sensitive, and ”tuned in" to their child’s language
abilities (Gleason and Grief, 1983; and Madison and Guy,
1982). bknuaof the reviewed studies included a warmth or

sensitivity measure to assess these speculations.

22

The purpose Of the current study was to compare
fathers’and mothers'speech totflmni'preschool sons and
daughters in order to determine whether maternal and
paternal verbal interaction is comparable or significantly
different. Particular emphasis was p1aced<n1the type Of
questions and the kinds of distancing strategies parents
use. Children were observed in their homes interacting
individually with each parent while looking through a
picture book and while playing with play-doh. Looking at a
picture book is a valid medium for encouraging
verbalization in both mothers and fathers (Bigner, 1977).
The picture book condition, which may encourage parental
verbalizations, may also discourage active involvement of
the child; consequently, a play situation that encourages

active involvement of the child was included.

Hypotheses

1. Fathers will ask more questions of their children
than will mothers in both activities.

2. Fathers will use more distancing strategies than
mothers during both activities.

3. Fathers will ask more questions and will use
higher level distancing strategies when interacting with
their sons than with their daughters.

4. Mothers will exhibit more warmth and greater
sensitivity toward their children during both activities

than will fathers.

23

5. Mothers will more actively engage their children in
both activities than will fathers.

6. Children will produce longer mean length of
utterances (MLU) when interacting with their fathers than
when interacting with their mothers.

7. Older children will receive more distancing
strategies in both activities than the younger children.

8. Older children will be more actively engaged in
the activities than the younger children.

9. Children producing longer mean length Of utterances
(MLU) will receive more distancing strategies and will be
more actively engaged in the activities than those children

who produce shorter mean length of utterances.

24

CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Subjects

The subjects were sixteen preschoolers and their
mothers and fathers. The«children were divided into two
groups by age and sex. One group Of 8 children (4 girls
and 4 boys) ranged between 24- and 36— months of age with a
mean age of 2 1/2 years; the other groupiof'8 children (4
.boys and 4 girls) ranged between 36- and 53- months of age
with a mean age of 3 1/2 years.

All of the children were firstborns from middle—
class, English—speaking, white, intact families who resided
in the Lansing, Michigan metropolitan area. Subjects were
recruited through local day care centers. After Obtaining
permission from appropriate day care center personnel
(boards of directors and agency directors), recruitment
letters were distributed to the centers’ families. The
recruitment letter described the study and requested that
those who wished to participate return the attached
addressed, stamped postcard indicating convenient times to
be contacted by telephone. (See Appendix A for a copy of
the letter.)

After the parents returned the postcard expressing
interest in the study, I called them to answer any
questions they might have about the study'andtx>schedule
two home visits. Both home visits were scheduled within

seven days of each other at times that were convenient for

25

famiLy members. The typical home visit occurred on
weekdays between 8:00 am and 7:30 pm. Each child was
observed interacting with each parent individually; each
dyad was audiotaped and videotaped for a maximum of 15
minutes per task.

Procedure

 

At the beginning of each home visit the purpose of
the study, the issue of confidentiality and procedures to
assure anonymity were reviewed. In order to assure
anonymity, code numbers were assigned to all participants;
data were identified only by the subject code. The master
list of subject names and codes was stored in a locked,
limited access file.

Informed consent was obtained in writing from each
parent. (See Appendix B for a consent form sample.) NO
experimental procedure was initiated until the consent form
had been read, explained, discussed, and signed. Each
child also was given an Opportunity to consent to
participation. If any child appeared reluctant to
participate, the observation was not conducted. If any
child expressed reluctance during the videotaping, the
taping was either stopped temporarily'or the session was
ended. In three separate instances videotaping was stopped
temporarily because the children were distracted by the
equipment.

Tasks. There were two task situations: one was a

26

picture book task and the other was a play-doh task. 'The
order of parent participation was determined by random
selection, while the order of task (picture book or play-
doh) was counterbalanced across mothers and fathers. In
every instance parents were instructed individually and
interacted with their child in the absence of the other
parent.

When the picture book task was presented, the parent-
child dyad was given one of two 8 x 11 1/2 inch plastic
covered picture albums. One album contained colorful

pictures removed from The Little Lamb; the other contained

 

colorful pictures taken from The Little Rabbit. Both books

 

were part of the Picturebook Series published by Random
House. The order of the books was counterbalanced. Each
dyad was read the following instructions:

"This is a book that contains some pictures.

There are no words in the book. I would like you

to look at the pictures together and talk about

the pictures as you would when looking at any

picture books you may have around the house. Do

you understand the task? Alright, you may begin

when I give you the book."

When the play-dob situation was presented, the parent—
child dyad was directed to an 11 x 15 inch acrylic board
placed on a flat surface (e.g. child’s table, game table or
cardtable), which was provided by the family. Placed in the
middle of the board was a mound of play-doh. (A.can of

play-doh was purchased for each child.) The dyad was

directed to sit on adjacent sides of the table, that is,

27

neither side by side nor across from one another. Each
dyad received the following instructions:
"Please sit next to each other at the table.

On the board is a piece of play-doh. I would

like you to play together with the play-doh and

together make something from the play-doh. Play
together as you typically do.IK>you understand

the task? Ok. You may begin."

If the dyad completed their playing priortxbthe set
time the audio and video equipment were turned off; they
were under no obligation to continue the activity for 15
minutes. When playing continued for longer than the set
time, the equipment was turned off after 15 minutes of
interaction. However, the dyad was welcome to continue
with their play. Between tasks the researcher suggested
that the parent and child take a short break while the next
activity was readied.

At the end of the home visit the dyads were thanked

for their participation and the children were given a

Little Golden Book (Baby Farm Animals)an:the first visit

 

and their can of play-doh at the final visit.

Statistical Analysis
A 2 (age of child) x 2 (sex of child) x (sex of
parents) x 2 (type Of task) analysis of variance, repeated
measures design program from BMDP Statistical Software
(1981 edition) was used to analyze the data. Grouping
variables were child sex and child age; repeated measures

were sex Of parent and type of task. Data on the following

28

dependent variables were analyzed:
1. time length of task,
2. mean length of utterance-- child and parent,

3. mean length of conversational turn—- child and

4. utterances per minute—- child and parent,

5. type of sentence and subtypes: (a) declaratives—
direct statements, repetitions, and yes/no; (b)
interrogatives—yes/no, wh/questions, repetitions, tag
questions, indirect questions, occasional questions, and
test questions; (c) imperatives; and (d) exclamations,

6. type of distancing strategy: (a) low; (b) medium;
and (c) high,

7. parental warmth,

8. parental sensitivity, and

9. child engagement responses: (a) active; (b)
passive; (c) nonengaged; and (d) no-time-to—respond.

Descriptive analysis included frequency counts and
percentages of the following: (1) which member of the
dyad made the first utterance in each task;(20 what was
the content of thejparent’s first utterance in each task;

and (3) who terminated each task.

Measures

Transcription. The 64 audio-tapes were divided among

 

three trained assistants (one male and one female) who

29

transcribed the tapes while following guidelines developed
by the researcher. (See Appendix C for a copy of the
transcription guidelines). Then the typed transcripts were
divided among three other trained assistants (female) who
edited the transcripts while following specific editing
guidelines developed by the researcher. (See Appendix C
for a copy of the editing guidelines.) Discrepancies
between the original transcripts and the edited transcripts
were resolved by the researcher who listened to the tapes
in question to determine which transcript was accurate.

The researcher did not furnish transcribers with any
information about the sex of parent or child, or child's
age. In some instances, however, children were called by
name, and in rare instances references were made to a
child’s age on the audiotapes.

Reliability. In order to establish reliability, 14

 

audiotapes (approximately 22%) were randomly selected and
transcribed by the researcher. Then the researcher’s and
assistant’s transcripts were compared; the speaker’s exact
utterance was the unit of analysis for reliability. An
utterance was defined as a word or string of words
identified by a pause or by grammatical completeness
(Golinkoff and Ames, 1979). Reliability for exact
utterance was .92 (kappa). A less conservative unit Of
analysis, which was a comparison of the number of exact

words per utterance, was also used to determine

30

reliability. Reliability for the number of exact words per

utterance was .97 (kappa).

Conversational measures and reliability.

 

Four trained assistants (females), who were blind to
age and sex Of the child and sex of parent as well as to
the research hypotheses, independently coded the typed
transcripts for each dyad member using the following

conversational measures: length of time involved in task,

total number Of parental utterances, total number of child
utterances, child mean length Of utterance, parent mean
length of utterance, parent mean length of conversational
turn, child mean length of conversational turn, parent
utterances per minute, and child utterances per minute.
Approximately 22% (or 14) of the audio-tapes were randomly
selected for each measure and were scored independently by
another assistantixiordertxDestablish reliability. The
reliability statistic is presented following the discussion
Of each measure.
The conversational measures included:

Time length of task. The length of each audio-
recording was measured in seconds. Reliability was 1.00
(kappa).

Total number _£ utterances. The number Of parental

 

utterances and child utterances were counted. Reliability
for number of parent and child utterances was 1.00 (kappa).

Mean length of utterance (MLU). MLUs were determined

 

 

31

by counting the morphemes (the smallest units Of meaningful
speech) in each utterance, and then dividing this sum by
the total number of utterances. Instructions for MLU
determination were based upon Brown’s rules (1973L (See
Appendix D for a copy of the MLU scoring form.)
Reliability for both parent and child MLUs was .99 (kappa).

Mean length 5;; conversational turn (MLT). A

 

 

conversational turn consisted of all utterances of one
speaker until the other speaker spoke (Cherry and Lewis,
1976), and the number of times a speaker had the floor was
the total number of turns. When all of the utterances and
turns were counted the MLT was determined by dividing the
total number of utterances by the total number of turns
(Golinkoff'and Ames, 1979). (See AppendixI)fOr a copy of
the MLT scoring form.) Reliability for both parent and
child MLTs was .99 (kappa).

Utterances per minute. The total number of utterances

 

was divided by the number of seconds of dyad interaction,
then the quotient was multiplied by 60. (See Appendix D
for a copy of the scoring form). Reliability for both

parent and child utterances per minute was .99 (kappa).

Type of Sentence
All parental utterances were coded for type Of
sentence. Four major sentence types (declaratives,
interrogatives, exclamations, and imperatives) and subtypes

within the declarative, imperative, and interrogative

32

sentences were identified and counted. (See Appendix E for
copy of the type of sentence score sheet.) All transcripts
were scored by the researcher. In order to establish
reliability, a trained female assistant coded 14 randomly
selected transcriptsanuithe scorescnmeach measure were
compared. The reliability statistic is reported following

a discussion of each sentence type and subtype.

Declaratives

 

Declaratives were defined as statements that end with
a period (.) such as "The lamb is white." Reliability for
declarative statements was .98 (kappa).

Subtypes of declaratives included the following:

1. Direct statements were direct utterances such as

 

"That’s a pretty color." jReliability for direct statements
was .93 (kappa).

2. Repetitions included (a) repeats of a child’s

 

previous utterance (e4L, C: A baby sheep. P: A baby
sheep.),(tn a combination of repeat and confirm (e4L, C:
A baby sheep. P: Yes, a baby sheep.), and (c) a
combination Of repeat, expand and confirm (e.g., C: A baby
sheep. P: It is a little black baby sheep, yes.L
Reliability for declarative repetitions was .84 (kappa).

3. Yes r C) statements were counted. IReliability

was .81 (kappa).

33

Interrogatives

 

Interrogatives were defined as direct questions, such
as, "What is tflue bunny eating?" Reliability for
interrogatives was .98 (kappaL

Interrogative subtypes included:

1” Yes/noiquestions were direct questions that were

 

answered with either a yes or no, 64L, 'Do you want a
drink of water?" Reliability for yes/no questions was .92
(kappa).

2. Wh/guestions were questions such as, "who”,

 

"what", “when”, "where”, ”how“ that elicited information
(GJL, "What do you want to make with the play—doh?')
Reliability was .77 (kappa).

3. Repetitive questions were (a) the child's previous

 

question is repeated or the child's previous utterance is
repeated as a question (e.g., C: A doggie. P: A doggie?),
(b) a combination of repeat and expand (e.g., C: A doggie.
P: A white doggie?), (c) a combination of repeat with a
wh/question (e.g., C: Little girl. P: What little girl?),
and (d) a combination of repeat and expand with wh/question
“Lg., C: Little girl. P: Where is the pretty little
girl?).Reliability'for interrogative repetitionS‘was.7l
(kappa).

4. Tag ggestions where an interrogative isvattached

 

at the end of a declarative statement, for example,

"That's a cute bunny, isn’t it?” NO distinction was made

34

between formal and informal tags. (The above question is
an example of a formal tag; words, such as "yes", ”yea”,
"huh“, tacked to the end of a declarative statement and
uttered with a rising intonation indicating a question is
an example CHE an informal tag.) Reliability was .88

(kappa).

5. An indirect question where a declarative contained

 

an embedded partial interrogative phrase such as 'I wonder
where the little lamb is." or “I don't know what you
mean." Reliability was .50 (kappa).

6. An occasional guestigg in which a "wh" word

 

('who', ”what", "when", "when”, "where", "why", "how”) is
positioned where the missing word would be, such as, ”The
lamb is eating what?” Reliability was .67 (kappa).

7. A test question when the speaker had a specific

 

answer in mind, that is, the speaker is testing the child.

Reliability for test questions was .50 (kappa).

Imperatives

 

Imperatives were defined as explicit directives, which
usually began with the word "you" (e4y, "You get your feet
Off the wall."), or ”you" is implied (e.g., "Turn the
page.")

Imperatives were divided into three categories:

(1) negative imperatives or prohibitives (exp, "Stop that
right nowl'h. (2) positive imperatives (64L,"Y0u can do

it!"), and (3) neutral imperatives (e.g., "You hold the

35

bookJW. These three categories were combined for analysis
because the negative imperatives or prohibitives occurred
infrequently anui the distinction between neutral and
positive imperatives was too subtle to determine.
Reliability for imperatives was .80 (kappa).

Exclamations

 

An exclamation was defined asaisharp»sudden outcry,
which was usually punctuated with an exclamation point,
such as "Wow!" or ”That’s great!". Reliability was .50

(kappa).

Distancing Strategies

All parental interrogatives from the typed transcripts
were coded for low, medium, and high distancing strategies
by the researcher. (See Appendix F for alcopy of scoring
sheet.) In order to assess scoring reliability, a trained
female assistant coded 14 randomly chosen transcripts
(about 22% Of the sample) and scores were compared. The
reliability statistic for each distancing strategy is
presented below.

Parental distancing strategies were demands for a
child to engage in a particular mental Operation. Three
levels of distancing strategies and their corresponding
mental operational demands have been identified and
defined in Flaugher and SigelksParent-Child Interaction
Observation Schedule (PCI) (1982). These levels include:

1. Level l-- low distancing strategies focus upon

36

immediate events. Typical strategies include the mental
Operational demands for a child to attend, label, and
confirm or reject information. Questions that demonstrate
low distancing strategies include: “Lookit, see the pretty
picture in the book?" (Observe); “What color is that egg?”
(label);'Are those green apples?'(produce information);
”What did the turtle look like?'(describe);anui'Show me
how to make a roly oval?“ (demonstrate). Reliability for
low distancing strategies was .90 (kappa).

2. Level 2-- medium distancing strategies emphasize
psychological separation (distance) from the immediate,
ongoing present that encourages children (3) mentally
project themselves into the past. It is thought that these
strategies activate the child's reconstructive schemas.
Common mental Operational demands found in this level
include the use of sequence, reproduction, comparison, and
classification. Typical questions that demonstrate medium
distancing strategies were: ”What happenedtxathe bunny
after the little girl fell asleep?" (sequencing); “What did
you do when you found the worms?" (reproduction); “Does
Uncle Bill’s rabbit look like this one?" (comparison);
“What do you call green beans, lima beans, and corn?"
(symmetricalclassification);'Are there more applesin the
basket or on the steps?” (asymmetrical classification); and
"How many lambs are in the field?" (enumeration) Reliabil-

ity for medium distancing strategies was .77 (kappa).

37

3. Level 3-- high distancing strategies encourage the
child to mentally project into the future, as well as to
activate anticipatory schemas. Mental Operational demands
at this level include evaluation of consequences,
evaluation of one’s own competence, evaluation of what is
necessary and sufficient for something to happen, evalua—
tion of affect, inference of affect/feelings, inference of
cause/effect, inference of or prediction of effects,
generalization, transformation, and plan determination.
Typical distancing strategy questions to elicit high mental
operational demands include: "Why was the sheep naughty?"
(evaluate consequences); "Can you make a tiger from play-
doh?" (evaluate own competence); "How would you feel if
someone didn’t share the play-doh with you?” ( evaluate
affect); "Did the lamb feel sorry for pulling down the
table?'(infer affect/feelings);'hHJJ.the play-doh ball
bounce when you drop it?" (infer cause/effect); "Did the
rabbit find his friend?" (infer effects); ”What other
animals wear leashes?" (generalize); "What happens to a
caterpillar when it grows up?" (transform); "What do you
want to do?" (plan); and "What do baby bunnies need to grow
big and strong?" (necessary and sufficient evaluation).

Reliability for high distancing strategies was .66 (kappa).

Parental Warmth and Sensitivity
All of the videotapes were divided between two trained

female assistants who independently assessed parental

38

warnwfix and parental sensitivity using (flue Rating of
Parental Warmth form and Rating of Parental Sensitivity
form from Flaugher and Sigel's Parent-Child Interaction
Observation Schedule (PCI) (Sigel, et al, 1982). (See
Appendix G for a copy of the scoring sheet). Fourteen
videotapes were randomly selected and coded by each
assistant, and then compared to establish reliability.

Parental warmth was assessed on a 3- point Likert

scale (low-- some warmth exhibited but not a lot Of the
time; nmdium-- warmth exhibited more Often and more
intensely;anuihigh-- much warmth exhibited OftenJ The

warmth rating was an evaluation of parental actions (such
as tone Of voice, facial expressions, head and body
movements) that expressed enthusiasm, playfulness,
enjoyment of the child, enjoyment of doing something with
the child, compassion, or understanding. Reliability for
parental warmth was .79 (kappa).

Parent sensitivity was assessed on a 3- point Likert
scale (low—- sensitivity exhibited but not often or not
over all areas; medium-- sensitivity exhibited more often
and over more areas; and high-- much sensitivity exhibited
most of the time and over most areasd The sensitivity
measure was a global rating of the parents’ sensitivity to
their childs’ cognitive level, emotional state, and
physical state. The rating was essentially a measure of

how well the parent was "tuned in" to the child. Attention

39

was paid to the construction and complexity of parental
utterances, as well astx) their manner of delivery. The
measure also included an evaluation of parentfis awareness
of child’s attention span, ability, and comfort.

Reliability for parental sensitivity was .88 (kappa).

Child Engagement

A trained female assistant assessed and scored child
engagement responses from the videotapes. Fourteen
videotapes were randomly chosen and scored by the
researcher; comparison of these scores was then made with
the assistant’s scores to establish reliability.

An adaptation of Rating Of Child’s Engagement in
Activity from Flaugher and Sigel's PCI (1982) was used in
the assessment. (See Appendix H for a copy of the score
sheet.) Each child's response to a parental utterance was
coded as (nus of four engagement responses: actively
engaged, passively engaged, nonengaged, or no-time-to-
respond. The definition of each engagement response and
its reliability statistic follows:

1. An actively engaged child was defined as one who
gave an active and relevant motoric or verbal response to a
parental utterance. Reliability was .97 (kappa).

2. A passively engaged child was defined as one who
was attending or listening but exhibited no visible
physical or verbal response other than eye fixation and

orientation of the task. Reliability was .92 (kappa).

40

3. A nonengaged child was defined as one who was
either involved in another activity, gave an irrelevant
response, or was not attentive or responsive to questions
and statements. Reliability for nonengagement was .78
(kappa).

4w No-time-to-respond was defined as a situation in
which the parent denied a child an Opportunity to respond
because of the parent's successive statements or questions

or both. Reliability was .61 (kappa).

41

CHAPTER 2

RESULTS

Tables of the statistical results of the task (2) x
parent (2) x sex of child (2) x age of child (2) analysis
of variance with repeated—measures are presented in
Appendix I. The presentation of these results is organized
by specific hypotheses, and the results are reported in
the following order: (1) discussion of those findings
related to the hypotheses that pertained to father-child
interactions, (2) discussion of the findings related to the
hypotheses that dealt with nmmher—child interactions, (3)
discussion of the findings of those hypotheses that focused
on child age and sex, and (3) discussion of additional
measures (Hf parent-child interactions that ‘were not

specified in the hypotheses.

Father—child interactions

 

The hypotheses pertaining to father—child interactions
posed the issues of whether or not (1) fathers would ask
more questions of their children than mothers, (2 ) fathers
would ask more questions of their sons than daughters, (3)
fathers would use a greater number of distancing strategies
with their children than mothers, and (4) fathers would use
higher level distancing strategies when interacting with

their sons than daughters.

42

Interrogatives.

 

There were no significant main effects intfluause of
questions. Fathers did not ask significantly more
questions of their children than did mothers Q:(1,12) =
.30, ns, Table I-l). The percent of sentence types used by
parents is shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the
percent of questions used by parents was approximately the
same. Not only is the frequency of interrogative use
comparable for fathers and mothers, but parental use of
other sentence types (declaratives and imperatives) is also
similar. Only the frequency of exclamatory statements is
statistically significant; mothers uttered more
exclamations than fathers (_F_ (1,12) = 5.82, p < .03,

Table I-lL

Table 1

Percent g: Sentence Types Used by Fathers and Mothers

 

 

During Both Tasks Combined

 

 

Interrogatives Declaratives Imperatives Exclamations

 

 

_Fathers

48.40 42.29 8.06 1.25
Mothers

49.50 41.02 7.31 2.17*
*p (.03.

43

Table 2 shows that fathers did not ask more questions
than mothers during either the play-doh task or the picture
book task. Again, parents used approximately the same
percent of interrogatives, as well as declaratives, during
both tasks. A main effect for task was found in the use of
exclamations: more exclamations were uttered during the
play-dob activity than during the picture bOOk task (E

(1,12) = 6.96, E < .02, Table 1—1).

Table 2

Percent 9f Sentence Types Used by Fathers and Mothers

 

 

 

During the Play-dob and Picture Book Activities

 

Interrogatives Declaratives Imperatives Exclamations
P-Doh Book P-doh Book P-doh Book P-doh Book

 

Fathers

47.52 48.28 39.61 44.97 11.33 4.79 1.54 .96

Mothers

48.49 50.52 41.24 40.89 7.20 7.42 3.17 1.96

 

*

p < .02.

The hypothesis that fathers would ask more questions
Of their sons than of their daughters received support.
The parent x sex of child interaction was significant
(F(1,lZ)==1JH77, p (.005, Table I-lL However, as shown

in Figure 1, there was a same-sex interaction; that is,

44

fathers asked more questions of their sons while mothers

asked more questions of their daughters.

 

55 Fathers = *
Mothers = #
50
45
4O
Sons Daughters

 

Figure 1. Percent Of qUestions asked by fathers

and mothers of their sons and daughters.

The analysis also yielded a significant task x age of
child x sex of child interaction. As shown in Figure 2
mothers and fathers asked more questions of younger girls
and Older boys while looking at the picture book, but asked
more questions ijyounger boys during the play-doh task,§

(1,12) = 11.51, E < .005, Table 1-1.

45

 

Daughters Sons

 

60 play-doh = #
picture book = *
55
50
45
40
Young Old Young Old

 

Figure 2. Percent of questions asked of younger and Older
daughters and younger and Older sons during the play-dob

and picture book tasks.

Declaratives, imperatives and exclamations. An

 

 

 

analysis Of the declarative, imperative and exclamatory
statements was made to find out if differences in
frequencycnfuse occurred between mothers'and fathersfl
Main effects for parent (mother) and task (play-doh) were
found for the use of exclamations, while significant
interaction effects were found ianHEOf declarative and
imperative sentences. The main effects for exclamation
use should be viewed with caution because Of the low
reliability in the scoring of exclamations. Significant
interaction effects were found for the percent of

declarative statements uttered: parent x sex of child

46

(fathers and daughters), _F_ (1,12) = 8.79, p < .01, Table I-
1; and task x age of child x sex of child (picture book and
older daughters), F (1,12) = 18.93, p < .001, Table I-l.
A task x parent x age of child x sex of child
interaction in the use of imperative statements was found,
also. Fathers of Older boys used more imperatives during
the play—dob activity, whereas fathers of younger boys used
more imperatives during the picture book task. Mothers
also used more imperatives during the picture book task but
with Older boys (5 (1,12) = 6.53, p < .03, Table I-l).

Interrogative sub-types

 

Interrogative sub-types were identified and analyzed
in order to determine whether or not there were differences
in the kind Of questions parents asked. Sub—types of inter-
rogatives were: (1) yes/no questions, (2) wh/questions,
(3) repetition Of child's utterances as questions, (4) tag
questions, (5) indirect questions, (6) occasional ques-
tions, and (7) test questions.

All of the interrogative sub-types, with the exception
of occasional questions, yielded significant main and/or
interaction effects.

Yes/no questions. Significant main effects were found

 

for task and child age: mothers and fathers asked more
yes/no questions of younger children (F (1,12) = 10.12, p <
.008, Table I-2), and more yes/no questions were asked

during the play-doh activity (_F_ (1,12) = 10.91, p < .006,

47

Table I-2L

Wh/questions. A main effect for child age was found:

 

parents asked more wh/questions of Older children than
younger ones (F (1,12)==9.14, p (.01, Table I—2).

Repetitions. Parental repetitions (If children’s

 

questions and statements as questions yielded a task (play-
doh) main effect (_F_‘ (1,12) = 5.22, p < .04, Table I-2).

Tag questions. A main effect for sex Of child was

 

 

significant: parents asked girls almost twice as many tag
questions than boys (3 (1,12) = 9.12, p < .01, Table I—2).
A task x parent x child age interaction was significant, F
(1,12) = 7.75, p < .02, Table I-2. During the picture book
task mothers asked older children more tag questions,
whereas fathers asked younger children more tag questions.
During the play—doh task mothers asked both younger and
Older children more tag questions than did fathers.

Indirect questions. A task x parent x sex of child

 

interaction was significant: nmmhers asked boys more
indirect questions than girls during the picture book
activity, _F_ (1,12) = 4.97, p < .05, Table I-2.

Test questions. Task x child age (book and young),

 

task x sex of child (book and boys), and task x parent
(book and mothers) interactions were found. During the
picture book task more test questions were asked Of younger
children (2 (1,12) = 5.11, p < .04), and of boys (E (1,12)
= 8.30, p < .01), and by mothers (5 (1,12) = 4.77, p <

.05), Table I-2. These results must be viewed with caution

48

because of the low reliability in the scoring of test
questions.

Declarative sub-types

 

An analysis of declarative sentence subtypes, which
included (1) direct statements, (2) repetitions, and (3)
yes/no statements, revealedru>significant main effects.
Interaction effects were found in one sub-type only.

Yes/no statements. A task x parent interaction was

 

 

found: fathers uttered more yes/no statements during the
picture book task, whereas, mothers uttered them during the
play-doh activity, 3 (1,12) = 5.44, p < .04, Table I-3.
Also of statistical significance was a parent x age of
child x sex of child interaction: more yes/no statements
were uttered by fathers to younger boys and by mothers to

Older girls, _F_‘ (1.12) = 6.53, p < .04, Table I-3.

Distancing strategies.

 

It was hypothesized that fathers would use more
distancing strategies than mothers during both activities,
and, also, that these distancing behaviors would be of a
higher level when fathers interacted with their sons.
Support for these hypotheses was not found.

As shown in Table 3 fathers did not use more distancing
behaviors than mothers (low distancing level,;§(1412) =
.00, ns; medium distancing level, _F (1,12) = 1.64, ns; and

high distancing level, F, (1,14) =l.41, ns, Table I-4).

49

The percent Of distancing strategies used by parents, as

well as the kind Of distancing strategy used, was comparable.

Table 3
Percent bf Low, Medium, and High Level Distancing

Strategies Used by Fathers and Mothers

 

 

 

Low Medium High
Fathers 80.81 6.74 12.45
Mothers 79.52 8.61 11.87
Both parents 80.16 7.68 12.16

 

As shown in Table 4 fathers did not use higher level
distancing behaviors when interacting with their sons than
with their daughters (3 (1,12) = .00, ns, Table I-4).
Paternal and maternal use of distancing strategies while

interacting with sons and daughters was approximately

equal.

50

Table 4

Percent bf Levels b; Distancing Strategies Used by Fathers

 

and Mothers with their Daughters and Sons

 

 

 

Low Medium High
Fathers
Daughters 80.81 7.30 11.89
Sons 80.81 6.19 13.00
Mothers
Daughters 81.16 7.46 11.38
Sons 77.86 9.78 12.36

 

Table 5 shows the percent Of low, medium, and high
level distancing behaviors used during each task. A.main
effect for task was significant: more medium distancing
strategies were used during the picture book task than
during the play—doh task, §(1,12)==11.30,;3< .006, Table

I-4.

51

Table 5

Percent bf Low, Medium and High Level Distancing Strategies

 

 

Used by Fathers and Mothers During Each Activity

 

 

 

Low Medium High
Play-doh
Fathers 81.84 5.72 12.44
Mothers 80.63 5.61 13.76
Both parents 81.24 5.66 13.10
Picture book
Fathers 79.78 7.77 12.45
Mothers 78.40 11.60 10.00
Both parents 79.09 9.68* 11.23

 

*

E < .006.

Mother-child Interactions

 

The hypotheses posed the issues of whether or not (1)
mothers would exhibit more warmth toward their children
than fathers, (2) mothers would exhibit greater sensitivity
to their children than fathers, and (3) mothers would be
more likely to actively engage their children in both the
play—doh and picture book tasks more frequently than
fathers.

Warmth 32d Sensitivity. NO support was found for the

 

first and second hypotheses. Parent sex was nonsignificant

52

as a main effect for the warmth measure (§(1,12)==.00, ns,
Table I-5)cu:for the sensitivity measure L§(1412) =.08,
ns, Table I-5). However, a significant main effect for sex
of child was found for the warmth measure (§_(l,12) = 9.69,
p < .01, Table I—5), and for the sensitivity measure (b
(1,12)==4482,lp'<.05, Table I-S). .As shown in Figure 3
more warmth and greater sensitivity was exhibited toward

girls than toward boys by both mothers and fathers.

 

Warmth Sensitivity

2.69 2.59

2.06 2.15

Daughters Sons Daughters Sons

 

Figure b. Mean ratings Of parental warmth and parental

sensitivity toward daughters and sons.

Child engagement. There was no evidence to support

 

the third hypothesis that mothers, more so than fathers,
would actively engage their children in both activities (3
(1,12) = .81, ns, Table I-6). Four child engagement
responses were possible: actively engaged, passively
engaged, nonengaged, and no-time-to-respond.

Sex of parent was not significant as a main effect for

any'of the engagement responses. Main effects, however,

53

were found for task, and for sex of child. The task main
effect, as shown in Table 6, indicates that the children

were actively engaged more frequently during the play-dob

task compared to the book task (g (l, 12) = 63.10, p <

.001L,Table I—6L,and were more passively engaged during
the book task than during the play-doh task (b (1,12) =
84.87, E < .001, Table I-6). Allowing children
insufficient time to respond was rare, but when it occurred
it was most likely to be during the picture book task (5

(1,12)==4.57, b <.05, Table I-6).

Table 6

Percent bf Child Engagement Responses During

 

Play-doh and Picture Book Tasks

 

 

Percent Of
Child Engagement Responses

 

Active Passive Nonengaged No Time
Play-doh 88.8* 5.8 4.3 1.1
Book 63.7 29.6* 4.8 1.9+

 

*-

E < .001
+2 < .05

A main effect for sex of child, as shown in Table 7,
suggests that the boys were nonengaged more frequently in
both activities than were the girls (E (1p12)==9.28, p <

.01, Table 1-6).

54

Table 7

Percent bf Nonengagement Responseebyugbbb

 

and Daughters During Each Task

 

 

 

Play-dob Book Tasks combined
Sons 6.87 9.23 8.05*
Daughters 1.74 .42 1.08

 

*

E<°Ol

A parent x age of child interaction is shown in Figure
4. Not allowing children sufficient time to respond was
rare inasmuch as this category accounted for less that 2%
of the responses, but when it happened it was most likely
to be when fathers were interacting with the younger

children (g (1,12) = 7.71, E < .02, Table I-6).

 

NO Time to Respond

 

2.5
Mother = O
2.0 Father = *
of 40
1.5
1.0
.5
Old Young

 

Figure 4. Percent of no-time-to—respond to fathers and
mothers by young and old children

55

Also, a task x parent x sex Of child interaction
effect was found. Figure 5 shows that during the play-dob
task daughters were passively engaged more frequently with
their mothers than with their fathers (_F_(1,12) = 9.28, p_ <

.01, Table I-6).

 

Play-dob Picture Book
sons
daughters

10 38 *////////*
34
5 O» o
\\\\\w 26 o—-—"”"’/’/0
3 25

Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers

*0

 

 

Figure _5_. Percent Of passive engagement responses by sons
and daughters to their mothers and fathers during each

task.

Children: Age and Sex yariableb

 

The hypotheses pertaining to children posed the issues
of whether (1) children would produce longer MLUs when
interacting with their fathers than mothers, (2) Older
children would receive more distancing strategies than
younger ones,(3) children who produced longer MLUs would
receive more distancing strategies than those who produced

shorter MLUs, and (4) children who produced longer MLUs

56

would be more actively engaged in the task than those

children who produced shorter MLUs.

Children did not produce longer MLUs when interacting
with their fathers (b (1,12) = 1.61, ns, Table I-7).
However, main effects for child age and for task were
found. Older children produced longer MLUs (5(1,12) =
EL66, p_< .04, Table I-7), and longer MLUs were produced
during the play—doh activity'(§ (1,12) = 18.27, E < .001,
Table I—7L

Older children received neither more mediun1(§(l,12) =
.42, ns, Table I-4) nor high (b (1,12)==.67, ns, Table I—
4) levels of distancing strategies than did younger
children. As shown in Table 8 the percent of levels (low,
medium and high) of distancing strategies received by

younger and Older children are comparable.

Table 8
Pbbcent bf LEXelfi b; bibbancing Strategibs Receiybg

by Older and Youngeb Children

 

 

 

Low Medium High
Old 79.43 8.15 12.42
Young 80.89 7.20 11.91

 

NO support was found for the hypothesis that Older

57

children, more so than younger ones, would be actively
engaged in both tasks (5 (1,12) = .76, ns, Table I-6). As
noted in Table 9 child age was not a significant factor for

an active engagement response.

Table 9

Percent 2i Child Engagement Responses by Old and Young

 

 

 

Children During Both Tasks

 

 

 

Active Passive Nonengaged NO Time
Play—dob
Old 89.6 4.
Young 88.2 7.
Book
Old 67.1 24.
Young 60.6 34.

 

As was previously mentioned and shown in Figure 4 a
parent x age of child interaction was significant in the
no-time—to-respond category: fathers allowed less time for
younger children to respond (3 (1,12) = 7.71, E < .02,

Table I-6).

Additional Measures 9; Parent-child Interaction

 

 

Other analyzed measures that have not been discussed

are: length of interaction time during each activity,

58

parent MLUs, number Of child utterances per minute, number
of parent utterances per minute, number of parent conversa-
tional turns per minute, number of child conversational
turns per minute, child MLTs, and parent MLTs.

bbngth 2E interaction time. A main effect of task

 

resulted: more time was spent in the play-doh activity than
in the picture book task (5 (1,12) = 84.89, p < .001, Table

I-8). An interaction of task x sex of child was also

found: girls spent more time in both activities than did
the boys but only the book activity difference was
significant (g (1,12) = 7.57, p < .02, Table I-8).

Parent MLU. This measure produced a significant

 

interaction of task x age of child x sex Of child. Parent
MLUs were longer when interacting with Older boys during
the play—doh task, and when interacting with Older girls
during the picture book task (b (1,12) = 6.08, p < .03,
Table I-7L

Child utterances per minute. NO effects were found
for this measure. (See Appendix I, Table 9.)

Parent utterances per minute. Main effects for task
and sex ofichild were found. More utterances per minute
were directed to boys (_F_ (1,12) = 5.92, E < .03, Table I-9)
and were made during the book task (b (1,12) = 23.78, B <
.001, Table I-9L

Parent conversational turns.per minute. Two main

 

effects for task and sex of child were found: parents took

59

more turns when interacting with the boys (g (1,12) = 4.71,
E < .05, Table I—10) and when looking at the picture book
(_E: (1,12) = 6.25, E < .03, Table I-lO).

Child conversational turns per minute. in“) main

 

 

effects, task and sex of child, were found: boys took more
conversational turns than girls (E (1,12) = 4.67, E < .05,
Table I-10) and more conversational turns were taken
during the picture book task than during the play-doh task
(_F_ (1,12) = 5.85, p < .03, Table I-lO).

Parent and Child MLTs. NO effects were found for

 

 

either measure. (See Appendix I, Table 11.)

Descriptive Analysis

 

After the data were analyzed it became apparent that
answers to three additional questions regarding the dyad
interaction would be of interest. These questions were:
(1) which member of the dyad began the verbal interaction,
(2) what was the content of the parent's first utterance,
and (3) who terminated the activity. NO statistical
analyses were performed but the descriptive data are
presented.

First Utterance. Parents initiated verbal interaction

 

86% of the time compared to 14% for the children. Fathers
made the first utterance 87% of the time and mothers 84% of
the time. Parents initiated verbal interaction 84% of the
time during the play-doh task and 87% of the time during

the picture book task. Of the 14% of the children who began

60

the verbal interaction, 66% were Older children, and 55%
were girls.

gbntent 2E parental first utterance. As shown in

 

Table 10 almost half Of the parent’s first utterances were
either a statement or a question directing the child’s
actions, for example, "Here's a piece of play-doh for you
to play with and one for me." or "What is that?', when
referring to an object in the picture book. Parental
utterances directing the childrenksactions or responses
occurred 78% Of the time at the beginning Of the picture
book task, compared to about 16% at the beginning of the
play-dob task.

Parents requested their childfls input or Opinion 32%

of the time. Examples of parental request statements
include: "Do you want me to tell you a story?" or "What
would you like to make with the play-dob?". Parents asked
for their childe opinion 59% of the time when using play-
doh but only 3% of the time when looking at the book.
Twelve percent Of the parents made explanatory
statements to their children. Examples are “That's called
play-dob." and "The book has a bunny picture on the cover."
Statements in the category Of other, which accounted
for 9% of first utterances, were mainly repetitions Of the

childrenksutterances.

61

Table 10

Percent 2: Type 9; Parental First Utterance 3b Each Task

 

 

 

Content of Parent First Utterance

 

Directing Requesting Explaining Other
P-doh 15.62 59.38 12.50 12.50
Book 78.13 3.12 12.50 6.25
Combined 46.88 31.25 12.50 9.37

 

Termination b: activity. As shown in Table 11, 81% of

 

the dyads continued with the play-doh task for 15 minutes
or longer while less than 13% of the dyads used the
allotted time for the picture book activity. The picture
book task was terminated by the children 53% of the time,
and of the children who terminated the book task 71% were

boys.

Table 11

Percent 2E Termination bf Play-dob and Picture Book Tasks

 

 

 

Termination of Activity

 

Child Parent Mutual Consent Time Limit
Play-doh 9.37 3.13 6.25 81.25
Book 53.12 12.50 21.88 12.50

 

62

Summary:

The hypotheses that posed issues of CHfferences
between fathers’ and mothers' speech to their preschoolers
were not supported. Parent differences, as significant
main effects, were found only in one speech measure--
mothers used more exclamations than fathers. This finding,
however, should be viewed with caution because of the low
reliability in the scoring of exclamations. A combination
of interacting variables--type of task, sex of child, and
age of child—-however, contributedtx>the differences as
well as to the similarities found in fathers' and mothers'
speech.

The major differences found between parents are that
fathers directed more declaratives to girls, more
interrogatives to boys, and more yes/no statements to
younger boys, whereas mothers directed more interrogatives
to girls, more yes/no declaratives to older girls, and more
indirect questions to boys when looking at the picture
book. Also, the girls were passively engaged with their
mothers during the play-doh task.

The major similarities are that both fathers and
mothers directed more imperatives to boys (fathers to Older
boys when using play-doh and to younger boys when looking
at the book, and mothers to older boys when looking at the
book) and made more utterances per minute totfluaboys as

well as taking more conversational turns with them. Tag

63

questions were asked more frequently Oftfluagirls than of
the boys. Both fathers and mothers exhibited greater

warmth and greater sensitivity toward girls than toward

boys.

64

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

The current study found no evidence to support the
suggestion that fathers’ and mothers’ verbal interactions
with their preschool children provide differential
experiences for children (Gleason 1975, 1979, and 1983;
McLaughlin, White, McDevitt & Raskin, 1983; and Rondal,
1980L. That is, there was no evidence that mothers were
warmer and more sensitive to their children than were
fathers. Nor was there any evidence that mothers asked
questions that the children could readily answer or could
answer with minimal effort while fathers asked questions
that placed higher cognitive demands upon the children.
The data, however, did indicate that parent-child verbal
interaction was influenced by the kind of task in which the
dyad was involved. Finally, the data did support the idea
that parents’ interactions are influenced by the sex and
the age of their child, and as a result, they engage in
differential treatment.

Contribution bf task

 

The parent-child dyads interacted for a longer time
during the play—doh task than during the picture book task
(an average of 14 minutes compared to an average of 10
minutes, respectively). bk>1ess than 15 minutes were spent
with the play-doh task by 81% of the dyads, whereas only
13% spent the allotted time looking at the picture book.

Both tasks were enjoyed by the dyads, but the play—dob task

65

encouraged longer participation. For some dyads
manipulation of play-doh was a novel experience as well as
an Opportunity for greater active involvement. In
contrast, the shorter average interaction time in the
picture book task was the result of the finite quality
inherent in the task. Most dyads terminated active
involvement on the last page of the book.

Children had longer MLUs when playing with the play—
doh than when looking at the book. During the play-doh
activity, 59% of parental first utterances were inquiries
about what the child wished to make or what the child
wanted the parent to do. Children were active controllers
of this task, and many parents allowed and encouraged their
children to guide the interaction--verbally and
physically. By way of contrast, parents controlled the
picture book task inasmuch as few parents asked for their
child’s input or suggested that their child ”read" to
them, or tell them about the book. It appeared that the
task influenced the child’s MLUs.

During the book task, 73% Of parents’ first
utterances were statements or questions directing the
child’s involvement. Parents made more utterances per
minute during this task and gave the children less time to
respond to their utterances. Parents and children also took
more conversational turns per minute during the book task

indicating shorter verbalizations. Children terminated the

66

task where they terminated 9% Of the time. Boys terminated
the book task more quickly than girls. In addition,
parents’ MLUs were longer when looking at the picture book
with older girls. It may be that girls have a longer
attention span for quiet activities than boys, whereas boys
may prefer activities that are less quiet and passive. The
longer parental MLUs, which were found when parents
interacted with older boys during the play—doh task, may be
indicative (H? the dyad’s greater interaction. These
findings differ from Malone and Guy (1982), McLaughlin,
White, McDevitt & Raskin (1983) and Rondal (1980) who
reported that mothers’ MLUs were greater than fathers’
MLUs. The data, however, support Golinkoff and Ames (1979)
and Wilkinson, Hiebert & Rembold (1981) who reported no
differences between parental MLUs.

During the play-doh activity, the most frequently
asked questions were repetitions of children’s utterances
and yes/no questions. Yes/no and repetition questions
appear to serve a two—fold purpose:cn1the one hand, they
convey parental understanding of the childrenfis statement
or action while” on the other hand, they are requests for
the children to verify their verbalizations or actions.
All of the dyads developed themes during their play-doh
interactions and parents’ use of questions assisted in
maintenance of the themes. Some of the themes were

planning a birthday party, planting a garden, going

67

fishing, having an animal fight, preparing a meal, meeting
grandfather at the airport, and re-enacting a recently seen
movie. Children and parents alike engaged in rather
creative play.

Exclamations were used more frequently during the
play-doh task. Exclamatory statements were generated by
the parents out of enthusiasm for the children’s creative
efforts. Typical comments were "Oh, how nice!", "GreatV3
and ”Wowl'.

All of the children were more actively engaged in the
play-dob task, and more passively engaged in the book task.
Play-doh is a medium which lends itself to active
engagement; however, for a child to be involved in the book
task one would expect a more frequent passive engagement
because children are attending to and quietly listening to
their parents. When looking at the picture book, parents
made more utterances per minute and also gave the children
less time to respond to their utterances. (This was
particularly true of fathers of young sons.) It seems
reasonable for parents to make several remarks about
pictures in the book without either encouraging or
expecting the child tx>1make a response after each
utterance. And it may well be that parents, particularly
fathers, give younger children less time to respond because
they are attempting to hold the child7s attention. Gleason
(1975 and 1978) reported that fathers in her studies

concentrated on telling interesting stories. Fathers in the

68

current study did not appear compelled to tell more
interesting stories than mothers. There were stylistic
differences between dyads; some fathers and mothers made up
interesting stories about the pictures, while other
fathers’ and mothers’ verbalizations focused strictly on
the content of each individual picture.

The picture book task elicited the greatest number of
medium distancing strategies. Every parent used medium
distancing strategies during this task. Even though all of
the defined mental operational demands were made, the most
common were reproduction, enumeration, and sequencing.
Parents particularly encouraged their children to recall
past events (reproduction) and to discuss them. This
distancing strategy was either elicited by a specific
picture or by comments the child made about a picture.
Examples of reproduction are:

P: That looks like James’ rabbits, doesn’t it?

James have some rabbits?
C: Annie (referring to self) have some rabbit?
P: Annie doesn t have rabbits.

James has rabbits.

Do you remember, did you feed the rabbits?

With Daddy?
C: I hold on Daddy’s hand.

and

C: She’s putting cream on her.

P: Well, she’s not putting cream on her head.
What happens when the lamb is taking a bath.
What do we do to your hair when we take a bath?

C: Pour water on me.

P: Pour water on you and what do we do to your hair?
What do we do?

C: Wash my hair.

P: Wash your hair!

69

Is that what’s happening here?

C: Yea.
P: Is the sheep getting his shampoo?
C: Yea.

If they don’t cooberate (sic) they have water in
the eyes. .

P: That 8 right, won t get water in the eyes if they

cooperate.

Medium distancing strategies were also used during the
play-doh task but the picture book task elicited more
medium distancing strategies, especially strategies
involving the reproduction of past events.

Parental references to past events as discussed by
Fash and Madison (1981) resemble medium distancing
strategies inasmuch as previous experiences are emphasized.
They reported that fathers in their sample referred to past
events more frequently than mothers. This difference
between parents was interpreted to mean that fathers’
demand a higher level of cognitive processing from their
children. The current study provides no support for their
interpretation; mothers and fathers were equally
challenging of their children. The task, rather than

specific parent, *was the important factor in the

reproduction of past events.

 

Warmth and sensitivity. On both the warmth and

 

sensitivity scales mothers and fathers of daughters were
rated higher than were mothers and fatherscnfsons. .All

parents exhibited warmth and sensitivity toward their

70

children, but more so toward their daughters. This finding
is contrary to Gleason (1978) and Gleason and Grief (1983)
who suggested that mothers are warmer, more tuned inIand
sensitive toward their children than fathers. It also runs
counter to Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) who suggested that
fathers are more sex-differentiating in their interpersonal
and socialization behaviors toward their children than are
mothers. The data do support Block’s (1978) report that
parents engage in differential socialization of sons and
daughters,anuiparticularly that greater warmth is shown
toward daughters.

Tag questions. Parents of daughters used more tag

 

questions than did parents of sons. Grammatically, the
function of a tag question is to request confirmation of
the speaker’s statement (de Villiers and de Villiers,
1980). On the other hand, Lakoff (1973) believes that tag
questions typify the kind of immature, overpolite, and
nonassertive language that is commonly used by women. If
Lakoff’s assertion about tag questions is correct, parents
may be teaching their daughters to be polite and nonasser-
tive in their verbalizations. The current study also found
that parents of sons used more imperatives than did the
parents of daughters. Gleason (1975) suggests that imper—
atives directed to sons gives the impression that boys are
to become accustomed to taking orders early in life thereby
learning to give them later in life. Consequently, these

particular forms of parental verbal interaction may be

71

indicative of a subtle differentiation in socialization:
Daughters are being taught an indirect forn1<mf communica-
tion through the use of tag questions, whereas sons are
being taught a direct form Of communication through the use
Of imperatives.

MLTs and utterances per minute. Mothers and fathers

 

 

 

of sons made more utterances per minute and had more
conversational turns per minute than did parents Of
daughters. This latter finding supports Golinkoff and Ames’
(1979) and partially supports Stoneman and Brody15(l981)
report that fathers took more conversational turns with
their sons. Parents may have been reacting to sons who were
not particularly loquacious. Boys took more conversational
turns per minute which also indicates that their utterances
were shorter than girl’s utterances. It may also be that
because sons were frequently nonengaged in activities, more
parental utterances as well as greater conversational turn
taking were techniques used by parents to help keep their

sons involved in the tasks.

Age f child

 

MLUs and questions. Older children used longer MLUs

 

than did younger children suggesting more linguistic
maturity. This may be one reason why more yes/no questions
were asked of younger children while more wh/questions were
directed tx> Older childrend If wh/questions are

cognitively more demanding, it is reasonable to expect that

72

a greater number of these questions would be asked Of older
children or of those children who are linguistically more
mature. Older children are learning to refine their
discourse skills euml wh/questions assist ix: this
refinement. Conversely, it is also reasonable to expect
that a greater number of yes/no questions would be directed
to younger children because they are linguistically less
mature. The following dialogue between a parent and young
child is an example of a yes/no question used to verify the
child’s request:
C: I got a big leg.
I got a really big leg.
Put a stick on it here.
P: Stick it on here?
C: Yes.
The following dialogue between a parent and Older child is
an example of wh/questions:
P: Why do you think he might be in the box?
C: Maybe he might hurt.
That s why maybe he’s ina box.
P: Could be.

Any other reasons you can think of why he might be
in the box?

C: Don’t know.

P: Well, if you had a bunny rabbit when would you put
him in a box?

C: When I put him next to the car seat with me.

Distancing strategies. The data were examined to

 

determine whether older children (3 1/2 years) received
more distancing strategies than younger ones (2 1/2 years),
and also whether those children who produced longer MLUs

received more distancing strategies than those who produced

73

shorter MLUs. It was found that Older children produced
longer MLUs but parental distancing strategies were
comparable for both age groups. Older children received
less lower level distancing strategies and more medium and
higher level distancing strategies than younger children.
The difference between the two age groups was slight. It
may be that many of the high level distancing strategies
are inappropriate for children 3 1/2 years of age and
younger. Even though each mental Operational demand
identified in the high level distancing strategy category
was made by parents, some demands, such as transformation
and generalization, were made infrequently. The most
frequent mental Operational demands were for planning
(e4L, “What do you want me to make with the play-doh?',
"How are you going to make a tiger?", "What should I do to
make a snowman?') and for evaluating consequences (94L,
"What do you like best about the story?”, I"What was your
favorite picture?', and "Why was that your favorite?'L
These particular high level distancing strategies were
asked mainly at the beginning of the task (i.e., questions
about planning), and at the end of the task (i.eq
evaluation questions). Unfortunately, the closing remarks
of several dyads in the play—dob task are unknown because
the audio equipment was shut Off after 15 minutes. Whether
this additional data would have produced other results is

unknown.

74

Types b: sentence

Declaratives. Fathers made more declarative state—

 

ments to their daughters than mothers did. In addition,
more declarative statements and longer MLUs were made to
older daughters when looking at the picture book. Thus,
parents, and particularly fathers, frequently told their
daughters about the pictures rather than encouraging them
to be actively involved with the book.

Fathers made more yes/no declarative statements during
the picture book task, whereas mothers made more during the
play-doh task. Mothers and fathers did not differ in the
kind Of utterance used but their utterances were influenced
by the task. Child age and sex also produced interaction
effects: fathers of younger sons and mothers Of older
daughters used the largest percentage of yes/no
declaratives. Whether the parental utterance was one Of
affirmation or negation, it appeared that for some parents
the yes/no declaratives served as a filler statement,
whereas for other parents yes/no declaratives was a tactic
used to encourage the child’s interaction. An example of
a yes/no declarative is:

C: That’s a birdie.

P: No.
C: Yes, a birdie.
P: No.
C: Not a birdie?
P: No.

75

C: What is it?
P: You don’t know?
(Child shakes head no.)
P: It’s a bumblebee.
C: Oh, a bumblebee.
P: Yes.

Interrogatives. Fathers asked their sons more

 

questions while mothers asked their daughters more
questions. This partially supports Cherry and Lewis (1976)
who found that mothers of daughters asked more questions
than did mothers of sons; however, there were no fathers in
their sample for comparison. More questions were asked of
younger daughters and older sons during the picture book
task, and more questions were asked of younger sons during
the play-dob task. The specific kind of questions asked
may Offer some explanation about these interactions.
During the picture book task more test questions were asked
by mothers, more test questions were asked of young
children, and more test questions were asked of boys. The
purpose of a test question is to access a child’s
knowledge. Block (1978) found that mothers and fathers
were concerned with achievement in the socialization of
sons and that fathers, in particular, emphasized the
cognitive aspects of teaching when interacting with their
sons. This is one explanation for the book/son
interaction. The picture book task is a perfect medium for
testing a young child’s knowledge about colors, numbers,
and properties of various animals and Objects. Questions

typically asked by parents included "What does a lamb

76

say?", "What color is that rabbit?", and "How many apples
are on the step?'. Engle (1980), comments that mothers of
young children take their teaching role seriously, and it
may be that mothers greater use of test questions is
indicative of both teaching and testing their child.

Mothers of sons asked more indirect questions while
looking at the picture book. It may be that mothers want
to be certain that their sons can demonstrate their
cognitive abilities directly and indirectly. It seems more
likely, however, that indirect questions were asked of the
sons in an attempt to keep them involved in the picture
book task.

Tag questions were asked most frequently of Older
children by parents during the book task, while mothers
asked more tag questions of both younger and older children
during the play—doh task. Tag questions served to keep the

children involved in the discourse.

Imperatives. Fathers directed more imperatives to

 

their older sons while engaged with play—doh. However, when
engaged in the picture book task they directed more
imperatives to their younger sons. Mothers directed more
imperatives to their Older sons during the book task.
Several researchers who reported greater paternal use of
imperatives toward sons speculated that the use of
imperatives encourages sons to be direct and to give

orders, behaviors considered appropriate for males. No

77

mention has been made in the literature of mothers
directing imperatives to their sons with the exception of
Cherry and Lewis (1976) who noted the nonsignificant
finding that mothers of boys used more imperatives than
mothers of girls. (No fathers were in their studyd The
greater use of imperatives with boys in the current sample
may be a pattern of speech used to gain and sustain an
active child’s attention. Many of the boys were indeed
active; the boys, more so than the girls, were nonengaged
more frequently because of their involvement in other
activities, such as jumping on the furniture, playing with
other toys, making loud noises, or leaving the room. Or the
use of imperatives may be another example of parental
differentiation in the socialization of young children:
Parental verbalizations are more direct and directive to

sons than are their verbalizations to daughters.

Child Engagement

 

Girls were more passively engaged when playing with
mothers during the play-doh task. Although this particular
task lent itself to active engagement the girls (but seldom
the boys) frequently watched their mothers make various
Objects with the play-dob, and demonstrate various 'how to
do” techniques. This supports Block¥3(l978) report that
mothers tend to supervise and restrict their daughters more
so than their sons. This would certainly encourage passive

and possibly dependent behavior from the girls. A11 in all

78

the boys were more active, preferring to manipulate the
play-doh themselves rather than watch a demonstration by
their mothers. In.a few instances, boys were admonished
for not sharing the play—dob with their parent. This rarely
occurred with girls because they shared the play-dob.

flmbgy. The findings in the current study support
reports of some researchers while challenging others. The
idea that fathers are cognitively more demanding of their
children than mothers was not supported. Mothers and
fathers in this study were equally demanding Of their
children. None of the reviewed studies had a direct test
to determine whether fathers were more demanding than
mothers. Frequently, that idea was given as an explanation
for specific findings (ekp, fathers ask more wh/questions
than yes/no questions and wh/questions are more taxingL
The current study is an attempt to quantify and measure the
type of questions parents used by identifying and counting
the levels of distancing strategies. Mothers’ and fathers’
use of all levels of distancing strategies was
approximately the same. The task, not the sex of the
parent, was the important variable. NO analysis was made
to assess the childrens’ responses to the parents’
questions. It would be interesting to know whether, and
how Often, parents’ distancing strategies were successful
in eliciting the intended mental Operational demand. An

investigation of childrens’ responses to parental questions

79

would help clarify the issue of cognitive demands.

Several reviewed studies suggested that mothers and
fathers prefer specific kinds of questions. This study
found no evidence to support parental question preference.
Parents asked yes/no questions of younger children and
wh/questions of Older children. This difference was not
found in the reviewed studies because they generally had
samples of children younger than age two.

The current study gives no support to the idea that
mothers exhibit more warmth and greater sensitivity to
their children than do fathers. This idea is a presumption
supported mainly by anecdotal material. None of the
reviewed studies included measures to compare mothers and
fathers on warnmlland sensitivityu Again, the sex Of the
parent was not a crucial variable, however, the sex of the
child was. Both mothers and fathers of daughters exhibited
greater warmth and sensitivity than did mothers and fathers
of sons.

Investigators who reported no difference between
parents in their use of imperatives had samples of children
who were age 2 and under. The reviewed literature suggests
that mothers’ and fathers’ imperative use is comparable
when talking to young children, however, as the children
become older mothers’ imperative use decreases while
fathers’ use remains approximately the same. It may be,
in the main, that fathers do use imperatives more

frequently with older children than mothers. However,

80

occasions occur when mothers’ imperative use is comparable.
At least in this study mothers’ imperative use increased
when interacting with Older sons during the book task. On
theeother hand, this finding may be spurious because of a
4-way interaction in a small sample. Partial support is
given to reports where fathers direct more imperatives to
their sons than to their daughters. 131the current study
fathers of sons used more imperatives than did fathers Of
daughters; however, mothers of older sons used more
imperatives, also. This study strongly supports the
finding that differential treatment occurs in parents’ use
of imperativese-imperatives are directed to boys.

The current study examined fathers’ and mothers’
speech to their preschool sons and daughters to find out
whether their verbal interactions with their children were
different or comparable. There is no compelling evidence
to suggest that the sex oftfluaparent influenced parental
speech to their preschool children. Considerable evidence
was found, however, to suggest that parental speech is
influenced strongly by specific tasks as well as by their
child’s sex and age. Differential treatment of boys and

girls was evident.

81

Appendices

Appendix A

Recruitment Letter

Dear Parents:

We are currently conducting a study on how young
children interact with their mothers and fathers during
play time. First born children between the ages of 2 and 4
yearsanuitheir parents are invited tijarticipate in the
study.

Families who agree to participate in the study will be
visited in their homes on two occasions. During one visit
we will videotape your child while playing with the mother,
and during the other visit your child will be videotaped
while playing with the father. Each child and parent will
look through a book and play with modeling clay. These
toys will be provided by us. Each visit will take no
longer than 30 minutes. Two visits, rather than one, are
made to ensure that the visits do not tire your child.

Data collected on your child’s interactions will be
used only for scientific purposes. Anonymity of each child
and family'is assured. Code numbers will be assigned tO
all participants. NO names will be attached to any
information nor will names be used in any report Of the
results of the study. After completion of the project you
will receive a summary of the overall results.

If you are interested in participating in the study or
if you want more information, please call us at 353—3933 or
fill out and return the attached self-addressed stamped
postcard.

Sincerely,

Carla L. Barnes Hiram E. Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
Ph.D Candidate Professor

Appendix B

Consent Form

Code Number

 

Michigan State University
Department of Psychology

CONSENT FORM

 

I have freely consented to take part in a scientific
study on young children’s interactions with their
parents that is being conducted by Carla L. Barnes,
doctoral candidate» under the supervision of Hiram E.
Fitzgerald, Professor of Psychology at Michigan State
University.

The study has been explained to me and I understand the
explanation that has been given and what my and my
child’s participation will involve.

I understand that I am free to discontinue our partici-
pation in this study at any time..

I understand that the anonymity of my child and family
is assured and that the results of the study will be
treated in strict confidence. Within these restrictions
results Of the study will be made available to me at
my request.

I understand the videotaping is for the purpose of
scoring. :1 also understand that IN) videotape
demonstrations will be made without further written
consent.

I understand that my participation in the study does
not guarantee any beneficial results to me or to my
child.

Signatures:

 

Relationship to the child

 

 

 

Relationship to the child

 

 

83

Appendix C

Transcription Guidelines and Editing Guidelines

TRANSCRIPTION GUIDELINES

 

Listen to the tape in its entirety before you begin to
transcribe. This will help familiarize you with the
content as well as the participants’ voices. Determine the
recording length in minutes and seconds. Begin timing the
recording when the experimenter concludes the instructions
to the dyad participants.

The transcription begins with a dyad member’s first

utterance after the experimenter gives the instructions.

TRANSCRIPTION FORMAT

1. Copy the subject number from the cassette (e4L,
SlAC, Sl4BS, etc.) onto the top of the first transcript
page.

2. Write the length of interaction time in minutes and
seconds under the identification code.

3. Number each page in succession.

4. Leave a line between each speaker’s utterance.

5. When the transcript is complete, write "the end“
on the last page.

6. Sign your name and date the transcript.

7. Return the audio cassette and tape to me.

84

TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

child speaker
parent speaker
use at the end of an utterance where an
interrogative meaning is considered to have

been intended

use at the end of an utterance considered to
have exclamatory intention

use to indicate an interruption

3 dots signify a lengthly pause, that is,
5 seconds

shift of pitch range relatively higher (“) or
lower (v) than normal for the speaker

shift to extra high (““) or extra low
(vv) pitch

represents heavier emphasis on a word, emy,
"That’s MINE."

3 colons indicate that the syllable before
the colon is prolonged, e.g., 'ba:::by' or
”cu:::tie'

indicates that an utterancecnra portion of
it is unintelligible

8S

TRANSCRIPT EDITING INSTRUCTIONS

 

1. Listen to the tape while reading the transcript.

it Make the written changes legibly in pencil on the
transcript. If the changes are lengthy, attach a sheet of
paper to the transcript. A few Of the transcripts are
single spaced, which makes it difficult to write
the corrections on the copy--I apologize.

3. The Open parenthesis () means that the transcriber
could not understand the utterances. Fill in those blanks
the VERY BEST that you can. If you are unable to
understand the utterance leave the () blank.

4. The symbol // stands for interruption. Determine
if a true interruption occurred or if one speaker paused
and then the other speaker made an utterance.

5. The symbols “ and v indicate that the speaker
shifted the pitch range relatively higher (“) or lower (v)
than normal.

6. Capitals represent a heavier emphasis on a word,
such as, MINE.

7. The 3 dots .u indicate a pause of 5 seconds or
longer.

Example: P: Look.”
Do you see the COW?
That s a cow.

C: Yeah.

Use the 3 dots if the pause was five seconds or

longer. Since I need only a general idea, there is no need

86

to use a stopwatch.

8. Please pay special attention to the punctuation. A
question mark (?) is used at the end of an utterance when
an interrogative meaning is intended. An exclamation point
(H is used at the end Of an utterance for an exclamatory
intention.

Example- a typed transcript may read:

C: Ok. ’
P: Yeah, that 3 good.
C: Yeah.

GO to town.
P: Go to town.
C: Ok.

However, what you hear is:

C: Ok.
P: Yeah!
That’s good.
C: Yeah, go to town.
P: Go to town?
C: Ok.

9. Sometimes a child speaker (C) mispronounced a word
but the transcribers assumed the intended word and wrote
what they thought the child intended to say, e.gq "C:
There’s a yellow ball." However, what the transcriber
heard was 'yelon'. When you come upon those incidents
place in parentheses the word C uttered.

Example: C: There’s a yellow (yelon) ball.
or

C: Look, a little (yiddle) lamb.

10. When a speaker whispers write (WHISPER) at the

87

beginning of the utterance.

11. When C uses the words 'monfl’or “dad", or forms
thereof, change those words to P (for parent).

12. When the parent calls the child by name, replace
the given name with CN (for child’s name)

13. If the proper names of people (other than the
researcher) and names of pets have not been changed on the
typed transcripts please rename the people and animals.

14. Some of the tapes may be longer than 15 minutes.
Begin timing the tape after the researcher has given the
instructions to the family dyad. Write STOP-15 MINUTES at
the appropriate point in the transcript.

15. When you have completed editing the transcript
sign your name and write the date on the top of the first
page. Place the transcript in the folder that is labeled
“completed transcript" located in the cabinet in 119 PRB.

16. If you have ANY question (5) please ask.

88

Appendix D
Scoring Instructions
and

Forms for Conversational Measures

MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCE (MLU) CODING INSTRUCTIONS

Purpose and definition:
The mean length of utterance (MLU) is a measure of a
child’s language maturity as well as a measure of an
adult’s speech complexity. MLUs are determined by counting
the morphemes (a morpheme is the smallest unit of
meaningful speech) in each utterance and dividing the total
number Of morphemes by the total number of utterances
obtained during a speech sample. An example of one
speaker’s utterances during a verbal exchange is:
Hi!
How are you feeling this lovely day?

I feel great because of the weather.
Autumn is my favorite season.

l-—‘|U'|\ICDI-‘

Total = 21 morphemes and 4 utterances

MLU = 21/4 = 5.25

Calculating MLUs:

1. Count all of the utterances in the transcript. (An
utterance is defined as a word or string of words
identified by a pause or by grammatical completenessJ
Utterances were determined at the time of transcription.
Generally, an utterance is on one line of a transcript,
although some utterances may be two or three lines in
length.

2. All inflections are counted as:sing1e morphemes.
Inflections include the possessive -s, the plural -s, past

tense —ed, and progressive -ing.

89

Example:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Eating carrots. 4 morphemes

(l) (2) (3)
Petted her. 3 morphemes

3. All catenatives (eép, gonna, wanna, thatsa) are

counted as one morpheme.

Example:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
What do you wanna make? 5 morphemes
(1) (2) (3) (4)
I gonna make flower. 4 morphemes

4. Count all diminutives (84L, horsey, doggie, mommy)
as a single morpheme.
Example:
(1) (2) (3)

Doggie wanna eat. 3 morphemes

5. Compound words are treated as a single morpheme.

Example:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Lamb having birthday. 4 morphemes
(1) (2) (3)
Smell the playdoh. 3 morphemes

6. All ritualized duplications (e4L, bye-bye, Oink

Oink, pee pee) are counted as one morpheme.

Example:
(1) (2) (3)
Duckie say quack quack. 3 morphemes
(l) (2) 2 morphemes

A kitty cat!

90

7. Stuttering is considered a repeated effort Of a
single word, therefore, count the repeated word ONCE in its

most complete form.

Example:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
The the the lamb, the lamb eating. 4 morphemes
(l) (2) (3) (4) (5)

The apples, apples, apples went bump. 5 morphemes

8. When a word is used repeatedly for emphasis or

attention, count the word each time it is used.

Example:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
CM, CM, lookit, lookit, a baby bunny. 7 morphemes
(l) (2)
Mine, mine! 2 morphemes

9. DO not count fillers (e4L,uh, Oh, ah, er) as
morphemes but do count HH+, HH—, no, yeah, yes, Ok, utoh
and 00. These latter words or sounds appear to be
meaningful as conversational aids rather than as fillers.

Please note that when these words or sounds are the
bbly morphemes in the utterance circleethe corresponding
number on the coding form. (See sample coding form.)

Example:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Look,here is the, ab, little, ah, the little lamb, ah,

(8) (9)( 10)
peeking at you. 10 morphemes

HH+ l morpheme (l is circled on the coding form)

91

MLU and MLT
CODING INSTRUCTIONS

1. Use the MSU computer lab data coding forms to
score these measures.

2. Write the subject number on the first line.

3. Score the parent’s (P) speech first. Identify
the speaker, e.g., P. Count the morphemes in each
utterance and enter the number on the coding form.
Utterance #1 will correspond with colummn #1 on the coding
form, utterance #2 will correspond with column #2, and so
forth.

4. After coding all P utterances in a speech sample,
which is the entire transcript, code C (child) utterances.

5. Sign and date all of your coding forms.

6. Enter the data from the coding sheet on the £222

bgbgbb bb Utteranbb form (yellow form) and on the

 

Conversational Turns and Mean Length 2E Turb form (pink

 

form).

7. Return the transcripts, the completed coding
sheets and data forms to the labeled box in the file
cabinet.

8. If you have questions please contact me.

*Please see attached sample form and sample transcript

92

Coder SUBJECT

Date

 

MEAN LENGTH OF UTTERANCE

Formula for MLU:

(total number of morphemes / length of time)

 

(total number of utterances / length of time)

Parent MLUS:

( / )

 

 

Child MLUS:

 

 

93

Coder SUBJECT

 

Date

 

CONVERSATIONAL TURNS
and

MEAN LENGTH OF CONVERSATIONAL TURN

A. Conversational turns are all the utterances of one
speaker until the other person speaks. From the
transcripts carefully count all of the P turns and then
count all of the C turns.

 

Parent turns =

Child turns =

B. The formula for the Mean Length of Turn for each
speaker is

(total number of utterances / length of time)

 

(total number of turns / length of time)

PARENT MLT:

 

 

 

 

< / 1 _
( / )

CHILD MLT:
< / 1 _
( / )

94

Appendix E
Scoring Instructions
and

Form for Types of Sentences

DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES OF SENTENCE TYPES
(as listed on the Parent Utterance Scoring Form)

A. DECLARATIVES are statements that end with a period.

 

1. A declarative is a statement that ends with a
period.

2. Repeat as a declarative the child’s previous
utterance.

EX: C: It is a baby sheep.
P: It is a baby sheep.

a. Repeat and confirm

EX: C: It is a baby sheep.
P: That’s right, it is a baby sheep.

3. Repeat and expand

EX: C: It is a baby sheep.
P: It is a little black baby sheep.

a. Repeat, expand and confirm

EX: C: It is baby sheep.
P: It is a little black baby sheep, yes.

4. Count a yes or no statement used alone.

EX: Yes, yeah, sure, ok, nope, no, etc.

B. IMPERATIVES are explicit directives that usually begin

 

with the word "you'. or the word “you” is implied.
EX: You turn the page.
Turn the page.
Get your feet Off the wall.
You tell me.
Look.
Whether an imperative is labeled as positive/neutral
or negative depends upon the parent’s intonation as

well as the actual words.

95

C. EXCLAMATIONS are sharp sudden outcries. Usually an

 

exclamation point is used after the interjection.

Ex: Wow! or Great! or Ouch!

D. INTERROGATIVES are questions.

 

l. Yes/no questions are direct questions that

can be answered with either a yes or no.
EX: Do you want a drink of water?

It Wh/questions include who, what, when, where,
how, why, and which statements in order for parents to
obtain information.

Ex: What do you want to do?
a. A test question is a question that
parents ask when they'haveba.specific answer in

mind, in other words, the parents is testing the

child.
EX: P: What color is the egg? (test question)
C: Blue.
P: No, what color is that egg?
C: Blue.
P:

No, that’s a green egg.

b. In an occasional question the wh—word is
POSITIONED where the missing would be in the
sentence.

EX: The lamb is eating what?

P:

C: Milk.

P: Baa, baa black sheep, have you any
(what)?

C: Wool.

c. Based upon the parent—child discourse

96

"huh" may be interpreted as a«question meaning
"what" rather than a filler.

d. Based upon the parent—child discourse
”yes", Tyeah', may be interpreted as a question
meaning "what", ”what do you mean", "what do you
want“, etc., rather than a filler.

3. Repeat child’s previous utterance as a

question.

EX: C: A doggie.
P: A doggie?

OR

c: A doggie?
P: A doggie?

a. Repeat and expand

EX: C: A doggie.
P: A white doggie?

b. Combination of repeat and yes/n.
EX: C: I hold onto Daddy’s hand.
P: You held onto Daddy’s hand,
didn’t you?
c. Repeat, expand and yes/no
EX: C: They’re playing.
P: Are they playing with the
rabbit?

d. Combination of repeat and wh/question

EX: C: Little girl.
P: What little girl?

e. Repeat, expand and wh/question
EX: C: Little girl.
P: Where is the pretty little
girl?

4. An indirect question is a declarative

97

statement that contains an embedded partial

interrogative phrase.

I wonder where the little lamb is.

EX:
I don’t know what you mean.

5. A tag question is a declarative statement
with an interrogative attached at the end.

EX: That’s a cute bunny, isn’t it? ’
You re good at making balls, aren t you?

OTHER: There may be statements that do not fit neatly

E.
intolthese categories. (Mlthose occasions write the

entire utterance on the scoring form and define the

sentence .

EX: C Feeding her carrot to her.
P Yep, feeding carrots to the bunny, huh?

(DECLARATIVE- repeat, expand, confirm and tag question)

98

Coder SUBJECT

 

Date

 

PARENT UTTERANCES SCORING FORM
A. DECLARATIVES (TOTAL)
1. declaratives

2. repeat child’s utterances
a. repeat and confirm

3. repeat and expand child’s utterances
a. repeat, expand, confirm

4. yes/no

B. IMPERATIVES (TOTAL)
1. positive/neutral
2. negative
C. EXCLAMATIONS (TOTAL)
D. INTERROGATIVES (TOTAL)
1. yes/no questions
2. wh/questions
a. test questions
b. occasional questions

c. huh
d. yes

 

 

3. repeat child’s previous utterance

a. repeat and expand

b. repeat and yes/no

c. repeat, expand, and yes/no

d. repeat, wh/question

e. repeat, expand and wh/question

 

4. indirect questions
5. tag questions

E. OTHER

99

Appendix F
Scoring Instructions
and

Form for Parental Distancing Strategies

Mental Operational Demands on the Child
Through the Use of *
Parental Distancing Strategies

Distancing strategies are those techniques used by
parents to psychologically separate (or distance) children
from the immediate, ongoing present. The process of
distancing suggests that children can transcend the
immediate present tn? mentally projecting themselves into
the past or into the future.

Parental distancing strategies are hypothesized as
activating a child’s cognitive process (or processes) in
the form of some kind of representation. It is thought
that some distancing strategies may activate a child’s
anticipatory schema while other distancing strategies may
focus on reconstructive schema.

Three levels of distancing strategies, and the
specific mental operational demands that they make, have
been identified: Level l—-Low distancing strategies make
the mental operational demands of observing, labeling,
producing, describing, and demonstrating; Level 2—-medium
distancing strategies include the demands of sequencing,
reproducing, comparing, symmetrical classifying, asymmetri-
ical classifying, and enumerating; and Level 3--high dis-
tancing strategies demand the mental Operations of evaluat—
ing, inferring, transforming, generalizing, and planning.

Definitions and Examples of Distancing Strategies
and Their Mental Operational Demands

A. Low Distancing Strategies

1. OBSERVE: Getting the child to attend by using any
of the child’s senses, e.g., hearing, seeing,
smelling, etc. Asking the child to examine, or
parent demonstratesaumaction which demands that
the child Observes. The form of the demand is in a
verbal context and the parent’s action is in a
demonstration, but to comply the child must
observe.

Examples: 'Lookit,see the pretty picture in the

book?”
"Watch, see how the play—doh gets soft?"

100

LABEL: Naming a singular object or event or
action; naming a place, appropriate designation of
something, locating; identify a single discrimina-
tion; no elaboration; ownership, possessive.
Labeling is discrete and does not involve
inference.

Examples: "What is on the lamb’s neck?"
"Where is the bunny?"
”What color is that egg?"
"What is that?”

PRODUCE INFORMATION: Produce, process, confirm or
reject information about labeling, location,
materials, event; associational information.
Requires a yes/no answer from.child, Only questions
appear here, no parent telling.

Examples: "Is this a goat?" .
'Is that the doggie 5 house?”
"Are those green apples?"

DESCRIBE: Provide elaborated information of a
single instance. Actions as well as inner states
such as feelings, fantasies, ideas, etc., are
included.

Examples: "What do you mean?”
"Why do you think the girl is sad?"

DEMONSTRATE: Shown primarily through action or
gestures how something is to be done; the how
process.

Examples: "Show me how to roll the playdoh."
"Show me how to make a rolly oval."

8. Medium Distancing Strategies

1.

SEQUENCE: Temporal ordering (or steps) of events
is articulated, as in a story or when carrying out
a task. Key words include last, next, afterwards,
start, and begin.

Examples:"First, break the clay into small
pieces, Ok?"
"First you roll the clay and make it
soft, ok?"
"What do we do next?"

101

"Make the head first, then put on the
eyes, then the nose, and then the mouth."
"What happened to the bunny after the
little girl fell asleep?”

2. REPRODUCE: Reconstruction of previous experiences;
dynamic interaction events, interdependence,
functional, open-ended; the child’s organization of
previous experience.

Examples: "Tell me how you made this with Daddy."
”What did you and Mommy make with this
playdoh?"

”What did you do in school today?"
"What did you do when you found the
worms?“

1L COMPARE: (Compare-describe and Compare-infer)
Compare-describe is the description of differences
and similarities. There is a perceptual analysis
of the sensory materials present in the
interaction.

Examples: "Does your snowman look like mine?"
WK) your shoeslook like the little
girl’s shoes?”
'13 my pancake as flat as yours?"

Compare-infer is the inference of differences and
similarities. Inference refers to literal
nonpresence of all or part of the materials.

Examples:
"Does Uncle Bill’s rabbit look like this
one?" (infers Uncle Bill’s rabbit
although a picture ofa rabbit is present)

”Does your bike have a basket like that
boy’s?" (however, if the child’s bike is
within viewing distance this would be an
example of compare-describe rather than
compare-infer).

"Does a tiger and dog look the same?"
(infers both animals)

"This looks more like a green bean than a
carrot."

4. SYMMETRICAL CLASSIFYING: Identifying the commonal-

ities of a class of equivalent instances or
labeling the class.

102

Examples: “What do you call red, yellow, blue, and
green?”
"What do you call green beans, lima
beans and corn?"

ASYMMETRICAL CLASSIFYING: Organizing instances
within the same class in some sequential ordering;
logical hierarchy; viewing the relationship as a
continuum; seriation of any kind; comparative where
each instance is related to the previous one and
the subsequent one; relative (bigger to smaller,
more or less). '

Examples: 'Is the brown bunny bigger or smaller
than the white bunny?"
”Are there more applestithe basket or
on the steps?”
"Is this lamb younger or Older than that
lamb?"

ENUMERATING: Seriation, enumeration of number Of
things, and ordinal counting.

Examples: "How many sheep are in the field?”
”How many balls have you made?"
”How many bunnies are in the box?"

C. High Distancing Strategies

1.

EVALUATE CONSEQUENCES: Assessing the quality of a
product, or outcome, or feasibility, or the
aesthetic quality of personal liking. Criteria
needed for evaluation includes words such as good,
bad, right, wrong, fun,run:fun, silly, not silly,
etc.

Examples: "Do you like this book?"
"Can you tell me what the lamb did in
the story?"
”Why was the sheep naughty?"
"Why was the little girl unhappy?"

EVALUATE OWN COMPETENCE: Assessing own competence
or ability.

Examples: "Can you make a snowman like that?"
”Can you make a daisy chain like the
girl?"
"Do you know how to make a pizza?"
"Can you make a tiger from the playdoh?"

103

EVALUATE AFFECT: Assessing the quality of a
feeling state.

Examples: "Is it fun to feel happy?"
I'How would you feel if a lamb knocked
over your birthday cake?
"How would you feel if someone wouldn’t
share the playdoh with you?”

INFER AFFECT/FEELINGS: Predicting or assessing how
a person feels or believes or intends. This is not
a description of affective behavior.

Examples: "Was the little girl feeling unhappy?"
"Did the lamb feel sorry for pulling
down the table?"

"Did the lamb mean to knock over the
basket of apples?"

INFER CAUSE/EFFECT: Predicting outcomes on the
basis of causal relationships of instances;
explanation of reasons for some event, direct or
indirect.

Examples: "How can you make that tiger stand up?“
"Will the playdoh ball bounce when you
drop it?“

"How can you make that worm fit in the
hole?"

INFER (OR PREDICT) EFFECTS: Predicting what will
happen without articulating causality.

Examples: "Did the rabbit find his friend?"
"Will the little girl miss her pet
lamb?"

"What will the lamb tell its mommy?"

GENERALIZE: The application or transfer of
knowledge to other settings or objects; a new
situation going beyond the immediate task or
context.

Examples: "The little girl is giving the lamb
medicine. When does Mommy give you
medicine?”

"What other animals wear leashes?"

TRANSFORM: Changing time nature, function,

appearance of instances; focusing on the process of

104

change of state of materials, persons or events.

Inferring is part of this, that is, the prediction
of what will happen relating to a change of state.

Examples: "What happens to the caterpillar when it
grows up?"
"Is that the same bunny?"
"What happened to the bunny?"

9. PLAN: Arrangement of conditions to carry out a set
of actions in an orderly way; acting out a rule of
the task or actual carrying out oftfluatask. The
child is involved in the decision.

Examples: "What do you want to do?"
"Do you want to read to me?"
"What do you want me to do?"

10. NECESSARY AND/OR SUFFICIENT EVALUATION: Assessing
information that is necessary or sufficient for
something in) happen; reality confirmation;
recognition of absurdities.

Examples: "What do baby bunnies need to grow big
and strong?"

*Adapted From Parent-Child Interaction Observation Schedule
(PCI) by.l.Flaugher and L.Sigel, 1982.

 

105

Coder
Date

SUBJECT

MENTAL.OPERATIONAL DEMANDS SCORING FORM

LOW DISTANCING STRATEGIES

l.

2.

observe
label
produce
describe

demonstrate

MEDIUM DISTANCING STRATEGIES

1.

sequence

reproduce

compare

symmetrical classifying
asymmetrical classifying

enumerating

HIGH DISTANCING STRATEGIES

l.

2.

lo.

evaluate consequences
evaluate own competence
evaluate affect

infer affect/feeling
infer cause/effect
infer effect

generalize

transform

plan

(TOTAL)

(TOTAL)

(TOTAL)

evaluate necessary/sufficient

106

Appendix G
Scoring Instructions
and

Forms for Warmth and Sensitivity Measures

Coder SUBJECT
Task

RATING OF PARENTAL WARMTH*

This is a general rating based upon the coder’s
impressions of the warmth exhibited by the parent toward
the child during each task.

The warmth rating is determined by those parental
actions that express enthusiasm, playfulness, enjoyment of
the child or of doing something with the child,
understanding, and compassion. These actions may be
evident through the parent’s tone of voice, facial
expressions, and head and body movements.

After viewing the videotape check the appropriate rating

on the following scale.

RATI NG SCALE

 

some warmth exhibited but not a great deal of the time
warmth exhibited more often and more intensely

much warmth exhibited often

*adapted from Parent—Child Interaction Observation Schedule
(PCI) J.Flaugher and I. Sigel (1982).

 

107

Coder SUBJECT
Task

RATING OF PARENTAL SENSITIVITY*

This is a global rating that combines the parent's
sensitivity tx> the child's cognitive, emotional, and
physical states. The rating is essentially a measure of
how well the parent is "tuned in" to the child. This is
not a rating of whether or not the coder likes the parent
or feels the parent is warm, but one in which an attempt is
made to objectively rate the sensitivity of the parent to
the child. The following questions will help determine the
rating.

1. Is the construction of sentences or questions too
complex or too simple for the child?

2. Is the parent bombarding the child with verbaliza—
tions, 64L, questions, statements or imperatives?

3. Is the parent working with the child's attention
span or against it?

4. Does the parent seem to know hOW’tO get thelchild
to do the task or to COOperate?

5. Does the parent seem aware of when the child can
function alone or when the child needs help?

After viewing the videotape, check the appropriate
rating on the following scale.

RATING SCALE

 

some sensitivity exhibited but not often or not over
all areas

sensitivity exhibited more often and over more areas

much sensitivity exhibited most of the time and over
most areas

*adapted from PCI, Flaugher and Sigel, 1982.

108

Appendix H
Scoring Instructions
and

Form for Child Engagement

DEFINITION OF CHILD ENGAGEMENT*

The child’s response to the parent's utterance is
coded fin: each parent utterance. The categories and

definitions of engagement are as follows:

1. Actively Engaged (AB): The child gives an active,

 

relevant response (motoric and/or verbal). The correctness
of the response is unimportant.

2. Passively Engaged (PB): The child is attending

 

(listening) but there is no visible physical or verbal
response other than eye fixation and orientation.

3. Nonengaged (NE): The child is either involved in

 

an irrelevant response cu: in another activity, or is
neither attending nor exhibiting any overt non-task
behavior. The child is unresponsive to questions and/or
imperatives.

4. No-Time-to—Respond (NT): The parent does not

 

allow time for the child to respond. The parent may be
"bombarding" the child with a series of questions or
statements, thereby not giving the child an opportunity to
respond. The parent may ask a question which is

immediately followed by another utterance.

*Adapted from PCI Schedule, Flaugher and Sigel, 1982.

109

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING CHILD ENGAGEMENT

 

1. With typed transcript in hand watch the video of
the parent-child interaction.

2. When the child is not ACTIVELY ENGAGED press the
search/pause button on the Betamax to stop the video. Find
the parent statement and code the appropriate child
response, eky, PE, NE, or NT, on the transcript at the
end of the parent utterance. Use a BLUE colored pencil.

3. Upon completion of the video viewing, code each of
the remaining parent statements as.AE. (It is presumed
that child responses to statements NOT coded during viewing
are AEJ

4. EACH parental statement must be coded for child
engagement.

5. Tally the types of child responses and enter the
information on the Child Engagement Scoring Form.

6. Return the transcripts and completed forms to the
box in the file cabinet in 101 PRB.

7. If you have ANY questions please call me.

110

Coder Subject

Date Task

CHILD ENGAGEMENT SCORING FORM

1. Actively Engaged (AB)

2. Passively Engaged (PE)

3. Nonengaged (NE)

4. No Time to Respond (NT)

COMMENTS:

111

Appendix I

Analysis of Variance, Repeated—measures, F Value Tables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmmmnucmumm CH mum mmumswm come Bum» Houumk
Amm.ao Amm.mao Asm.omo “Ho.mmo Raouum
Hm. o>.H mo. mm.o oH. ma.m mm. mm. mama
hm. om. ma. mo.a mm. mm. mm. mo. mme
mo. Ho. ma. mo.m mv. Ho. ma. mo.m «we
no. oo.w moo. oa.va mo. oo. ma. om.m ma
CTN: A343 A343 A263 «uouum
Hm. ma.a ow. Hm. hm. vm. ma. oo.H mam
om. mo. mm. Ho.H moo. hh.HH Ho. m>.m mm
oH. mo.m om. mv. mo. NH. mm. mm. «m
mo. mm.m om. mm. mm. om. Hm. ow. ucmumm
Aam.mo AHm.mvo Amm.mmv Amo.omo «Honnm
am. no. no. mm. moo. Hm.HH Hoo. mm.ma mde
ha. ma.m mm. mv. mo. Ho. oH. ¢H.m we
mo. va. Ho. Ho. om. mm.H ma. mm.~ «a
mo. om.o mo. mm.m um. um. vo. oo.m xmma
Amm.mo Aho.mov Amv.emav Amw.maav «Houum
om. mo. om. mm. vm. om.a mo. oo.v m¢
Ho. on. ma. mo.m mm. mm. mo. oo.v xmm
mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. Hh.a mv. Ho. mmfi
bonm m comm m nonm m nonm m mousom
mcofluwsmaoxm m0>wumuomEH mm>fiummouumucH mw>fiumumHOOQ
Ama .H n moo mcoflumfimaoxm cam .mm>flumummEH .mm>flpmmouumucH

 

.mm>flpmumaowo

"momma wocmucmm mo mmsam> m .monsmmmEIUOummmmm .OOGMHnm> mo mammamcm

HuH magma

112

.mwmmnucmumm ca mum mmumsvm some Emma nouumk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amoo.v Amoco.v Avooo.v Aoo.vv Amo.hmv Amw.omv Aav.mmv «HOHHM
5N. mm.H mo. om.v mm. hN.H ma. mm.H om. NN. Hm. mv. om. mH.H mfime
ma. oo.m mm. «0. mo. hm.v 0H. om.m ma. Hm.H mm. oo. mm. om. mmB
mo. mv.m Hm. ow. mm. ma. No. mh.h mm. vo. om. mo. ow. mm. dma
mo. hh.v mm. mm. am. we. Hoo. mo.om mv. mm. Hm. mo.H we. mm. m&

Amoo.v Amoco.v Amoco.v “on.mav Ahm.hoav Amb.m¢Hv AHN.NmHV RHOHHW
ho. mo.¢ mm. Hm. vN. vm.H «w. an. mo. Nm. Vb. NH. on. ma. mflm
NH. mh.m mm. oo. mm. om. mm. hm. hm. mo. mm. mN.H no. mo. mm
mv. hm. mm. mo. vv. we. Hm. ¢H.H om. Hw.H Hm. mo. mm. mv. ¢m
No. vm.m ow. mm. Ho. 0H.m 5H. mH.N oo.H oo. oo. NH.v om. mm. #Gmnmm

Amoo.v Amoco.v Aaooo.v Amv.vmv Amm.oov Ahm.vmv ANm.mmV «HOHHm
Hm. HH.H mm. vN.H mm. mo. mm. mo. mm. oo. mm. om. mm. Ho. mdB
Ho. om.m hm. om. Hm. mH.H mm. Ho. mm. mo. No. an. mm. mo. we
we. HH.m vm. we. no. mm. hm. hm. vm. Ho. mv. om. om. mH.H fie
oo. mh.mo mv. om. No. mm.h mo. ow. vo. NN.m mv. vm. woo. Hm.OH xmma

Amoo.v AHoo.v Amoco.v Aom.vmv Aom.omv Aom.Hmav Amo.m¢v RHOHHM
mm. mm.H ov. no. no. mo. om. mm. hm. vm. ho. mo. mm. mm. m<
vo. Ho.m ma. Ho.m mm. ma. Ho. NH.m 0H. mN.N Nv. mm. «a. wv.m xmm
0H. 0H.m mm. vo. ma. Ho.m mm. mm. Hm. ow. Ho. va.m Ho. NH.0H wm¢
ooum m ooum m boom m ooum m ooum m boom m ooum m mouoom

umme Hmcoflmmooo uOOHHUcH owe umomom \nz 02\mow

 

 

 

ANH .H u moo mmmquSm O>HummouumucH mo mwsHm> m .mmHSwwmalpoummmmm .mocmwum> mo mammamc<

mnH manna

113

Table I-3

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F

Values of

 

Subtypes of Declaratives (df = l, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct Statements Repetitions Yes/No

Source F Prob F . (Prob F Prob
Age 2.07 .18 1.91 .19 .01 .94
Sex .12 .74 .48 .50 .17 .69
AS .71 .42 .00 .95 .59 .46
Error* (115.85) (137.91) (116.33)

Task 2.39 .15 3.87 .07 20.26 .001
TA .09 .77 .48 .50 .13 .73
TS .14 .71 .01 .93 .43 .52
TAS .00 .95 .94 .35 1.42 .26
Error* (77.41) (46.50) (36.02)

Parent .29 .60 4.04 .07 .79 .39
PA .31 .59 .00 .95 1.00 .34
PS .21 .66 .10 .76 .23 .64
PAS .44 .52 1.78 .21 5.32 .04
Error* (216.35) (60.71) (76.63)

TP .20 .66 2.04 .18 5.44 .04
TPA 2.69 .13 .90 .36 2.57 .14
TPS .44 .52 .50 .49 .08 .78
TPAS .28 .60 .13 .73 .22 .65
Error* (81.54) (38.69) (30.87)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

114

Table I—4

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Levels of Distancing Strategies (df = l, 12)
Low Medium High

Source 3 Prob F Prob F Prob
Age .23 .64 .42 .53 .07 .80
Sex .30 .60 .16 .69 .25 .63
AS .14 .72 .18 .68 .69 .42
Error* (146.72) (34.59) (68.27)

Task 1.13 .31 11.30 .006 1.42 .26
TA .13 .72 1.97 .19 2.29 .16
TS .00 1.00 .35 .57 .21 .65
TAS .13 .72 .08 .78 .06 .82
Error* (65.41) (22.66) (39.66)
Parent .50 .49 2.51 .14 .11 .74
PA 3.13 .10 4.25 .06 .24 .63
PS .82 .38 2.10 .17 .00 .96
PAS 2.40 .15 .02 .88 3.25 .10
Error* (53.55) (22.43) (45.39)

TP .00 .95 1.64 .22 1.41 .26
TPA 1.17 .30 .53 .48 2.46 .14
TPS .31 .59 .11 .75 .01 .91
TPAS .51 .49 3.13 .10 1.30 .28
Error* (25.52) (36.98) (40.37)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

115

Table I-5
Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values of

Parent Warmth and Sensitivity (df = l, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

Warmth Sensitivityf

Source 3 Prob F Prob
Age 3.48 .09 .89 .37
Sex 9.68 .01 4.82 .05
AS .39 .55 .39 .54
Error* (.65) (.64)

Task .43 .53 1.14 .31
TA 3.86 .07 2.57 .13
TS .43 .53 .29 .60
TAS .43 .53 .00 1.00
Error* (.15) (.22)

Parent .00 1.00 .08 .78
PA .41 .53 .32 .58
PS 1.66 .22 .32 .58
PAS 1.66 .22 2.00 .18
Error* (.60) (.78)

TP .18 .68 .40 .54
TPA .18 .68 1.60 .23
TPS .18 .68 1.60 .23
TPAS .18 .68 .40 .54
Error* (.35) (.16)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmmmcucmuwm ca mum mmumsvm some Sump uonum«
Ams.~o Aos.omo . ,1om.omo .ms.omo .uouum
om. ov. om. vm. om. Hm. mm. on. mdma
no. ma. om. mo. Ho. o~.m oo. nn.m was
no. mm. mm. mm.a mm. mo.a oo. mo. mma
mm. Ho.H no. mo. ma. q~.~ mm. Hm. me
Amm.av Aom.ovo Amo.omav Asa.vmmo knouum
ma. mo.m mo. Ho. mm. Ho. mm. mm. mmm
oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. mo. mm
No. H>.n oo. Hm. oo. Ho. nu. ma. «m
oo. no. mo. oH. no. ma. mo. om. ucmnmm
Aom.~o Ama.h~o Aam.ooav Avo.HoHV «Houum
oo. oo. mm. we. mo. oo. oo. om. mde
mm. oo.H ma. mo.a mo. oh.m mo. oo. ma
mo. ma. on. ma. om. hm.a oo. on. ma
mo. hm.v on. ma. oo. bo.oo oo. oa.mo xmma
Aom.mv Amm.omo Aon.ommv Amm.Homo *Honum
N5. ma. va. om.~ oo. oo. om. om. mm
ma. mm.m Ho. oo.m Ha. oo.m mm. mo. xmm
NH. oh.m mm. hm.a ma. mo.m ov. on. mod
ooum m noum m Poona V m oouo m mouoom
Ucommmmloe Ummmocmcoz ommmmcm vowmmcm
TEHBIOZ >Hm>fimmmm >Hm>fiuom
3H J u m3

 

noncommmm ucofimmmmcm UHAQU mo mmoam> m .mmusmmmEIwmumomom .wocm«nm> mo mammamc¢

wIH OHQMB

117

Table I-7

Analysis of Variance, Repeated—measures, F Values for

 

Child and Parent MLUs (df = 1, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Parent

Source F Prob F Prob
Age 5.66 .03 4.90 .05
Sex .00 .97 .95 .35
AS .10 .76 .02 .89
Error* (1.39) (.76)

Task 18.27 .001 11.24 .006
TA .55 .47 .54 .48
TS .07 .80 3.58 .08
TAS .03 .87 6.08 .03
Error* (.28) (.35)

Parent 1.72 .21 .03 .86
PA .10 .76 1.43 .25
PS 1.61 .23 .12 .73
PAS 2.42 .15 .27 .61
Error* (.47) (1.75)

TP 1.56 .24 .39 .54
TPA .00 .99 .09 .77
TPS 1.07 .32 .42 .53
TPAS 1.80 .21 .01 .91
Error* (.22) (.84)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

118

Table I-8

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values for

 

Length of Interaction During Each Task (df = 1, 12)

 

 

 

Length of Task

 

 

Source 5 Prob
Age .14 .71
Sex 3.06 .11
AS 1.68 .22
Error* (48207.24)

Task 84.89 .00
TA .96 .35
TS 7.57 .02
TAS 2.13 .17
Error* (9794.72)

Parent .15 .71
PA 4.42 .06
PS .19 .67
PAS 3.51 .09
Error* (20266.56)

TP 3.15 .10
TPA 2.97 .11
TPS .00 .95
TPAS .07 .79
Error* (21652.12)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

119

Table I-9

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values for Child

 

and Parent Utterances per Minute (df = 1, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Parent

Source F Prob F Prob
Age 3.59 .08 .11 .74
Sex 3.50 .09 5.92 .03
AS .76 .40 1.35 .27
Error* (14.09) (26.18)

Task .62 .45 23.78 .001
TA .02 .89 .61 .45
TS .86 .37 .79 .39
TAS .48 .50 .00 .99
Error* (7.37) (12.50)

Parent 1.98 .18 .89 .37
PA 1.01 .34 .17 .69
PS 1.48 .25 .76 .40
PAS .27 .61 .48 .50
Error* (6.47) (11.93)

TP 2.33 .15 .71 .42
TPA 1.69 .22 .06 .81
TPS .10 .75 .00 .97
TPAS .18 .68 1.16 .30
Error* (3.36) (13.76)

 

*Error term mean squares are in parentheses.

120

Table I-lO

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values for

 

Parent and Child Conversational Turns per Minute

 

(df = 1, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Parent

Source F Prob E Prob
Age 1.58 .23 1.51 .24
Sex 4.67 .05 4.71 .05
AS .09 .77 .09 .77
Error* (9.39) (9.44)

Task 5.85 .03 6.25 .03
TA .55 .47 .56 .47
TS 1.50 .24 1.70 .22
TAS .19 .67 .21 .66
Error* (3.59) (3.67)

Parent .10 .75 .09 .77
PA 1.22 .29 1.29 .28
PS 2.63 .13 2.46 .14
PAS .14 .71 .13 .73
Error* (5.98) (6.07)

TP .76 .40 .98 .34
TPA .12 .74 .14 .72
TPS .28 .60 .32 .58
TPAS .04 .85 .11 .74
Error* (2.61) (2.51)

 

*Error term mean

squares are in parentheses.

121

Table I-ll

Analysis of Variance, Repeated-measures, F Values of Child

 

and Parent Mean Length of Turn (df = 1, 12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Parent

Source F Prob F Prob
Age 2.13 .17 3.65 .08
Sex .85 .38 1.83 .20
AS 2.03 .18 2.94 .11
Error* (.19) (.89)

Task 1.10 .32 2.81 .12
TA 1.17 .30 .60 .45
TS .08 .78 .57 .47
TAS .00 .97 1.43 .25
Error* (.10) (.34)

Parent 4.12 .07 .22 .65
PA 1.09 .32 .47 .51
PS 2.41 .15 .15 .70
PAS 2.84 .12 .42 .53
Error* (.11) (1.85)

TP .29 .60 .57 .47
TPA .54 .48 .44 .52
TPS .09 .77 1.23 .29
TPAS .43 .52 3.70 .08
Error* (.16) (.21)

 

*Error term mean squares are in

122

parentheses.

List of References

References

Bellinger, D. (L, & Gleason, .J. B. (1982). Sex
differences in parental directives to young children.
Sex Roles, 8, 1123-1139.

 

Belsky, J. (1980). A family analysis of parental
influence on infant exploratory competence. In F. A.
Pedersen (Ed.h, The father-infant Relationship:
Observational studies 13 the family settipg (pp.87-llO).
New York: Praeger.

 

 

Bigner, J. (1977). Attitudes toward fathering and
father—child activity. Home Economics Research
Journal, 6, 98—106.

 

Block, J.IL (1978L. Another look at sex differentiation
in the socialization behaviors of mothers and fathers.
In J.IL Sherman & F.I“ Denmark (EdsJ, The psychology
9f women: Future directions 13 research (pp. 30-87).
New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc.

 

Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Boston: Harvard
University Press.

 

Cherry, L., & Lewis, M. (1976). Mothers and two—year-olds:
A study of sex-differentiated aspects of verbal
interaction. Developmental Psychology, 12, 278-282.

 

 

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1978). .And daddy makes three: The
father’s impact on mother and young child. Child
Development, 42, 466-478.

 

Dalton-Hummel, D. (1982L Syntactic and conversational
characteristics of fathers' speech. Journal pf
Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 465-483.

 

de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (1978). Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

Engle, M. (1980). Language and play: A comparative
analysis of parental initiatives. In H. Giles, w. P.
Robinson, & P.NL Smith (Eds.L,Language: Social psych-
ology perspectives (pp. 29-34). NY: Pergamon Press.

 

Fash, D.£L & Madison, C.I“ (1981). Parents' language
interaction with young children: A comparative study of
mothers’ and fathers’. Child Study Journal, 11, 137-
153.

 

123

Field, T. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary vs
secondary caretaker fathers. Developmental Psychology,
14, 182—184.

 

Fitzgerald, H.EL & McGreal,CL E.(Eds.L (1981L
Fathers and Infants [Special issue]. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 2, 213-296.

 

Flaugher, J., & Sigel, I. (1980). Parent-child interaction
observation schedule (PCI) (PP 1-40). Princeton: Educa-
tional Testing Service.

 

 

Gallagher, J.DL.& Reid,IL K. (1981). The learning
theory pf Piaget and Inhelder. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

 

 

Giattino, J. & Hogan, J. C. (1975). Analysis of father's
speech to his language learning child. Journal pf
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40, 524-537.

 

Ginsburg, H. & Opper, S. (1979). Piaget's theory _o_f_
intellectual development (2nd edJ. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.

 

 

Gleason, J. B. (1975). Fathers and other strangers:
Men's speech to young children. In D. P. Dato (Ed.).,
Developmental psycholinguistics theory and application
(pp. 289-297). Washington, ILC.: Georgetown University
Press.

 

 

Gleason, J. B. (1979). Sex differences in the language of
children and parents. In 0. K. Garnica & M. L. King
(EdsJ, Language, children and society (pp.l49-157L
Oxford: Pergamon Press.

 

 

Gleason,£L B.& Weintraub,:L (1978). Input language
and the acquisition of communicative competence. In K.
E. Nelson (Ed.), Children's Language: Vol. _l_._ (pp. 171-
221). New York: Garden Press.

 

 

Gleason, J. B. & Greif, E.B. (1983). Men’s speech to
young children. In B.Thorne,(L Kramarae,& N.Henley
(Eds.h, Language, gender and sociepy (pp. 140-150L
Rowley: Newbury House.

 

 

Golinkoff, R. M. 7 Ames, G. J. (1979). A comparison of
fathers' and mothers' speech to their young children.
Child Development, 50, 28-32.

 

Lakoff, R.(l973). Language and womenksplace. Language
12 Society, 1, 28-32.

 

Lamb, M. E. (1975). Fathers: Forgotten contributors to
child development. Human Development, 18, 245-266.

 

124

Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M., Hwang, C., Frodi, M., &
Steinberg, J. (1982). Mother- and father-infant
interaction involving play and holding in traditional
and non-traditional Swedish families. Developmental
Psychology, 18, 215-221.

 

 

LanderholnlE..I.& Scriven,(L A. (1981). A comparison
of mother and father interaction with their six-month
old male and female infants. Early Child Development
god Care, 1, 317-328.

 

Langlois,;L H.& Down,IL C. (1980L Mothers,fathers
and peers as socialization agents of sex-typed play
behaviors in young children. Child Development, 51,
1237-1247.

 

Lipscomb,tn J.& Coon,IL C. (1980). The relationship
of age and linguistic production capacity of children
to parental speech adjustment. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the South-eastern Psychology
Association, Washington, D. C.

Lynn, D. B. (1974). The father: His role 13 child
development. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.

 

 

McGillicuddy-Delisi, AAL, Sigel, I. E” & Johnson, J. E.
(1979). The family as a system of mutual influences:
Parental beliefs, distancing behaviors and children’s
representational thinking. In M. Lewis and L. A.
Rosenblum (EdsJ, The child and its family: The genesis
_o_f_ behavior: Vol. _2_ (pp. 91-106). NY: PLenum.

 

 

McLaughlin, B. (1983). Child compliance to parental
control techniques. Developmental Psychology, 12,
667-673.

 

McLaughlin, B., Schutz, C., & White, D. (1980). Parental
speech to 5 year old children in a game playing
situation. Child Development, 51, 580-582.

 

McLaughlin, B., White, D., McDevitt, T., & Raskin, R.
(1983). Mothers’ and fathers' speech to their young
children: Similar or different? Journal of Child

Language, 19, 245-252.

Maccoby, E.B., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of
sex differences Vol I. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.

 

 

 

Malone,)L J.& Guy,IL F. (1982). A comparison of
mothers' and fathers' speech to their 3—year—old sons.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 599-608.

 

125

Nash, J. (1976). Historical and social changes in the
perception of the role of the father. In M. E. Lamb
(Ed.),.Tgo role 95 the father 15 child development (pp.
65-87). New York: Wiley and Sons.

 

 

Nelson, K. E., Carskaddon, G., & Bonvillian, J. D.
(1973). Syntax acquisition: Impact of experimental
variation in adult verbal interaction with the child.
Child Development, 31, 497-504.

 

Parke, R. D. (1981). Fathers. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Parke, R. D., & Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in early
infancy: Social interaction and attitudinal analysis. In
F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-infant relationship:
Observational studies 15 the family setting (pp. 44—67).
New York: Praeger.

 

 

 

 

Pedersen, R. A., Anderson, B., & Cain, R. L. (1980).
Parent-infant and husband-wife interaction observed at
age 5 months. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-
infant relationship: Observational studies 12.553
family setting (pp. 71-86). New York: Praeger.

 

 

 

Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

 

Piaget, J, & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology 95 the
child. New York: Basic Books.

 

Rebelsky,Fu,8.Hanks,(L (l97lL Fathers'verbal
interaction with infants in the first 3 months of life.
Child Development, 31, 373-378.

 

Rendina, Iqr& Dickerscheid,.J.D. (1976). Father
involvement with first-born infants. The Fami1y
Coordinator, 15, 373-378.

 

 

Rondal,.J.A. (1980). Fathers'and mothers'speech in
early language development. Journal 91 Child Language,
11 353-369.

 

Sigel, I. E. (1960). Influence techniques: A concept
used to study parental behaviors. Child DevelOpment,
5; 799-806.

 

Sigel, I. E. (1970). The distancing hypothesis: A causal
hypothesis for the acquisition of representational
thought. In M. R. Jones URL), Miami symposium pp 555
prediction 95 behavior, 1968: Effects 95 early
experience (pp. 99-118). Coral Gables: University of

 

 

 

 

126

Miami Press.

Sigel, I. E. (1972). Language of the disadvantaged: The
distancing hypothesis. In C. S. Lavatelli (EdJ,
Language training 19 early childhood education
(pp. 60-76). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

 

 

Sigel, I.E. (1981). Social experienceixlthe
development of representational though: Distancing
theory. In I.EL Sigel,IL M. Brodzinsky, &IL M.
Golinkoff (Eds.), New directions 19 Piagetian theory
and practice (PP. 203-217). Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

 

 

 

Sigel, I. E. (1982). The relationship between parental
distancing strategies and the child’s cognitive
behavior. In L. M. Laosa and I. E. Sigel (Eds.),
Families as learning environment for children (pp. 47-

86). New Yark: Plenum.

Sigel,]p E” & Cocking,IL R.(l977). Cognitive
development from childhood 99 adolescence: A
constructivist perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.

 

 

 

 

 

Sigel,15 E” & Cocking,IL R.(l977). Cognition and
communication: A dialectic paradigm for development.
In M. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblum (EdsJ, Interaction,
conversation, and the development 99 language (pp. 207-
226). New York: Wiley and Sons.

 

 

Sigel, I.IL, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.\L, Flaugher, J.,
and Rock, D. A. (1982). Parents 99 teachers 91 their
own learning disabled children. (Report for U. S.
Office of Education, Office of Special Education),
Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.

 

 

 

Snow, M. E”,Jacklin, C.bL, & Maccoby, E.EL (1983)
Sex-of-child differences in father-child interaction at
one year of age. Child Development, 59, 227-232.

 

Stoneman, Z., & Brody, G. H. (1981). Two’s company, 3
makes a difference: An examination of mothers' and
fathers’ speech to their young children. Child
Development, 59, 705-707.

 

Wilkinson,I“ C”.Hiebert, E”,& Rembold, K. (1981).
Parents' and peers’ communication to toddlers. Journal
9; Speech and Hearing Research, 99, 383-388.

 

 

127

HIGAN STRTE UNIV. LI

)l):)))) )9) |) )|))))) IN)” |)))))|)|)))))|