.i
a... «as:
. niahﬁnaﬁir
Ian .iuoqwdnl. I3. I:
Airy. 5..
a
:53

ﬂiv...

; s. .
z a: ..»_m.\uun3_i§
1.31.5 ..

.e "wrywan... .
. 3n...
sit:
. 6:...
3mm: .
. .. ..

Fl: . .

.;‘t

at :
enunwu Hmé.u.r.v.wa.
: .66. L: .

v‘
\.t

. . . .35.:muygmawﬁ
Um}........ah.«wrmaqxwu§ m“...

p. a
c e 1.... 5.8 a.

El 3:86.“. a r
Khmer... .33..

k.!.....1v\
.1: 311:}! .
..~ 73...:

.3.“ .
9.».

5.1..
s . "e
.f 5»...
k . I .. I ... t...
.raudﬂv 5... 1.. . ”F.
.. {3%. haunt... .x.rr.y.....,..u.
Inn‘- 1 ‘hvdgvoI
. .
12a! . u. .6.
hi:nl-43 1:1"?!
3. .56.. .a .21...
fit 9...:

i-
. n5...
. 13‘- ‘Alvin... .
El «I x .. l .vlw .
Java}. :1. ii...5.§.....%.:..«t7
; . .. 5 .3.
43.3.5.5.
, 21...}:

.
.nllla v

u. .5
.52...-

v. 8::
I

1.. it at
. v55...

.5.» .15.
. willyli.
x11 . . ..3t ‘51:
{35.3.2 3.1....

. ‘ I.” .

u: ‘ v!
. . x? .
J»... vts i

: 5:.

5.53%

 

5. .5...

Milli!illllillilillll l'lllll'lll

3 1293 014210714

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Role of Bonding Experiences In
The Childrearing Practices of
African American Adults

presented by
Sukhvender K. Nij j er

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph .D . degree in Educat ion

#ﬂ/ﬂ 1%

Major profe r

 

Date October 11, 1995

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

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE Di RETURN BOX to mouthi- ohooitouttrom your record.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II I I

MSU lo An Affirmative AotionEquol Opportunity Institution
GWna-m

 

 

 

THE ROLE OF BONDING EXPERIENCES IN THE CHILDREARING
PRACTICES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ADULTS

By

Sukhvender K. N ij jer

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology
and Special Education

1995

ABSTRACT

THE ROLE OF BONDING EXPERIENCES IN THE CHILDREARING
PRACTICES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN ADULTS

By

Sukhvender K. Nijjer

The parenting literature suggests that childrearing behaviors are greatly affected
by both biological factors and, especially, the emotional environment that the parents
grew up in. In examining the parenting, bonding, and attachment behaviors of adult
African Americans, this study took into account the historical context that has shaped
the African American family life. The purpose of this study was to understand how
the bonding experiences of adult African Americans inﬂuenced their parenting
behaviors. Two hundred and twenty—seven Michigan State University staff and faculty
and members of the Association of Black Psychologists completed measures of
bonding, attachment, parenting behaviors, and demographic information. Canonical
correlations were performed. None of the hypotheses which were based on the
existing literature were supported though the trends were in the predicted direction.
However, after demographic information was taken into account there were some
signiﬁcant differences. That is, when demographic variables such as: church
membership and respondents’ income, sex, or their parents’ social class were
considered there were signiﬁcant ﬁndings. However, the generalizability of these
ﬁndings may be limited because the sample sizes in some of the analyses were small,
and they explained little of the variance. Implications for future research and practice

are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The pursuit of a Ph.D. has been a long and often trying process. However, in
my moments of professional uncertainty, I feel that I have been nurtured by one the
most caring human beings I have had the pleasure to get to know, Dr. Lee June. Dr.
June has been a kind and supportive adviser and chairperson, and he has become an
excellent role model on how to give back to the minority community. I am, also,
extremely grateful to Dr. Harriette McAdoo for all the time and energy she devoted to
my dissertation. Through the process of working with her, I have come to admire her
professionalism and commitment to this project. In addition, I would like to thank
Drs. Robbie Steward and Bonita Pope-Curry in agreeing to be on my committee and
for their helpful assistance.

Dr. Ira Washington was instrumental in helping me get through the statistical
challenges. He provided me with excellent guidance and continuously reminded me
that I was better at statistics than I gave myself credit for. His patience and sense of
humor were welcomed during my periods of anxiety and panic attacks. Jenny Leskela
and Ellen Narusis provided me with ongoing emotional support and helped me
celebrate each of my accomplishments. I would like to thank Velma Ferguson for
making it possible for me to stay in touch with Dr. Lee June and for her
encouragement. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family. My siblings,
Harvender, Balvender, and Avtar, have cheered me on each step of the way and in

iii

their quiet ways have always reminded me how proud they are of me. Finally, I
would like to thank my parents, Surta and Satwant Nijjer, for teaching me the value of
hard work and persistence. I would like to especially thank my father for encouraging

and making it possible for his children to seek educations.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES .
INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Theoretical Research on the Role of Parenting in the African
American Family .

Bicultural Status .
Racism
Sense of History .
Unconditional Love
Family Bonds
Nonverbal Communication
Summary .
Theoretical Research on the African American Family
Description of the Major Values of the African American Family
Summary .
Bonding and Attachment Theory

Attachment Styles

10

10

11

15

18

18

20

Care and Overprotection .
Summary .
Limitations in Research on the African American Family .

Empirical and Qualitative Research on African American
Parenting .

Summary .

Research on the Role of Attachment and Bonding in
Parenting Behaviors

Summary .
Goals of the Proposed Study
Hypotheses of the Study .
METHODOLOGY
Research Participants
Design
Instruments
Demographic Questions .
Parental Bonding Instrument
Adult Attachment Scale .
Parental Dimension Inventory
African American Parenting Survey
Procedures
Development of the African American Parenting Survey

Actual Study .

vi

Page
21
23

24

26

35

36
43
45
46
47
47
47
48
48
48
50
51

53
54
54

54

Protection of Human Subjects
Data Analysis
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics on the Sample

Descriptive Statistics on the Parental Bonding Instrument, Adult
Attachment Scale, and Parental Dimension Inventory

Correlational Findings

Canonical Correlation for Parental Bonding Instrument and
Parental Dimension Inventory Subscales

Explanation of Crucial Canonical Correlation Concepts
Canonical Variable
Canonical Correlations
Canonical Structure
Redundancy Index
Testing the Hypotheses of the Study
Canonical Correlation for Parental Bonding Instrument
and Parental Dimension Inventory Subscales based

on Demographic Data

The Relations between Parent Care and Support based on
Income and Church Membership

The Relations between Parent Overprotection and Control
based on Sex of Respondents and Respondents’ Parents’
Social Class

The Relations between Parent Care and Control based
on Income

vii

l?
m
(D

55

55

57

57

63

65

69

69

69

70

70

71

71

77

78

84

95

The Relations between Parent Overprotection and Support
based on the Respondents’ Parents’ Social Class . . . . . . 97

ANOVAs for Care, Overprotection, Support, Control, and Attachment
Styles based on Respondents’ Income and Parents’ SES and Gender . . . 99

ANOVAs for Attachment Styles based on Bonding and Parenting
Dimensions..................102

The Relations of Attachment Styles to Care, Overprotection, Support,

Control, and African American Parenting . . . . . . . . . 102
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Findings based on Descriptive Statistics . . . . . . . . . . 106
The Relations between Care, Overprotection, Support, and Control . . . 108
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
The Relations between Care, Overprotection, Support and Control
based on Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Respondents with First Child Thirteen Years Old and Younger . . . 114
Respondents with First Child Fourteen Years Old and Older . . . . 118
Attachment Styles and the Bonding and Parenting Measures . . . . . 120
Attachment Styles and African American Parenting Scale . . . . . . 120
Attachment Styles and Father Overprotection . . . . . . . . . 121
Attachment Styles and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Attachment Styles and Mother and Father Care, Mother
Overprotection, and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Counseling Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Recommendations for Future Research. . . . . . . . . . . 125

viii

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

A.

morn

ﬂ
0

Cover Letter Sent to Michigan State University’s Staff
and Faculty

Cover Letter Sent to Members of the Association of
Black Psychologists

Postcard Sent to Michigan State University’s Staff and Faculty

Postcard Sent to Members of the Association of Black
Psychologists .

Demographic Questionnaire .

Parental Bonding Instrument

. Parental Dimension Inventory

. Adult Attachment Scale .

African American Parenting Survey

ix

139

140

141

142

143

145

149

154

155

Table

10

11

12

LIST OF TABLES

Frequencies and Percentages of Marital Status, Education,
and Occupation

Frequencies and Percentages of Income Level .
Information on the Family of Origin: Frequencies and
Percentages of the Presence and Absence of Parents

During the First 16 Years

Information on the Family of Procreation: Frequencies
and Percentages of Members of the Household

Information on the Family of Procreation: Age Range,
Number and Sex of the Children, and Percentages of
Males and Females

Descriptive Statistics of Mother Care, Father Care, Mother
Overprotection, and Father Overprotection .

Correlation Matrix
Canonical Correlations (R) for the First Four Hypotheses .

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Thirteen Years and Younger
with Income between $25,000 and $49,000

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Fourteen Years and Older
with Income between $25,000 and $49,000

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Fourteen Years and Older
with Reported being Members of a Church .

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Male Respondents with First
Child Thirteen Years and Younger (First Canonical Variable)

59

58

61

62

62

67

77

80

82

85

88

Table

13

14

15

16

17

18

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Male Respondents with First Child
Thirteen Years and Younger (Second Canonical Variable)

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Thirteen Years and Younger and
Working Class Parents

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Fourteen Years and Older with
Middle Class Parents .

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Fourteen Years and Older with
Income between $25,000 and $49,000 .

Canonical Correlation Analysis: Thirteen Years and Younger with
Working Class Parents

Analysis of Variance of Adult Attachment Scores by African American
Parenting Survey, Father Overprotection, and Support .

xi

89

92

94

98

100

105

Figure
1

LIST OF FIGURES

Worldviews of the African American and Euro-American cultures

xii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The African family system thrived in Africa under various socio—political
environments. Because of its ﬂexibility and vitality, it adapted to the "new world" of
the Americas. The African American family is the result of structural and dynamic
adaptation to the new political and economic system it found itself in, within a
powerful and well enforced European inﬂuence (Sudarkasa, 1988). In the "new
world," the Black family provided socialization, education, social control, emotional
and material support for all its members (Franklin, 1988).

This is an exploratory study intended to extend research on the African
American family by examining parental bonding behaviors of African American adults.
By using Bowlby’s theory and the parenting literature as overarching conceptual
frameworks, this study will examine adult African Americans bonding experiences and
the development of their parenting behaviors. The primary research question of this
study is: ”How do the bonding experiences of adult African Americans inﬂuence their
parenting behaviors?"

In considering the potential application of attachment theory to African
American parenting behaviors, it should be noted that neither Bowlby or other

researchers, who have applied attachment theory to the parent-child relationship, have

2

taken into account the importance or the role race or ethnicity may play in the
development of attachment bonds. Clearly, the generalizability of this theory to Blacks
and other racial/ethnic groups requires initial investigations.

Also, one of the much needed areas of research on the African American
family is the expressive or the emotional aspect of the parent-child relationship
(Billingsley, 1968). It is partially through their emotional attachment to their children
that parents inﬂuence how their children will act and contribute to society.

Parents who are emotionally bonded to their children will best foster their
children’s healthy development. Such parents provide high level of parent-child
involvement; and they set clear requirements for mature behavior, enforce rules
consistently, and provide ﬁrm control (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Along with
parental demand and ﬁrm control, parents who are affectionate, attentive, and
responsive to their children’s needs and open to communication will provide optimal
parenting. Parents who provide optimal parenting promote their children to be self-
reliant, to have high self-esteem, and to be prosocial. In fostering the development of
the individual child, the parent-child dyad is affected by parents’ own development.

Parenting behavior is the function of strong biological roots and also based on
our experiences and environments. Although both members of the parent-child dyad
affect each other, parents have much more control and inﬂuence. Parents arrive to the
parent-child relationship as adults, whose tastes, interests, personality, etc., are already
developed and established. Children develop their affectional bonds and personalities

with this predetermined environment (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

3

The types of characteristics and behaviors this predetermined environment
develops are partially predicated on parents’ interaction with their parents. Parents’
own childhood experiences, and, in particular, their bonding experiences to their
parents inﬂuence the relationship they have with their children (Bowlby, 1982, 1988).

The current literature on how the parents’ own parenting experiences impact on
their relationships with their children has primarily studied members of the dominant
culture in this country. Although scholars have studied the inﬂuence and impact of
instrumental (i.e.,economy) factors and the Black family’s structural (i.e.,family)
organization on childrearing practices (Billingsley, 1968; Bowman, 1993; Burton &
DeVries, 1992; Burton & Dilworth-Anderson, 1991; Cotton, 1989; Hill, 1989;
McLoyd, 1990; Peters & Massey, 1983; Tolson & Wilson, 1990; Wilson, 1984, 1986,
1989, 1990), the relationship between attachment bonds and parenting behaviors
among African American adults has not been explored. Consequently, the current
picture forming of the Black parent-child relation is that this system is greatly
impacted by instrumental and structural factors in how it forms; however, we have
little understanding of how expressive experiences such as how African American
parents’ own unique experiences in their families—of-origins affect their relationship
with their children.

Therefore, it would be helpful to know how African American adults
attachment bonds affect how they raise their own children. In an attempt to provide a
more comprehensive understanding of African American families, this study will add
to the literature by examining the internal dynamics of the Black parent—child dyad.

Therapists would then have a clearer picture of both the internal and external dynamics

4

that affect the African American parent-child relationship, and as a consequence be

better able to design effective therapeutic interventions with Black families.

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Theoretical Research on the Role of Parenting in the African Americani Family

 

Bowman (1993) states that due to the socio—political environment that Black
families ﬁnd themselves in, African Americans have developed distinct forms of
familial structures. In particular, the extended kinship structure, ﬂexibility of family
roles, spiritual beliefs, and ethnic coping orientations are a reﬂection of both the
African culture and adjustment to the socio—political environment. Bowman (1993)
further emphasizes that these cultural forms and resources are transmitted systemically
from one generation to the next in the way parents rear their children.

In socializing their children, Black parents, as all parents, are preparing their
children to take on adult roles and responsibilities of society. However, Peters (1985)
states that in order to understand the dynamics of rearing children in Black families,
the factor of racism must be considered. Richardson (1981) suggests that racism acts
as an intervening variable in the childrearing practices of Black parents.

Since racism is a reality of life for Black Americans, Barbarin (1993) states
that a signiﬁcant task for African American parents is helping their children develop
healthy emotional lives. Emotional development involves helping children develop the
capacity for emotional expression, regulation, and adjustment. Barbarin (1993) states

that emotional development is absolutely essential for children to develop social

6

competence and psychological health. He suggests that sound emotional development
is also the foundation for the formation of a ﬁrm ethnic identity and healthy self-
concept. The emergence of healthy emotional development is thought to begin early
in life with the emotional exchanges that children experience in secure attachment
bonds. Also, the African American family inﬂuences emotional development by
reinforcing speciﬁc competencies, providing for their children’s emotional needs, and
protecting them from harmful environmental stressors.

Bicultural Sggis. A large part of the emotional development of African
American children is helping them resolve the conﬂict that exists between the
European and the African worldviews. DuBois (1903) in his book: Soul of Black
Folk: Essays and Sketches best described the struggles that the Black person faces.

...the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted

with second-sight in this American world,--a world which yields him

no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through

the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation,

this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s

self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape

of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels

his two-ness,--an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts,

two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose

dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder (p.3).

In successfully raising their children, Black parents need to mediate this
struggle. Several writers (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Comer & Poussaint, 1994; Hines &
Boyd-Franklin, 1982; Pinderhughes, 1982; Peters, 1988) have emphasized that the
most important developmental task for Black children is the deve10pment of their

bicultural identity. Therefore, in trying to socialize their children to their dual

worldviews, African American parents have to help their children develop a bicultural

7

identity. Comer and Poussaint (1994) state that Black parents must help prepare their
children to form a bicultural existence. Parents help form this bicultural existence
through their modeling and childrearing practice and buffering their children from the
negative messages that may be transmitted by the society-at-large. Therefore, parents
become the strongest agent in the socialization of a bicultural identity

Pinderhughes (1982) states that Black children who succeed as adults are able
to function in the Black culture and also negotiate within the White dominant culture.
Therefore, biculturality is the ability to function in two worlds, and if biculturality is
achieved, it makes the individual adaptive. Pinderhughes (1982) states that families
that are able to raise individuals who are bicultural exhibit unusual strength and
ﬂexibility. They are able to raise individuals who can tolerate ambiguity, confront
differences, and be creative in interacting with both of their cultures. Learning to exist
as bicultural individuals can become problematic for African Americans because the
very qualities that are encouraged in the African American culture often stand in
opposition to the qualities rewarded in the dominant society. Furthermore, Boykin and
Toms (1985) state that the bicultural socialization process gets further complicated for
African Americans in that they have to deal with the racism that accords them a
minority status within society.

Mm. Several researchers (Billingsley, 1968; Jackson, McCullough, &
Gurin, 1988; Nobles, 1988; Peters, 1988) report that Black parents indicate that they
are aware that in preparing their children for a bicultural existence they need to help
their children deal directly with the racism they will face because of their ethnicity and

skin color. Black parents are always consciously aware of the real and potential racial

8

discrimination their children will face. African American parents realize that they
need to raise their children as Blacks in a society that devalues their Blackness.
Furthermore, Peters (1985) states that the racial environments and experiences of
parents inﬂuence their view of reality and their worldviews. In addition, how parents
themselves adjust to the social reality and deal with the racism they experience affect
their childrearing values and behaviors.

Therefore, African American parents not only prepare their children to take on
appropriate sex and age roles, but an important feature of the socialization process is
to help children deal with racism. Black parents need to bring up their children to be
comfortable with their Blackness, to be secure, to be proud, and to be able to compete
and to survive in the broader White environment. Jackson et a1. (1988) report that
many African American parents indicate that in order to help their children deal with
racism, a goal of parenting is to develop high self-esteem and self-conﬁdence. African
American parents are challenged to foster positive self-concepts of their children so
that their children will be able to engage in competition or social comparison with
White children.

Sense of History. Another way that African American parents deal with racism
is to try to impart to their children a sense of history. Peters (1988) states that African
American parents try to impart to their children that ﬁrst and foremost they have an
African heritage, and all African Americans share a common history of racial
oppression. This understanding makes it clear to African American children that as
Black persons they will always struggle against the forces of oppression and racism.

By having a good understanding of their historical roots, African American children

9

will realize that their obligation is to always ﬁght against the forces of racism and that
to do otherwise is aiding in their own dehumanization. This struggle is not just a
personal struggle but also a human struggle.

Unmnditional Love. Nobles (1988) states that Black parents also combat the
oppressive forces of racism by providing their children unconditional love and
emphasizing the importance of family bonds. Black parents assume a natural goodness
of their children. Parent-child interactions are characterized by unconditional love and
with emphasis on respect for self and others. Nobles (1988) states that in the parent-
child relationship the parent can express anger, punishment, and disappointment;
however, this does not negate the love associated with the parent-child bond. As part
of this unconditional love, children are provided with a sense of connection,
attachment, validation, worth, recognition, respect, and legitimacy. Also, Manns
(1988) states that the family boundaries in African American families are ﬂexible
enough to stretch to accommodate the various expressions of individual styles,
personalities, and conditions.

Family Bonds. Along with providing unconditional love, Nobles (1988) reports
that African American parents convey to their children that their sense of identity and
being are in their families. Black children are taught that their families are not
antithetical or a burden to individual aspirations. Therefore, no matter what happens,
the family’s love and protection will always be unconditional and ever-present.
African American children come to learn that in their own people, they will ﬁnd an
understanding of themselves. African American children are encouraged to act, to

think, and to develop cooperative ways of interacting rather than being competitive.

10

Black children are taught to view themselves as an integral part of their extended
family system and not solely as an individual.

Nenverbal Communication. Along with learning to function in an extended
family system, African American children are also brought up to be skillful in being
able to communicate nonverbally because of having to exist in a racist environment.
Hale-Benson (1987) states that Black children learn to value the ability to express
themselves through their body language. Because of this, they become highly sensitive
to others’ nonverbal cues. They also become accustomed to using verbal language that
is meaningful depending on the context, and they learn to adjust spontaneously to the
changing environment. African American children are able to adapt rapidly to novel
situations. Therefore, African American children are trained to be people centered,
and they develop great potential for becoming empathetic. Finally, parents convey to
their children that there is a higher power and will that is greater than all else (Pipes,
1988; June, 1991).

Sammag. The theoretical research highlighted that in rearing African
American children Black parents may instill certain behaviors and characteristics in
their children. African American parents are aware that growing up Black in the
United States means dealing with a bicultural status. Black children need to learn to
function in both the Black and White worlds. An integral part of dealing with this
bicultural existence is learning to deal with racism. Because racism is an intervening
variable in rearing African American children, Black parents try to impart to their
children that they are part of a group with a sense of history. African American

children are also taught that they need to work hard and strive for higher education to

11

succeed in the broader society. Also, no matter what comes their way, African
American children are taught that they can always seek comfort in their immediate and
extended families. Finally, African American children are encouraged to believe that
in their struggles a higher power is watching over them.
Theoretical Research on the Africa; American PM

There is no such entity as "the Black family." "The Black family" has come to
exist due to an interaction of a variety of variables that makes this institution
heterogenous (Billingsley, 1992; McAdoo, H. P., 1990). However, in this study the

phrase: ”the Black family” will be used to refer to families who see themselves as

 

originating from individuals who were brought from African to be slaves in the United
States. As a group, Black families display a diversity of values, characteristics, and
lifestyles. Originally, Africans descended from cultural groups whose heritages were
diverse and rich. However, most Africans, when brought into the United States, lived
a common experience: enslavement. Through this common experience and years of
denial by the mainstream society of the existence of their individual cultural heritages,
Africans formed what is today called the African American or Black American family
culture.

Family life was a vital and signiﬁcant part of the African American community
even during enslavement. It has been suggested that among the reasons for this was
that African Americans during enslavement lacked any other institution that they could
call their own (Franklin, 1988). The African American family remained stable even
during the period of Reconstruction after the civil war and the great migration of

Blacks to the North during World War I. The Black family has proven to be a

12

remarkable institution in that it ”survived the slave system, then legal segregation,
discrimination, and enforced poverty, ...and many racially hostile governmental and
societal practices, policies, and attitudes" (Franklin, 1988, p. 25).

Therefore, structures that the Black family have formed over time can be seen
as adaptive strategies. The adaptive strategies that the Black family formed reﬂect the
beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes of members of the African American community on
what it means to be a member of its community and how to survive in the larger
society. Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, and Buriel (1990) state that adaptive strategies
are cultural patterns that the family and its individual members use to adjust to the
broader society.

Many of the cultural patterns that are today a part of the Black family became
important for survival within the institution of slavery and continue to be valued due
to the fact that African Americans still face varying degrees of discrimination. Hill
(1972) attributes the survival of the African American family to strong kinship bonds;
ﬂexibility of family roles; and the high value placed on religion, education, and work.

Black Americans as a group tend to form and rely heavily on strong kinship
networks (Stack, 1975). Harrison et al. ( 1990) state that the forming of an extended
kinship network, a natural part of the African culture, is also an adaptive strategy.
The extended kinship network becomes a problem solving and stress coping system.
In the Black community, the extended kinship network is a major resource for dealing
with daily and crisis situations, and it provides the family with tangible help as well as
an outlet for emotional expression. Also, the extended family network provides its

children with a place to seek emotional afﬁliations and attachments.

13

Although inﬂuenced by the oppressive forces of slavery and today’s society,
the forming of a strong kinship bond is a legacy of the African culture. In Africa,
family life was given priority. Hines and Boyd-Franklin (1982) state that slaves also
placed a high value on the family. Because of the institution of slavery, it was
common for families to be abruptly torn apart. However, in the slave communities,
”families” were formed between unrelated relatives. In these families, children were
often informally adopted by unrelated ”parents. " Family units were formed by choice
as well as by force to deal with the devastating effects of family members being sold
to the slave market. Therefore, the family unit became a network of individuals who
were both related as well as unrelated to each other by blood. Stack (1975) states that
the kinship system has and continues to provide a major mode for coping with the
pressures of an oppressive society. Stack (1975) describes the Black family as
engaging in "co-residence, kinship-based exchange networks linking multiple domestic
units, elastic household boundaries, and lifelong bonds to three generational
household." She further states that "the Black urban family...embedded in cooperative
domestic exchange...proves to be an organized, tenacious, active, lifelong network” (p.
124).

Flexibility of roles characterized both the kinship network and the nuclear
family. Harrison et al. (1990) state that the Black family has used role ﬂexibility as a
coping mechanism. Hines and Boyd-Franklin (1982) state that because Black fathers
have experienced difﬁculty in providing economically for their families, it has been
assumed that fathers do not play a central role in their families. This overemphasis on

the peripheralness of Black fathers in their families has overlooked the active

14

participation of African American fathers in the daily activities of their families. Hill
(1972) states that because of the social climate which discriminates against African
American men being economic providers, the Black family has developed ﬂexibility of
roles. African American men are actively involved in the childrearing and household
responsibilities. African American women have also historically worked outside the
home, especially during periods of high unemployment. Hines and Boyd-Franklin
(1982) state, because African American males and females have had to develop role
ﬂexibility, the relationships between them can be fairly egalitarian; and their children
may not learn a rigid distinction between male and female roles.

The African American community also has a strong spiritual orientation; this
was true historically and is true currently. The Black church grew out of that tradition
(Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Woodson, 1921). Hines and Boyd-Franklin (1982) state
that it was through the invisible church that escape plans were developed and through
it were passed on. Also, many of the leaders of the Black community have been
religious leaders (Hamilton, 1972). Along with providing connection and leadership,
the church became an avenue to express feelings of humiliation, pain, and anger that
African Americans endured. It was through their religion that Blacks were able to
express their struggle and keep a strong faith in God to see them through their
difﬁculties. The Black church helped African Americans develop great strength and
capabilities to bear pain and sorrow, and it allowed the Black family to seek truth in
the face of great adversity (Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1982).

Work and education are highly valued in the Black family. Scanzoni (1985)

reports that Black parents stress to their children that, because they are Black and will

15

not have many avenues open to them to get ahead in this society, they need to get an
education. Although Black parents hold up hard work and education as the route to
success, the African American family is confronted with the reality that other factors,
outside the control of the individual frequently mediate the success of the Black person
in the education and work worlds (Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1982). Despite the
obstacles, Black parents continue to reinforce the idea that education insures work
security and social mobility. Therefore, family members may unite their resources so
that at least one child can successfully complete his/her education. Later, the educated
child will be seen as responsible for helping other members ﬁnish their education. H.
P. McAdoo (1978) refers to this process of helping those family members who have
helped in time of need as ”reciprocal obligation.” H. P. McAdoo (1978) states that
despite their education and economic success, Black families often do not have the
same level of security as their White counterparts because of institutional and
economic racism.
Deseription of the Major Valaes of the Afrign American Family

The African American family has developed a unique cultural system in the
United States. Underlying this unique cultural system are the values that have come to
form the worldview of African Americans. Sue and Sue (1990) state that all cultural
groups adhere to and promote a certain worldview. Worldview refers to how a person
perceives his/her relationship to the world. A worldview is formed and developed
based on an individual’s cultural upbringing and life experiences. A person’s

worldview shapes his/her thinking and understanding of life.

16

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) state that all cultures in forming their
worldviews provide answers to four important questions. (1) "What is the relationship
of people to nature?" (2) "How are human relationships deﬁned?" (3) "What is the
modality of human activity?” (4) ”What is the temporary focus of human life?" (cited
in Sue & Sue, 1990, p. 139). The answers that a cultural group provides to these
questions form the basis for its value system. Therefore, a worldview reﬂects the
values of that cultural group, and it provides the foundation for how that cultural
group negotiates in the world. Therefore, how individuals of a cultural group interact
with other members of their group or other cultural groups; how they interact with the
world of work; how they raise their children are greatly inﬂuenced by their unique
worldviews.

African Americans, due to their history in the United States and inﬂuences of
both the African and American cultures, have developed a worldview that is different
from European middle class America. In Figure 1 is a depiction of the general
differences between the African American and the dominant cultures’
worldviews (Sue & Sue, 1990).

Hale-Benson (1987) states that the African American value system and
worldview can be described as relational. Individuals who have a relational style in
their interaction with the world can be described as having certain characteristics.
They are people centered and global in their thinking. They ignore the commonalities
and look for the embedded meaning in situations. Therefore, meanings are unique,
dependent upon the immediate context. African Americans tend to focus on the gestalt

in a situation rather than look at the discrete parts. Because of this,

17

 

 

 

 

 

Ir Area of Relationship African American Euro-American
People to Harmony with Mastery over
nature/environment
People Relationships Collateral Individual
Preferred mode of activity Doing Doing
Time Orientation Present Future

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Worldviews of the African American and Euro-American cultures

generalizations and lineal notions are generally not made or seen as important. Hale-
Benson (1987) states that African Americans in their relationships tend to be functional
and inferential, and they are emotional in their expression and respond to the affect.
They are not as bound by structures (Comer & Poussaint, 1994).

This relational style of interaction with the world has resulted in African
Americans, in general, developing some unique characteristics as a group (Comer &
Poussaint, 1994).

1. African Americans tend to respond to things in terms of the whole picture and not
to its parts.

2. African Americans prefer using inferential reasoning rather than deductive or
inductive reasoning.

3. In dealing with space, number, and time, African Americans are more likely to

approximate.

18

4. As a group, African Americans tend to be more people orientated than focused on
things.

5. African Americans have a keen sense of justice and lean toward altruism and
concern for humankind.

6. African Americans are very much focused on the novelty, freedom, and personal
distinctiveness.

7. As a group, African Americans rely on expressing themselves with nonverbal
expression even more than verbal expression.

Summary. There exists great diversity within "the Black family." Because of
needing to adapt to the new cultural environment it found itself in, the African
American family has developed strong kinship bonds, ﬂexibility of family roles, and
places emphasis on religion, education, and work. These adaptive structures along
with the African cultural heritage have resulted in certain core values that are part of
the Black culture. Some of these core values include: being holistic in one’s view of
the world, being more person focused, working towards justice and the beneﬁt of the
whole group.

Bonding and Attachment Theory

In the last decade, an area that has appeared to provide promising new ﬁndings
and answers to extend the understanding of the effects of parenting has been
attachment theory. Attachment theory suggests that our own childhood parenting
experiences have an impact and affect our parenting behaviors (Bowlby, 1988). This
theory postulates that children in their interactions with their parents form internal

working models or mental representations of themselves and others. The working

19

models that children form are based on the nature of children’s adaptation to the
attachment and bonding experiences in the caregiving environments they grow up in.
As these attachment and bonding experiences develop and form, they become part of
the interactional experiences of individuals and greatly determine their interactions
with others, including their own children.

Bowlby (1982) suggests that once these attachment bonds are developed they
are fairly stable and tend to be perpetuated. Several researchers (Bowlby,l982;
Fraiberg, Adelson, & Shapiro, 1975; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Stern, 1985)
have suggested that children’s conceptualization of their childhood experiences are as
signiﬁcant as actual experiences in inﬂuencing parenting behaviors. Therefore, bonds
individuals form with their own parents inﬂuence their parenting behaviors.

Attachment theory asserts that functional parenting involves providing trust and
security for children. Children are secure when they know that they can travel into the
broader world, and upon return they will be accepted and cared for. This sense of
security provides physical and emotional comfort (Bowlby, 1982, 1988). In providing
this security, parents need to be able to encourage and respond to their children when
necessary. If parents respond as necessary and provide children with the security of
being able to explore the world, children will establish their sense of autonomy.
Therefore, an important part of parenting is to provide a secure base which promotes a
sense of attachment and bonding for children (Bowlby, 1988).

Bowlby (1982) states that the attachment relationship results in the protection
and continuation of the family. Attachment behaviors result in children maintaining

close contact to their caregivers, and because it promotes proximity, attachment

20

relationships serve to make sure children survive. Attachment is made to adult
caregivers because they are viewed as better able to cope with the world—at-large.
Through their secure attachments, children come to see the world as a safe place.
Securely attached children also develop feelings of being nurtured. Furthermore, this
sense of comfort and care encourages children to continue their attachment
relationships.

Aﬂchment Styles. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) based on
Bowlby’s attachment theory deﬁned three attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and
anxious ambivalent. Children who form secure attachments are conﬁdent that their
parents are available, responsive, and helpful if they need them to be. Because their
parents are available, responsive, and able to provide protection, children with secure
attachments feel safe in exploring their environment. Securely attached children then
carry this working model of their parents and use it in other signiﬁcant relationships,
including in their relationships with their children.

Children with anxious avoidant attachments have no conﬁdent or trust that their
parents can take care and protect them, and in fact, these children incorporate into
their working models that their parents are not available. Ainsworth et al. (1978)
suggested that as these children grow up they try to be emotionally self-sufﬁcient.
The working models of these children are developed on being constantly rejected. As
for children with anxious ambivalent attachments, they come to realize that their
parents can be supportive, available, and provide protection some times and others

times not be able to do this. Because this insecurity becomes part of their working

21

models, children with anxious ambivalent attachments become anxious and are not able
to easily explore their environments.

6 r tection. Variations in attachment bonds occur due to different
parenting behaviors children receive. Several researchers (Baumrind, 1967, 1972;
Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Parker 1983; Slater & Power, 1987)
report that the constructs of care and overprotection are the crucial variables that
parents who use different parenting styles differ on. In their interactions with their
parents and through their parents’ ability to provide care and protection, children
organize their beliefs about themselves and their accompanying behaviors and attitudes.
It is through their interactions with their parents that children make sense of their
world and self.

Baumrind (1967) states that by providing care, parents convey to their children
that they are accepted as individuals by the parents. Children feel comfortable in their
parents’ presence and develop trust that parents will support them. Parents who are
supportive take into account children’s feelings and desires and are ﬂexible. Parents
allow their children the freedom to be expressive, to try new experiences, and to
explore their world safely. They also provide the security for their children to fail.
Caring and supportive parents feel and view their children as individuals who need to
be encouraged to learn and to develop their own inherent potentials. Slater and Power
(1987) state that such parents are available and provide a cushion against extreme
negative consequences. In supportive environments, parents approve of their children’s

effort to produce an effect upon the environment and let them know they are there for

22

them. Therefore, children come to feel that they can count on their parents; and even
if a task is frustrating, children will continue toward the completion of the task.

Maccoby and Martin (1983) state that the core effect of the care dimension in
the parent-child interaction is it gives children a sense of worth. Children raised in an
environment that views their existence as important will have a positive effect on their
other behaviors. Clarke-Stewart (1973) reports that parental behaviors and attitudes
which are positive, accepting, and express a desire for close interaction with children
have been shown to be positively related with their children’s development. Mothers
who are positive in their attitudes show more positive and affectionate behavior toward
their children. Parental overt demonstration of affectionate behavior has been tied to
enhanced infant development, involvement with the mother, ability to cope with stress,
and increase in social initiative (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).

Slater & Power (1987) indicate that by providing control, parents try to direct
their children’s behaviors in a manner that is desirable to the parents’ goal of helping
their children develop self-sufﬁciency. Parents who employ ﬂexible, democratic
control as opposed to coercive methods of control encourage their children to engage
in age appropriate and self-reliant behaviors. Parents who discipline their children
based on a loving relationship are likely to produce children who are non-aggressive
and cooperative in their social relationships. Parents who use power-controlling
techniques tend to have children who are more aggressive and non-cooperative.

Therefore, variations in the attachment bonds occur due to different level of
care and protection that children experience. Bowlby (1988) states that based on the

different parenting styles, children develop working models of how their parents and

23

others will react to their needs. Children’s interactions and reactions to their parents’
communications and behaviors become established in children’s cognitive structures.
Once these earliest of working models develop, children use these patterned way of
interacting with others in their expanding life. These working models characterize the
type of bonding experiences children have and how children perceive their attachment
relationships. The models that children have of their interactional patterns also include
within them their images and views of themselves. Increasingly these models start to
shape how they expect to be treated by their parents and others and how they will treat
them (Bowlby, 1982, 1988).

Summary. Children come ready and equipped to make attachment bonds to
signiﬁcant others. Attachment bonds result in children wanting to spend time and be
in close contact with their attachment ﬁgures. Attachment bonds are invested with a
great deal of trust. Children experience a great deal of distress if attachment ﬁgures
become inaccessible and unresponsive. The function of bonding behaviors is to help
children learn how to deal with the environment and for the protection of children.
Whatever may be the characteristics of the attachment bond, a strong emotional
component is always a feature of this relationship. Attachment bonds serve to protect,
comfort, support children’s development, and promote their survival.

Secure attachments lead to children’s ability to explore their environment and
feel supported and loved. The interactional patterns between children and their
parental ﬁgures describe the nature of the attachment bond between this dyad.
Therefore, the attachments formed between parents and children are inﬂuenced by the

effect of the interaction between parents and children. In forming their attachment

24

bonds, children develop working models of the attachment they form with their
primary caregivers, and these original models serve to inﬂuence children’s future
interactions with their environment. In conclusion, according to the current literature,
the type of bonds parents formed with their own parents greatly inﬂuences their style
of parenting and attachments they form with their children.
Limigtieas in Research an the African American Family

There are major shortcomings in the literature on the African American family.
These studies have not taken into account the signiﬁcant impact of the African culture
and its inﬂuence on Black family life (Sudarkasa, 1988). Tseng and McDermott
(1981) describe culture as the knowledge that a group has accumulated through time,
and this knowledge is expressed through the group’s values, attitudes, thoughts,
actions, emotional expressions, and view of the world. Because the African American
culture has not been taken into consideration, interpretations of Black family behaviors
have been based on the comparative-deﬁcit model (Peters, 1988).

This comparative-deﬁcit model emphasizes that the Black culture is deﬁcit in
comparison to the White culture. Historically, when researchers have compared Black
to White families and if differences were found, it was usually assumed that the
African American family was lacking in this particular area. Comparative research did
not allow the interpretation of a particular behavior within a cultural context.
Therefore, it is important in understanding African American family behaviors to study
this heterogenous population alone.

Also, a majority of these studies on Black families have looked at the poorest

of African American families. Researchers studying African American families have

25

taken their ﬁndings of poor African American families, compared them to middle class
White families, and then generalized their ﬁndings to all Black families. Thus, Black
families have generally been described in much of the literature as unstable,
disorganized, dysfunctional, and unable to provide the psychological support and

, development needed by its members (Harrison, 1985).

Along with providing negative and limited interpretations of African American
family life, Billingsley (1968) states that family researchers have largely studied topics
relating to expressive functions of White families and instrumental functions in Black
families. Expressive functions of the family deal with those ideas and issues that look
at the emotional aspects of family life. The White family literature has an abundance
of studies focusing on issues of expressive nature such as martial adjustment,
happiness, and parent-child relationship. However, Billingsley (1968) points out that
when African American families are studied, the focus is almost exclusively on
instrumental functions of the family. Instrumental functions involve those activities
that help the family meet its physical needs. These studies have focused on the ability
of the African American family-~usually inability—-to provide its members the basic
necessities of life.

Along with providing a slanted view of the functions of the African American
family, Peters (1988) reported that Black parents have also been presented in a
negative view. Black fathers have been depicted as absent in helping to rear their
children and ineffectual in their family life (McAdoo, J. L., 1988). Black mothers
have been described as restrictive and using greater physical punishment than White

mothers. African American mothers also have been seen as responsible for the

26

"breakdown” and ”pathology" of Black families. This research has generally failed to
take into account the cultural variations and environmental factors, such as racism, that
may bring about these differences in childrearing and adaptive strategies that the Black
family has developed (Peters, 1988).

Only in recent years have scholars (Billingsley, 1968, 1992; McAdoo, H. P.,
1988) started to attack and question this negative and deﬁcit view of the African
American family. Hill (1972), Billingsley (1968, 1992), H. P. McAdoo (1988),
Nobles (1988), Dodson (1988), and Sudarkasa (1988) have emphasized the need to see
the Black family as a functional entity and that the African American family should
not be compared or modeled on White American family norms. Instead, these
researchers emphasize that the unique structures of the African American family
evolved due to an interaction between the African culture, American culture, slavery,
and the socio-political environment.

Empiriﬂ aad anlitative Research an African American Parenting

The African American family literature (Barbarin, 1993; Billingsley, 1968;
Comer & Poussaint, 1994; Hale-Benson, 1987; Jackson, et al., 1988; McAdoo, H. P.,
1985; Nobles, 1988; Peters & Massey, 1983; Pinderhuges, 1982; Pipes, 1988) suggests
that historical, cultural, and social factors impact how African American parents rear
their children. The general parenting literature (Baumrind, 1967; Bowlby, 1982, 1988;
Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Slater & Power, 1987) states that
how children develop emotionally greatly depend on their parenting. This literature
stresses that the bonds children form with their parents early in their lives greatly

determine their psychological development and interactional behaviors with others.

27

African American parents are confronted with the reality of dealing with a racist
environment in raising their children. Because African Americans are reared and
parent their children within a racist environment, this undoubtedly impacts their
attachment bonding experiences with their children.

There are no studies that were found on the attachment bonding experiences of
African American parents and their children; however, there are some systematic
empirical and qualitative studies that have explored the parent-child relationship in the
Black family. Six of these studies will be reviewed. Four of these studies (Bartz &
Levine, 1978; Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart; Durrett, O’Bryant & Pennebaker,
1975) are empirically based. One study (McLoyd, 1990) summarized the empirical
research on Black families, and the last study (Peter, 1985) is qualitative in nature. All
of these studies (Bartz & Levine, 1978; Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Durrett
et al., 1975; McLoyd, 1990; Peters, 1985) have examined characteristics and behaviors
that Black parents promote in the rearing and socialization of their children. These
studies are brieﬂy reviewed in this section.

However, in considering these studies, it is important to note the
methodological and theoretical shortcomings inherent in them. Generalizability of
results is limited, in most studies (Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Durrett et
al., 1975; Peters, 1985), due to small sample size. Most of the samples were obtained
from poor Black families (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Durrett et al., 1975; Peters, 1985). In
the studies using observation methods (Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart, 1973), it was
not clear if the observers were given special training about the variation in cultural

behaviors of Black families. Some of the studies (Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart,

28

1973; Peters, 1985) relied exclusively on mothers for all information about parenting
behaviors. It was difﬁcult to determine if the questionnaire used in the various studies
(Baumrind, 1972; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Durrett et al., 1975) had been standardized for
a Black population. Also, although several of the authors emphasized the need to
understand Black parents’ childrearing behavior from a historical and cultural
perspective, by comparing Black and White families, these studies (Clarke-Stewart,
1973; Durrett et al., 1975) seem to suggest that the White middle class value system
should be the norm. Only one study (Peters, 1985) attempted to highlight the view of
parenting from an African American cultural perspective.

McLoyd (1990) provides a comprehensive summary of the empirical literature
on economic hardship, psychological distress, parenting, and socio-emotional
development of African American families. In the section on parenting, McLyod
(1990) summarizes the ﬁndings from several studies on Black-White differences. She
reports ﬁndings from a numbers of studies based on observations, self-reports, and
responses to vignettes. The majority of these studies suggest that Black parents are
more severe, punitive, and power assertive in their discipline of their children than
White parents of similar socioeconomic status. However, McLyod (1990) reports that
there are a few studies that report that Black parents are also supportive and
nonrejecting in their parenting styles.

Therefore, McLyod (1990) concludes that based on the current literature it
could be argued that there is a distinct pattern of childrearing associated with Black
parents. This pattern combines the use of strong support with the use of power

assertion, punitiveness, and arbitrariness. McLyod (1990) suggests that the use of

29

severe, punitive and power assertive style of parenting by Black families is culturally
rooted and can be traced to traditional African values and that this childrearing practice
was fostered by the experience of slavery. She cautions that it is unfair to judge this
parenting style within a White middle class perspective. McLyod (1990) stresses that
a fair and cogent analysis of Black-White differences in parenting must take into
account cultural, demographic, environment, and psychological factors.

Peters (1985) reported that the Toddler Infant Experience Study (TIES) is an
ecologically oriented qualitative study. The focus of the study was the socio-emotional
development of young Black children and the childrearing behaviors, attitudes, and
goals of their parents. Thirty families participated in this study. Families were
recruited by way of radio announcements, television interviews, the newspaper, signs
in supermarkets, and friends. For two years, children in the family were observed, and
their mothers interviewed monthly for two to three hours in their homes. All the
families that participated had to have at least one child that was one years old. A
majority were two parent, working, and middle class families.

Peters (1985) reported that children were observed manipulating their home
environment and interacting with parents and others. Children were observed to
identify the patterns of parent-child behaviors. Mothers were also extensively
interviewed to gain understanding of parents’ interpretations and inputs on their
children’s development. Peters (1985) reported that about half of the mothers (16)
also participated in a lengthy interview about the racial socialization of their children.
In the racial socialization interviews, parents were asked speciﬁcally their childrearing

goals and behaviors as Black parents raising Black children. Mothers were asked

30

about situations in which their Black identity created a problem and how racism
impacted their childrearing experiences.

Peters (1985) indicated that parents reported that in raising their children they
took into account the fact that they needed to raise their children with a keen
understanding that their Black culture would make a difference in how their children
were treated in the world. Mothers stated that racial identity was an important factor
in their lives and in how they were raising their children. Mothers reported that they
not only provided and cared for their children, but they also taught their children how
to survive the racism they would face. Along with helping children understand that
they will face racism, mothers also emphasized that it is important that children
develop a positive self-image. In general, parents reported that helping their children
build self-respect and pride in their racial identity was part of the foundation of their
childrearing philosophy.

Mothers also reported encouraging their children to be honest and engage in
fair play; however, because of the racist nature of society, they also prepared their
children not to expect fair play in return. These Black mothers also indicated that they
taught their children that it was important for them to learn to get along with others.
Many mothers stated that it was important for their children to learn how to " ’ﬁt into
society” because there are many who will try to put them in their place (Peters, 1985,
p. 166). Also, a majority of the parents reported that the most important strategy for
coping with the racist nature of American society was to make sure that their children
gained a good education. In fact, these Black parents stated that compared to White

children their children had to succeed even more. Finally parents were asked: ”What

31

is the most important things you could do for your children?” (Peters, 1985, p. 167) A
majority of the parents answered: "love them.” These parents stated that above all
else if you love your children this would be the best protection you can provide them
against the potential difﬁculties that they will experience due to the racism of society.

Baumrind (1972) in her study sought to replicate parent-child relationships
found in two pervious studies and to differentiate further among patterns of parental
authority. A total of 150 parents participated. Sixteen of 150 parents were African
Americans. The data for the 16 Black families were analyzed separately. In her
study, children were observed for three months in their nursery school and
administrated the Stanford-Binet. Interviewers also made two home visits of three
hours each. The second visit was followed by a structured interview in which parents
were administered the Parent Attitude Inquiry.

The results of the study indicated that boys in African American families were
expected to behave in a more mature and independent fashion than their White
counterparts. On the other hand, Black girls, in comparison with White girls, were not
encouraged to be independent or exhibit individual behavior. Black fathers promoted
conformity and were authoritarian in their parenting behaviors. Black mothers were
described as being ﬁrm and somewhat rejecting. However, the daughters of these
Black parents, compared with White girls raised with similar parenting style, were
found to be signiﬁcantly more independent, resistive, and dominant. Baumrind (1972)
emphasized that by White standards these Black girls demonstrated unusual social

maturity and adaptive behaviors to a nursery school setting.

32

The author cautioned that although this parenting style by White middle class
standards would be seen as authoritarian and discouraged, it appeared to be beneﬁcial
in Black families. Black authoritarian parents were seen as encouraging their
daughters from an early age to take care of themselves. As a group, the Black
authoritarian parents were observed to be less uptight than their White counterparts.
The African American parents were more spontaneous in their expression of emotions
and more likely to engage in rough-housing with their daughters. Therefore, the
author concluded that authoritarian childrearing practices may help develop greater
toughness and self-sufﬁciency in Black girls and hence not be seen by them as
rejecting behavior but rather as nurturing caretaking behavior. However, it must be
remembered that this sample only consisted of 16 parents.

In her study, Clarke-Stewart (1973) sought to clarify the relationship suggested
in the literature on maternal inﬂuences and to add to our understanding about the
dimensions of mother-child interactions. A total of 36 mother and child dyads were
repeatedly observed interacting in their homes and a laboratory setting. Altogether,
mother—child were observed 12 different times. There was an equal number of Black
to White families. All 36 families were described as being relatively poor.

Several types of statistical analysis were performed on the core set of variables.
Pearson product-moment correlation coefﬁcients were calculated to ascertain the
relationships among children variables, among maternal variables, and between the two
set of variables. A principal—component factor analysis was conducted on the children

and maternal variables to discover those variables which clustered together. Group

33

differences on demographic and psychological dimensions were examined by analysis
of variance on mean scores and on repeated measures.

The major ﬁnding of the study was that children’s overall competence was
highly, signiﬁcantly related to maternal care. Children were more attached to their
mothers if they were actively involved with them. Mothers who were positive in their
emotional expression had children who were positive in their expression. Mothers who
were high on affection, stimulation, and responsiveness had more securely attached
children. The more securely attached a mother-child pair was the more responsive the
mother was to their children’s distress. Also, affectionate behavior was positively
correlated with children’s competence. Therefore, children overall competencies are
high with optimal maternal care which includes positive emotions, stimulation, and
responsiveness. In general, Black children tended to be more physically attached to
their mothers than White children.

Clarke-Stewart (1973) also reported that Black mothers in the study emphasized
the physical aspect of childcare and White mothers emphasized the educational aspect.
The author hypothesized that this difference may have more to do with different
histories, traditions, social and economic pressures. Black mothers valued education as
much as their White mother counterparts; however, Black mothers also needed to in a
realistic way prepare their children for the social reality of life.

Bartz and Levine (1978) speciﬁcally explored both maternal and paternal
childrearing attitudes in Black families. Black, Anglo, and Chicano mothers and
fathers living in a lower working class neighborhood were interviewed. Parents were

interviewed in their homes by interviewers of the same gender and ethnicity. Parents

34

were paid $10.00 for their participation. The inﬂuence of social class was controlled
in that all the parents lived in the same neighborhood and were from a similar
economic class. A total of 455 parents participated (301 mothers and 154 fathers). Of
these 160 were Black, 152 Chicano, and 143 Anglos. Parent were randomly recruited
from school rosters of parochial and public elementary schools.

A randomized block design was employed. The questionnaires administered
included: the Parental Attitude Research Scale (PARS) and the Cornell Parent
Behavior Inventory (CPBI). Answers to items on the PARS were obtained on a four-
point, forced-choice format ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree and for
the CPBI on a ﬁve-point, forced choice scale ranging from very often to never. These
questionnaires measured seven qualities of childrearing: control, support,
permissiveness, strictness, equality, accelerated development and time press. T-tests
were performed to determine differences in the Black, Anglo, and Chicano parents as a
group and fathers and mothers alone. In this study, an analysis of covariance was
performed with education level as a covariant to further delineate the relationship of
ethnicity to responses on each factor. In comparing the three groups, it was found that
Black parents differ from either Anglo and/or Chicano parents on ﬁve of the seven
factors.

Black parents expected their children to assume early responsibility for their
behavior and placed greater emphasis on their children not to waste time than did
Anglos and Chicano parents. Black, as well as Anglo parents, were signiﬁcantly more
supportive of equal relationships than were Chicano parents. However, it should be

noted that controlling for education did erase the signiﬁcance of ethnic differences on

35

this dimension. Black parents generally provided more emotional support to their
children than either Anglo or Chicano parents. Black parents also used greater
controlling behaviors than the other two ethnic groups. In conclusion, Black parents
differed from Anglo or Chicano parents on ﬁve factors. Black parents encouraged
most for acceleration of development, were the most concerned about children wasting
time, exercised the most control over their children’s behaviors, and indicated the most
frequent use of supportive behaviors.

Durrett et al. (1975) also examined the childrearing orientations and techniques
of both mothers and fathers. They interviewed 90 low-income families, each with a
child enrolled in Head Start. Twenty-nine White, 30 Black, and 31 Mexican-American
families were interviewed. Parents were administered the Child-Rearing Practices
Report (CRPR). The 91 items on the CRPR were reduced to 16 broader categories.
Six of the categories dealt with general orientations in childrearing and the remaining
10 categories addressed speciﬁc childrearing techniques. Analyses of covariance, using
educational level as the covariate, were computed for each category for the three
ethnic groups using the combined parents’ scores, the mothers’ scores, and the fathers’
scores. Both Black and White parents were more authoritative than Mexican American
parents. Also, Black fathers emphasized more achievement and success orientation
than did their Mexican American counterparts. Finally, Black fathers favored using
the method of rewarding their children when they displayed good behavior as a
technique of parenting. However, Black fathers more often used strict arbitrary rules.

Summary. In conclusion, these studies investigate unique childrearing

characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors associated with Black families and the

36

inﬂuence of these parenting behaviors on the socialization of their children. In
general, African American parents may use childrearing practices and styles that may
be viewed by the dominant culture as ”unhealthy”; however, these practices have been
shown to promote independent and adaptive behaviors in Black children. Several of
the studies also highlighted that the functionality of African American parenting styles
needs to be examined within both historical and cultural perspectives. These sets of
studies suggest that due to their minority status in America and unique cultural
development, African Americans in the socialization of their children have developed

parenting behaviors that help their children function in society-at-large.

Resach on the Role of Attachment and Bonding in Parenting Behaviors

 

Within a systemic approach, it is believed that all behaviors of individual
members of a family system are interconnected and mutually inﬂuenced by all
members of the system (Williamson & Bray, 1985). This approach also emphasizes
that multigenerational patterns determine the ways in which individuals in a family and
the family as a whole grow and develop. Therefore, within this perspective how
families behave and raise their children are dependent on behaviors and patterns they
learned from their families of origins.

Intergenerational transmission of parenting refers to the inﬂuence of parents’
own parenting on how they view and raise their own children. This is an important
concept in that it focuses on how parents own experiences in their families of origins
shape their behaviors and views about parenting. Van Ijzendoorn (1992) states that the
parenting behaviors and attitudes of each generation are inﬂuenced by earlier

generations. Bowlby (1988) suggests that parents’ feelings for and behaviors towards

37

their children are deeply inﬂuenced by their own childhood experiences. The
experiences that are especially important are related to parents’ own bonding
experiences with their parents.

The inﬂuence of attachment and bonding behaviors has been studied in many
different areas. The inﬂuence of attachment behaviors has been linked to social
support and college adjustment (Bartels & Frazier, 1991), stress (Compas, Howell, &
Ledoux, 1989), religious beliefs and conversion (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990), eating
disorders (Palmer, Oppenheimer, & Marshall, 1988), adolescent depression (Armsden,
McCauley, Greenberg, Burke, & Mitchell, 1990), psychological well being (Armsden
& Greenberg, 1987), and quality of dating relationships (Collins & Read, 1990).
Although the current interest and promise of attachment theory will help to explain
how the role of parenting is instrumental in many aspects of human development, the
theory has limitation when applied to African Americans. No studies were located on
the bonding experiences or intergenerational transmission of African American
parenting behaviors. However, there are a few studies (Cromwell & Feldman, 1988;
Gelso, C. J., Birk, & Powers, 1978; Martin, Halverson, Wampler, & Hollett-Wright,
1991; Van Ijzendoorn, 1992) that have examined the issue of intergeneration
transmission of attachment and parenting behaviors of the general population. These
studies will be brieﬂy reviewed.

Martin et al. (1991) compared parenting behaviors between two generations:
mothers and grandmothers. They compared the two groups on parenting domains,
goals for children, satisfaction with parenting role, and parenting styles. The entire

sample consisted of 60 middle class women; 32 were mothers and 28 were maternal

38

grandmothers. The majority of the mothers had graduated from college and at least
half completed graduate school. For the grandmothers, at least a fourth had competed
college. Four parenting instruments were administered to the subjects. These were the
Parent Satisfaction Scale (PSS), the Childrearing Practices Report (CRPR), the
Parenting Goals Questionnaire (PGQ), and the Self-Sufﬁciency Questionnaire (SSQ).

To determine generational differences on the various parenting constructs, t-
tests were computed on all dimensions. The authors stated that the goal of their study
was not to report historical changes in parenting but to elucidate the current differences
in the perception of parenting between the two generations. The ﬁndings suggested
that there was no generational difference on the dimension of parenting goals.
However, there were signiﬁcant generational differences on the issue of self-
sufﬁciency of children. Grandmothers were more likely to perceive children as
immature individuals and supported the use of speciﬁc rules for appropriate behaviors.
Also, on the dimension of parenting satisfaction, grandmothers placed more emphasis
on the value of parenting for it own sake. However, mothers placed greater value on
nurturing than grandmothers, and grandmothers emphasized greater restrictiveness than
their daughters.

C. J. Gelso et al. (1978) also studied the relationship between adults’
perceptions of their parents’ attitudes toward them during childhood and adolescence
and these adults own childrearing attitudes. This study examined to what extent can
four types of childrearing attitudes be predicted from the subjects’ perception of their

parents’ attitudes toward them. The subjects consisted of 188 undergraduate students

39

enrolled in an introductory psychology class at the University of Maryland. All the
subjects were volunteers (about half were parents themselves).

Subjects were administered the Family Relations Inventory (FRI), the Parental
Dominance Scale (PDS), and the Maryland Parent Attitude Survey (MPAS). The FRI
assessed subjects’ perception of parents’ attitudes and behavior toward them, and the
MPAS assessed subjects’ attitudes toward childrearing. Data analysis was conducted
in two steps. Product-moment correlations were determined between the FRI and
MPAS, and a stepwise regression analysis was performed. In the stepwise regression
analysis, all FRI scores were used as the predictors and each MPAS score as the
criterion. Overall, C. J. Gelso et al. (1978) stated that all correlations were low,
suggesting limited practical signiﬁcance. Therefore, it was suggested that parents’
childrearing attitudes did not account for a very large proportion of the variance in
their children’s later childrearing attitudes.

Attachment theory hypothesizes that the ability for parents to attend to and
integrate cues and signals from their children is inﬂuenced by parents’ own parenting.
Cromwell and Feldman (1988) studied the association between mothers’ internal model
of relationships, their parenting behaviors, and children’s behaviors. A total of 64
mother-child dyads participated in the study. The 64 mother-child dyads formed three
groups (two groups consisted of children who clinically were referred and a matched
nonclinic comparison group). The clinic and the nonclinic comparison groups were
matched on age, sex, race, birth order, number of siblings, socioeconomic status, hours

spent in out-of-home care, and mothers’ marital status and educational level.

40

Approximately, ninety-four percent of the children were White; six percent were
Black.

Each dyad was observed in a semistructured laboratory play session. Mothers
were interviewed approximately one week after the laboratory play session and
administered the Adult Attachment Interview, which is designed to characterize the
internal model of attachment relationships. During the interview, each mother was
asked to describe her childhood relationships with her parents and to give memories
supportive of these descriptions. Mothers’ descriptions of their childhood memories
were then classiﬁed into the three attachment styles: (1) secure, (2) detached
(avoidant), (3) preoccupied or enmeshed (ambivalent).

Both ANOVA and ANCOVA were conducted; for the ANCOVA analysis the
covariates were the clinical group the children were in and attachment style of the
mothers. The analyses showed that a signiﬁcantly higher proportion of mothers
classiﬁed as insecure (in attachment style 2 and 3) were in the clinic samples than in
the comparison group. The authors suggested that an insecure model of relationships
in a mother may be a risk factor for her child’s development. The authors also stated
that based on their laboratory observation their results supported the conclusion that a
mother’s internal model of relationships selectively and qualitatively affects her
responsiveness and sensitivity to her child.

Mothers who were classiﬁed as secure functioned best overall. These mothers
were both warm and supportive during a challenging activity and gave their children
clear, helpful assistance that encouraged learning and mastery. Mothers in the

detached category were more controlling, task focused in their style, and tended to be

41

cool and remote in helping their children with a task. Task completion and not
learning was the apparent goal of these mothers. Mothers classiﬁed as preoccupied
were the least helpful and supportive. They had a difﬁcult time giving directions and
making suggestions.

In his article Van Ijzendoorn (1992) provided a comprehensive review of the
literature that examined the issue of intergenerational transmission of parenting. He
described intergenerational transmission ”as the process through which purposely or
unintendedly an earlier generation psychologically inﬂuences parenting attitudes and
behavior of the next generation” (p. 77). The studies reviewed had to conform to the
following criteria.

1. They had to present empirical research.

2. They had to present information on at least three generations, and the focus
of each study was on the transmission of parenting values, attitudes, and/or behaviors.

3. The subjects had to be from ”normal” families and not at risk or clinical
populations.

In his review, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) presented a total of 13 studies. The ﬁrst
ﬁve studies reviewed focused on parenting behaviors and attitudes. Each of these used
a Likert-type attitude scale on parenting styles. Van Ijzendoorn (1992) indicated that
these studies did ﬁnd a modest correlation on parental attitudes between two
generations. However, it was difﬁcult to interpret the ﬁndings because the studies did
not provide reliability or validity information on the instruments used.

Van Ijzendoorn (1992) also reviewed four other studies which focused on how

parenting attitudes and values are transmitted between generation. These studies used

42

Likert-type questionnaires and did provide reliability and validity information on their
scales. These studies, also, suggested that there is a modest correlation on some
parenting attitudes and values between the two generations. However, several of these
studies were ﬂawed because the samples selected did not ﬁt the design. In particular
Van Ijzendoorn (1992) reported that some of the designs did not allow for
differentiating cohort effects from other factors inﬂuencing adults’ attitudes and values.
Furthermore, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) suggested that using questionnaires with cross—
sectional designs was unsuitable in interpreting the ﬁndings.

Van Ijzendoorn (1992) also examined three studies that examined the
transmission of attachment styles between two generations. He only reviewed studies
that employed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) to gather data. In looking
speciﬁcally at attachment studies, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) found that these studies
reported ﬁnding a signiﬁcant correlations between parents’ description of their own
attachment styles to the attachments styles of their children.

Overall, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) found that parents who experienced a great deal
of caring and responsiveness from their parents are more open to the signals and needs
of their children as opposed to parents who may have experienced rejection and
ambivalence from their parents. Parents who experienced greater care and
responsiveness are able to take their children’s perspective and not feel threatened by
their children’s anxiety. These parents also have more satisfying relationships with
others. Therefore, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) found support for the idea of

intergenerational transmission of parenting values, attitudes and behavior.

43

In conclusion Van Ijzendoorn (1992) outlined several criticism of the current
state of the intergeneration parenting literature. He stated that few studies have
employed acceptable designs to study this topic. Most studies have used a cross-
sectional design; whereas, using a longitudinal design would be more appropriate.
However, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) did review one study that used a cross-sectional
design and observational measures instead of questionnaires. He reported that this
study provided a more promising way to examine the topic of intergenerational
transmission of parenting. Van Ijzendoorn (1992) concluded that the use of inadequate
designs and poor measures in some studies, currently makes it impossible to draw a
causal inference about the transmission of parents’ behaviors and inﬂuences from one
generation to the next. Van Ijzendoorn (1992) also stated that studies need to use
more sophisticated multivariate data analysis procedures rather than simple bivariate
correlation procedures to control for confounding effects of other variables.

Summﬂy. Although studying the beneﬁt of attachment bonds and their
inﬂuence on parenting behaviors is important, it can be concluded from the current
state of the literature that there is little understanding of attachment bonding
experiences and parenting behaviors among African American adults. However, the
studies reviewed in this section add to our understanding of how intergenerational
parenting behaviors are transmitted and affect children’s behaviors.

In the study by C. J. Gelso et al. (1978), the authors examined how individuals’
attitudes towards childrearing and their perceptions of their parents’ own attitudes
towards them affect their views about childrearing. This study reported only modest

correlation between how individuals’ are rearing their children and how they believe

44

they were parented. In their study, Martin et al. (1991) examined intergenerational
differences in parenting styles and goals. This study found no differences in
intergenerational parenting goals; however, there were some signiﬁcant differences
reported in parenting styles. In the study by Cromwell and Feldman (1988), mothers’
internal model of their relationship with their parents was examined in relation to how
these mothers interacted with their children. The authors reported ﬁnding that
children’s behavioral and developmental status was related to mothers internal models.
The ﬁnal article reviewed the major studies in this area (Van Ijzendoorn, 1992).
However, in considering the application of the ﬁndings in these studies, it is
important to consider some of their major limitations. Generalizability of results is
limited in most of the studies due to small sample size (Martin et al., 1991), some of
the studies used college students or a highly educated sample (Cromwell & Feldman,
1988; Gelso, C. J., et al., 1978; Martin et al., 1991). Furthermore, most of the studies
(Gelso, C. 1., et al., 1978; Martin et al., 1991; Van Ijzendoorn, 1992) did not clearly
deﬁne the ethnicity or racial background of the sample. When ethnicity was described,
there was generally a limited number of African Americans in the sample (Cromwell
& Feldman, 1988). Another shortcoming of the studies (Gelso, C. J., et al., 1978;
Martin et al., 1991; Van Ijzendoorn, 1992) was that there was no reliability
information provided for some of the questionnaires used to gather data. Finally, in
his review, Van Ijzendoorn (1992) outlines two other criticism of literature. He stated
that few studies have used suitable design to study issues of intergenerational
transmission of parenting. He also emphasized that in most studies the inﬂuence that

children may be exerting on their parents’ behaviors is not taken into account.

45

f Pr s

As stated earlier, there are deﬁcits in the literature on the African American
family. Much of the earlier research on the African American family has been based
on a comparative-deﬁcit model. These studies compared lower economic class, urban
African American families to White middle class, suburban families. Along with
comparing lower economic class African American families with White middle class
families, these studies, generally, failed to address the inﬂuence of the African
American culture on family life. These studies of poor, urban African American
families generally lacked an Afrocentric perspective; however, these studies were often
used to develop theories and provide interpretations of the behaviors of ”the Black
family. " Therefore, a goal of the proposed study is to examine the behaviors of
African Americans from a more Afrocentric perspective and focus on middle class
families from the African American community.

Another goal of this study is to focus on the expressive side of the African
American family life. Billingsley (1968) stated that in studying ”the Black family”
researchers have largely focused on the instrumental aspects and have ignored the
expressive functions of family life. He states, however, when White families have
been studied the focus is largely on the expressive aspects of family life. Therefore,
this imbalance in the literature has added to the impression that ”the Black family" is
unable to meet the psychological and emotional needs of its family members.
Therefore, a goal of this study is to add to the African American literature by
developing a study that attempts to increase understanding of the parent-child

relationship from both cultural and expressive perspectives. To work toward this goal,

46

the foundation of this study rests on the idea that the African American family culture
is functional in promoting healthy family life.
Hypotheses of the Study

The following hypotheses were generated for this study. They were based on
what would be expected given the current literature.

1. Among participants there will be a positive relationship between reported
experienced care from parents and provided support in their parenting of children.

2. Among participants there will be a positive relationship between reported
experienced overprotection from parents and provided control in their parenting of
children.

3. Among participants there will be a negative relationship between reported
experienced care from parents and provided control in their parenting of children.

4. Among participants there will be a negative relationship between reported
experienced overprotection from parents and provided support in their parenting of
children.

5. There will be signiﬁcant differences for participants based on the mean

scores of their attachment styles on different scales of the instruments.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Pmicipants

The sample for this study consisted of 435 African American staff and faculty
members from a large midwestern university and 195 members of the Association of
Black Psychologists. A total of 630 survey packets were mailed to adult African
Americans. Of these 630 survey packets, 23 were returned because of no forwarding
addresses. A total of 310 (49%) surveys were returned; however, 83 of the
questionnaires received were not usable for several reasons. Surveys were not properly
completed; respondents reported having no children; and individuals completed the
instruments, however, did not indicate if they had children. After eliminating these
individuals from the study, the sample consisted of 227 subjects, which is a 32%
response rate.

Design

The design of the study is a correlational ﬁeld study (Gelso, C., 1980). There
was no experimental control over or manipulation of the independent variables, and the
setting for the experiment was the real world. Further, subjects were self-selected on

the basis of their ethnicity.

47

48
Instruments
Subjects were asked to complete the following questionnaires: (1)
Demographic Questionnaire, (2) the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), (3) the Adult
Attachment Scale (AAS), (4) the Parental Dimensions Inventory (PDI), and (5) the
African American Parenting Survey (AAPS).

Demegraphic Qaestionnaire (See Appendix E). Subjects were asked to
complete a demographic questionnaire in order to elicit the following information: age
of respondent, sex, ages of children, educational level of respondent and spouse,
respondent’s employment, marital status, the composition of the household,
ethnic/racial identiﬁcation, respondent’s afﬁliation with a religious institution, and if a
subject’s mothers and fathers were present in the household the ﬁrst 16 years of
his/her lives. Respondents were asked about the presence and absence of their parents
because the FBI asked the subjects to reﬂect back on their bonding experiences with
both their parents during the ﬁrst 16 years of their lives. Subjects were also asked to
indicate their actual and subjective perception of their parents’ socioeconomic status
(lower class, working class, middle class, upper middle class, upper class) while they
were growing up. Carter and Helms (1988) state that African American subjects are
more willing or able to give subjective estimates of social class than they are to
provide traditional estimators of social class.

Pgental Bending lastmment (See Appendix F). Parker (1983) stated that the
inﬂuence of parenting could be described by two bipolar dimensions: "care" and
”overprotection. " The dimension of "care" is concerned with general level of parental

warmth and affection versus indifference and neglect. The dimension of

49

"overprotection” is concerned with the levels of parental control and intrusion versus
the encouragement of child autonomy. After a careful review of the parenting
literature, Parker developed a self report scale for each dimension. Initially, 114 items
were written. After several extensive reviews and factor analysis procedures, the PBI
was reduced to 25 items.

The PBI contains a total of four scales: a separate "Care" (12 items) and
”Overprotection” (13 items) scale for each parent. Questions are rated on a 4-point
Likert type scale (1 =very like to 4 =very unlike). A low score on the "Care" items
indicated that parents were very caring and a high score suggested they are neglectful.
As for the ”Overprotection" scale a low score indicated that parents were controlling
and a high score suggested that they were protective. Respondents were asked to rate
their mothers and fathers on parental behaviors. Each parent is rated separately on the
"Care" and "Overprotection” scales based on respondents’ memory of the ﬁrst 16 years
of their lives. It is estimated that the total testing time is about ﬁve minutes (Parker,
1983).

The test-retest reliability of the PBI was assessed by having 17 subjects
complete the instrument on two occasions three weeks apart. Pearson correlation
coefﬁcients were computed. The ”Care" scale had a coefﬁcient of .76, and the
”Overprotection” scale had a coefﬁcient of .63. The split-half reliability of the P8]
was also assessed. Correlation coefﬁcients of .88 and .67 were computed for the
”Care” and "Overprotection” scales respectively.

Parker (1983) reported that the validity of the PB] was assessed by two raters

independently assessing the content of interviews with 65 subjects who were asked to

50

discuss ”the emotional relationship they had with each parent" (p. 96). Parker (1983)
reports that each judge assigned a score between ﬁve to one for the degree of ”care"
and "overprotection” the subjects felt towards each parent. Interrater reliability
coefﬁcients were .85 and .69 for the ”Care" and ”Overprotection" scales respectively.
Parker (1983) also determined concurrent validity by correlating the scores of the two
independent raters with those of the actual scales. These correlations ranged from .78
for the ”Care" scale to .48 for the ”Overprotection" scale. It should be noted that
Parker did not report the racial/ethnic background of his samples.

Parker (1983) reported, based on several different norming samples, that the
”Care” and ”Overprotection” scales have been found to be signiﬁcantly correlated for
both mothers and fathers (—.47 for mothers and -.36 for fathers in the norm group).
However, mothers have, generally, been perceived as more "caring” and more
"overprotective" than fathers. Finally, Parker (1983) suggested because the
"overprotection” dimension may be associated with a lack of care that mutual
contributions of these factors be partialed out where relations between either factor
alone and another variable are of interest.

Since its development over ten years ago, the PBI has been used in several
studies. The FBI has been found to be highly reliable at test-retest periods of up to
ten years (Wilhelm & Parker, 1990). Several researchers (Cubis, Lewin, & Dawes,
1989; Mackinnon, Henderson, Scott, & Ducan-Jones, 1989) also report that the PBI’s
factor structure is robust.

Adult Attaehment Scale (See Appendix H). The AAS was developed by Hazan

and Shaver (1987). The AAS consists of three items from which the subject picks one

51

choice. Each item consists of a short paragraph. There is one item written for each
attachment style based on Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Walls (1978) description of
attachment behaviors. Hazen and Shaver (1987) provided some limited information on
the validity of the AAS. The AAS was administered to 574 adults; the racial/ethnic
background of the sample was not provided. Three hundred and nineteen adults (56%)
indicated a secure style of attachment, 145 (25 %) reported an avoidant style of
attachment, and 110 (19%) described their attachment style as anxious/ambivalent.
Hazen and Shaver (1987) found that the proportions of the sample within each of the
three attachment categories are comparable to the proportion reported in infant-mother
attachment studies.

Hazen and Shaver (1987) did not provide any reliability information.

However, in her study Pistole (1989) provided reliability data on the AAS. Pistole
(1989) reported administering the AAS two times, one week apart to a
demographically similar sample to the one used by Hazen and Shaver. She reported
an internal consistency coefﬁcient of .59; this suggests moderate consistency.

Parental Dimeasien Inventog (See Appendix G). The PDI measures for three
constructs of parenting. However, for this study only the two constructs highlighted as
being important by the general parenting literature were assessed. The constructs are
support and control. Power (1993) reported that the PDI items were primarily taken

from the following preexisting childrearing instruments: the Parent Attitude Research
Iastrument, the Blmk Childrearing Practices Report, the Parent Attitude Inquigy, the
Chilgrearing Practices Qaestiongire, and the Questionnaire on Parental Attitudes. The

rest of the items were developed by reviewing the parenting literature. Power (1993)

52

states that conﬁrmatory factor analyses were conducted to determine each of the
dimensions of parenting. Items that did not load on these three dimensions were
dropped from the ﬁnal version of the PDI.

To establish reliability, the PDI was administered to a sample of 140 African
American parents of six to twelve years old. Power (1993) reported that the factor
structure of the PDI was replicated in this sample. He also stated that reliability and
internal consistency reached acceptable levels. For the support construct, Power
(1993) reported internal consistency alphas of .76, .54. and .70 for nurturance,
responsiveness, and nonrestrictive attitude dimensions respectively. For the control
construct, Power (1993) reported internal consistency alphas of .74 and .70 for the
control and maturity demands dimensions respectively.

Power (1993) stated that the PDI has been shown to be valid in that it
predicted parent ratings of problem behavior and social competence in several different
samples. Furthermore, with low-income, urban, African American mothers, Kelley
and Kelley and Power, and Wimbush (cited in Power, 1993) were able to demonstrate
that authoritarian childrearing attitudes that were measured by the PDI correlated with
similar measures that were taken from an independently administered childrearing
interview.

The ﬁnal version of the PDI consists of 47 items. However, for this study only
29 items that measured support and control were administered. It was estimated that it
would take about 15-20 minutes to complete the PDI. The modiﬁed version of the
PDI assessed for parental nurturance, responsiveness, and nonrestrictive attitudes,

which underlie the support construct. As for the control construct, the PDI measured

53

for maturity demands placed on and amount of control parents felt they had to exert
on their children.

Afrign Amerign Parenting Survey (See Appendix I). An AAPS was
developed based on a review of the literature. As noted, the general parenting
literature does not address the special concerns and issues that African American
parents face in raising their children. However, the African American parenting
literature (Barbarin, 1993; Billingsley, 1968; Comer & Poussaint, 1994; Hale-Benson,
1987; Jackson et al., 1988; McAdoo, H. P., 1985; Nobles, 1988; Peters & Massey,
1983; Pinderhughes, 1982; Pipes, 1988) highlights some of the important tasks that
African American parents face in raising their children in a society that does not
accord them equal status.

The AAPS was written to reﬂect areas that the Black parenting literature has
described as being important to emphasize in parenting African American children.
There was one statement tapping into each of the following areas: bicultural status,
racism, needing to respect self, sense of history, unconditional love, nonverbal
communication, trust in higher power, importance of immediate and extended family
connection. The items were measured on a Likert scale: 1 =Strongly Agree to 4 =
Strongly Disagree. A low score indicated that those values and behaviors that the
African American Parenting Literature suggested are important to emphasize in the
parenting of Black children were strongly endorsed, and a high score meant the
reverse. Items were reviewed for readability, content validity, and face validity by an

expert in the ﬁeld. Prior to administering the survey, it was tested for reliability by

54

administering the AAPS to 15 minority college students. Test-retest reliability was
.45, which is low.
Procedares

Development of the Africam American Parenting Survey. This study involved
two phases. In the ﬁrst phase, a survey was developed and piloted. The second phase
of the study consisted of the ﬁeld and data analysis. The AAPS was written by the
author based on a review of the African American family and parenting literature.
After the survey was written, it was reviewed by three African American experts on
the topic of the African American family. Each judges’ feedback was incorporated in
the ﬁnal version of the AAPS. The survey was then administered twice during a two
week interval to 15 African American students to establish test-rest reliability.

Aetaal Study. In the second phase of the study, all of the ﬁve questionnaires
were administered. Subjects completed measures which assessed demographic and
background characteristics, described their bonding experiences, and gave their views
about parenting children. It took about 20 to 30 minutes to complete the entire
instrument packet.

Subjects were recruited in a number of ways and were each mailed a
questionnaire packet that also contained a stamped, addressed envelop for respondents
to return their completed surveys. The packets contained a cover letter explaining that
a minority psychologist was interested in (1) looking at how African American adults
view their bonding experiences to their parents, and (2) how they are parenting their

children (See Appendices A and B). Conﬁdentiality was assured. It was also

55

emphasized that this study was being conducted in order to gain a greater
understanding of the issue of parenting within the African American community.
Protectien of Human Subjects

The cover letter provided a brief summary of this study, as well as informed
subjects of their rights (See Appendices A and B). Subjects were told that their
participation in the study was voluntary, and at any time, they could choose to
discontinue their participation. The letter stated that all responses would be kept
conﬁdential, and if subjects had any questions regarding the study, they were asked to
contact the main researcher (home and work telephone numbers of the researcher were
provided). Subjects were also informed that by returning a questionnaire they were
giving their consent to participate in the study.
Data Analysis

Data analyses involved the following statistics:
1. Descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviation, variance, range, kurtosis, and
skew.
2. Coefﬁcient alpha, which is a measure of internal consistency reliability, was
computed for each of the instruments used in the study.
3. A correlation matrix was calculated in order to examine the bivariate
relationships between each of the variables. The intercorrelation matrix helps to insure
that the independent variables are not excessively correlated. This information guards

against multicollinearity, which is the major problem with multiple regression (Lewis—

Beck, 1991).

56

4. The independent and dependent variables were analysized using canonical
correlations and ANOVA. Canonical correlations allows a researcher to analyze the
relationship between sets of multiple independent and dependent variables (Hair,
Anderson & Tatham, 1987). Therefore, canonical correlations give a measure of
strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The
canonical correlations technique serves the functions of allowing the researcher to
ascertain if two set of variables are independent of one another, or if there is a
relationship. It determines the magnitude of the relationship. This association between
these two set of variables is expressed by the correlations coefﬁcient (R). Hair et al.
(1987) also cautioned that since canonical correlation is a general model on which
other multivariate techniques are based it places the fewest restrictions on the types of
data on which it can be used with. Because of this, the data received from the
canonical correlations procedures may be harder to interpret (Pedhazur, 1973). All the
signiﬁcant canonical correlations (R) were examined further via linear correlations.

5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a technique that is used to determine the
probability that the means of several groups are different from one another merely by
sampling error. In ANOVA, the variability in the scores is partitioned into a portion
that reﬂects differences among the means of the groups and a portion that is not
inﬂuenced by the differences among means (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). If the means
among the groups are signiﬁcant, this allows the researcher to make interpretations on

how the independent and dependent variables are related.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Descri tive S i tic on e m le

There was a total of 227 subjects in the sample (97 females and 130 males),
reﬂecting a return rate of 32%. They ranged in age between 27 to 77 years of age,
80% between the ages of 27 to 51 years, and with the mean age of 46 years. Seventy-
ﬁve percent of the respondents described themselves as African American, 20% saw
themselves as Black Americans, and ﬁve percent did not state their racial/ethnic
identity.

A majority of the sample (71%) was married; 19.5% were divorced or
separated; six percent were single/never married; two and one half percent were
widowed, and one percent did not provide this information. A total of 79.2% of the
respondents had attained graduate degrees; seven and one half percent had completed
undergraduate degrees; 10.2% had some college education; and three and one tenth
percent had high school diplomas. As for their spouses, 45.5% had obtained graduate
degrees; 20% completed college; 14.6% had some college education; three and six
tenths percent had high school diplomas; and 16.3% of the sample did not provide
education information on their spouses. Seventy-three and one tenth percent of the
respondents described their occupational level as executive professional; 14.5 % were

semi-professional or administrative; three and two tenths percent were managers or

57

58

proprietors of medium sized businesses; and one and three tenths percent owned a
small business. Two and two tenths percent were skilled workers; one and three tenths
percent described themselves as semi-skilled workers, and one and three tenths percent
reported that they were unskilled labors. None of the respondents stated they worked
exclusively in their homes and three and one tenth percent did not indicate their
occupational status (See Table 1).

The income for this sample ranged between $10,000 to over $80,000, with the
mean income being $35,000. However, income was fairly evenly distributed between
$25 ,000 to over $80,000. Thirty-one percent of the sample reported household
incomes between $25,000 to $49,999; 32.7% indicated incomes between $50,000 to
$79,999, and 32.2% reported incomes over $80,000. Only two percent of the sample
stated that their total household incomes were between $10,000 to $24,999, and

another two and one tenth percent provided no income information (See Table 2).

Table 2. Fregaencies and Percentages of Income Level (N =227)

 

 

Income Level Frequency Percentage
$0 to $24,999 5 2.0
$25,000 to $49,999 70 31.0
$50,000 to $79,999 74 32.7
Over $80,000 72 32.2
Missing Data 6 2 1

Totals 227 100.0

 

59

Table l. Frequencies and Percentages of Marital Status. Education. and Occupation

 

 

 

(£5221)
Variable Frequency Percentage
Marital Status
Married 160 71.0
Single/Never Married 14 6.0
Divorced/ Separated 45 l 9.5
Partnered 0 0.0
Widowed 6 2.5
Missing Data 2 1.0
Totals 227 100.0
Respondents’ Education Level
Graduate Degree 179 79.2
Completed College 18 7.5
Some College 23 10.2
High School Graduate 7 3.1
Missing Data __(_) 0.0
Totals 227 100.0
Spouses’ Education Level
Graduate Degree 103 45.5
Completed College 36 20.0
Some College 33 14.6
High School Graduate 8 3.6
Missing Data 47 16.3
Totals 227 100.0
Occupations
Executive Professional 166 73.1
Manager and Proprietor of Med. Sized Business 7 3.2
Administration or Semi-Professional 33 14.5
Owner of a Small Business 3 1.3
Skilled Worker 5 2.2
Semi-Skilled Worker 3 1.3
Unskilled Worker 3 1.3
Work in the House (Housewife/Househusband) 0 00.0
Missing Data __1 _il
Totals 227 100.0

 

 

60

In summary, a majority of the sample is highly educated, in professional
positions, and with incomes between $25 ,000 to over $80,000. Religion was seen as
being important with 85% of the sample stating that religion was important to very
important to them.

A majority of the sample lived with both parents present in the household,
when they were from zero to eight years of age. When they were from ages zero to
eight years of age, 66.1% of the mothers were present, and three and one tenth percent
were absent from the household. However, when the subjects were between nine to 16
years of age, 93.8% of the mothers were part of the household, and only three and one
tenth percent reported they were absent. Thirty and eight tenths percent of the sample,
for ages zero to eight years, and three and one tenth percent, for ages nine to 16,
provided no information on the presence or absence of their mothers in the household.

Sixty-one and seven tenths percent of the fathers were in the households when
the subjects were between ages zero to eight, and, 78.4% during the ages of nine to
16. When the respondents were zero to eight years old, 11.3 % of fathers were
missing, and 14.5% of the fathers were not part of the household when the subjects
were nine to 16 years. Information on the absence or presence of fathers in the
household was not reported by 27% of the subjects for ages zero to eight, and seven
and one tenth for ages nine to 16 years of age (See Table 3).

The dominant family structure was the nuclear family. Sixty-eight and three
tenths percent of the sample lived with their spouse. One and eight tenths percent of

the respondents reported living with in-laws, and another three and one half percent

61

T l . Inform ti n n e F mil of i in Fre uencies and Percentages of the

Presenee and Absence of Parents bf During the First 16 Years (N=227)

 

 

0mm; 2mm
Parent Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Mother
Present 150 66.1 213 93.8
Absent 7 3. 1 7 3. 1
Missing Data _70 30.8 __2 3.1
Totals 227 100.0 227 100.
Father
Present 140 61.7 178 78.4
Absent 25 1 1.3 33 14.5
Missing Data _6_2 27.0 __16 _Z._1
Totals 227 100.0 227 100.0

 

stated that their parents were part of their household. In addition, seven and one half
percent indicated that other relatives were living with them, and another three and one
half percent stated non-relative were part of their household. Along with information
on adults, a majority of the sample (64.8%) reported that their biological children were
part of their household, and three and one half percent of the respondents stated that
their step children lived with them (See Table 4).

Subjects were asked to provide other details about their children: the number
of children, the sex of children, and their use of the church in raising children. Two
hundred and twenty-seven individuals had at least one child. These children ranged in
age between zero to 48 years (with 105 being males and 122 females). One hundred
and ﬁfty-one of the respondents indicated they had a second child. The age range for

these children was between one to 45 years of age. Seventy-six of the second

62

Table 4, Information on tbe Family of Prggreation; Frequencies and Percentages of
Membera of the Household (N =227)

 

 

Variable Frequency Percentage

 

Household Membership

Spouse 155 68.3
Biological Children 147 64.8
Step Children 8 3.5
In Laws 4 1.8
Parents 8 3.5
Other Relative 17 7.5
Other Non-Relatives 8 3.5

 

children were males, and 75 were females. In addition, 63 and 19 individuals reported
having a third and fourth child, respectively. Of the group with a third child, the
children ranged in age from one to 44 years old, with 28 of these children being
males, and 35 females. As for the fourth child, they ranged in age between two to 45,
with nine being males and 10 females (See Table 5).

T le Inf rm tion It the Famil of Procreation: A e Ran e Number and Sex of

the Children, and Percengges of Males and Females (N =2222)

 

 

Birth Order Age Range N Male Percentage Female Percentage
First 048 227 105 46.2 122 53.8
Second 1-45 151 76 50. 3 75 49.7
Third 1-44 63 28 44.4 35 55.6

Fourth 2-25 19 9 47.4 10 52.6

 

63
Desoriptive Sgtistics on the Pgental Bonding Instrument, Adult Attachment Scale, and
Parental Dimension Inventory

The Parental Bonding Instrument’s (PBI) internal consistency reliability
coefﬁcients for this study were .87 for ”Care” and .61 for the "Overprotection” scale.
The coefﬁcient for the "Care” scale was higher and the coefﬁcient for the
”Overprotection" scale was slightly lower than the ones reported by Parker (1983).
The following are provided for the four subscales of the PB]: means, standard
deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and minimum and maximum scores for each variable
(See Table 6).

The means are as follows: 2.22 for mother care, 2.56 for father care, 2.77 for
mother overprotection, and 2.89 for father overprotection. The standard deviations for
mother and father care were both .29 and .35 for mother overprotection and .34 for
father overprotection. Each subscale was also examined for skewness: .88 for mother
care, —1.42 for father care, -.33 for mother overprotection, and .08 for father
overprotection. Kurtosis scores were also computed: 1.14 for mother care, 8.06 for
father care, 1.27 for mother overprotection, and .81 for father overprotection.

Finally, the minimum and maximum scores produced by each variables were
reviewed. The scores from mother care ranged from 1.50 to 3.25, and for father care,
they were between 1.00 to 3.50. They ranged from 1.46 to 3.92 for mother
overprotection and 1.92 to 4.00 for father overprotection (See Table 6).

On the Adult Attachment Scale, 81% (171) of the sample indicated a secure
attachment style, 17% (35) reported an avoidant style, and two percent (ﬁve) described

their attachment style as anxious/ambivalent. The Parental Dimension Inventory (PDI)

64

.3338 8: as 82? :86 05 5888830 85w”. can 8538995 8522
com .88 55$ 8 .8508 wEocotoqxo 8:82 80.33. a 3.2 05 33> 30208:: 05 Homes 05 can
.88 5:5 8 .8508 E 33 Seesaw“: 65 8:9: 05 02? _8583 2: 8:95 2:. .3332 an 82$,

:88 05 030 55“..— vaa 030 3:82 8m .58 9 28 ﬂ 5528930 98 Emu c8 82? 05 b8 owcﬁ 05. 6|qu

 

 

ooé ma; . 5. mo. Vm. cad mﬁ 5888930
55$

mad 3: rm; mm .- mm. mud 2 checkup—930
3:82

and co; 8.x Nag- mm. and Nﬁ 0.80 85mm
mm.m cm; 3 .ﬁ am. 2. mad Q 0.30 .5502
.xﬂz .52 maotsv. $2386 coswrﬁa Buccﬁm :82 85: Mo .5952 8:932 _mm

 

 

65

had mean scores of 3.51 for the support and 4.82 for the control constructs.
Correlatiorgl Findings

The correlations between each of the major constructs in this study are provided
in Table 7. As can be seen, there was a signiﬁcant, low negative correlation between
AAPS and mother overprotection (I = -.139, 2 <.04) suggesting that as African
American adults parented more from an Afrocentric perspective, mothers were
perceived a less overprotective. This ﬁnding was unexpected. The AAPS was not
signiﬁcantly correlated with any of the other constructs.

For the PBI, there was a signiﬁcant, low negative correlation between father
overprotection and father care (I = -.35, o < .001) suggesting that those respondents
that described their fathers as overprotective, also saw their fathers as less caring.
There was also a signiﬁcant, low negative correlation between mother care and father
overprotection (1; = -.16, 2 <.02). This relationship indicates that as mother care
increased, father overprotection decreased. Finally, there were signiﬁcant, moderate
and low positive correlations between mother overprotection and father overprotection
(z = .41, o <.001) and mother care and father care (5 = .31, o <.001). These
relationships were expected. These correlations were all statistically signiﬁcant at or
beyond the .05 level.

It was also expected that father and mother care and the three underlying
dimensions of the support construct and father and mother overprotection and the two
constructs of control would be positively related. This was not the case. The
correlations between father care and nurturance (z = .093, p <.18), responsiveness

([ =.070, 2 <.32),and nonrestrictive attitudes (; = -.O39, o <.58) were all

66

nonsigniﬁcant. Mother care was also not signiﬁcantly related to nurturance (5 =
.116, p <.08), responsiveness (I = .125, 2 <.06),and nonrestrictive attitudes (z =
-.005, p <.94). Although the correlations between the care and support constructs
were not signiﬁcant, both mother and father care were positively related to nurturance
and responsiveness and negatively related to nonrestrictive attitudes. Also, father
overprotection and maturity demands (2' = -.056, 2 <.44), and amount of control (I
=-.844, 2 < .23)as well as mother overprotection and maturity demands (5 = -.080,
p <25), and amount of control (I = .093, p <.17) were not signiﬁcantly correlated.

As for the dependent variables, it is worth noting that the dimensions
underlying the support construct were correlated; however, the factors of the control
variable were not signiﬁcantly related. It was expected that these dimensions or
factors would be correlated. Nurturance and responsiveness (I = .354, p <.001),
and responsiveness and nonrestrictive attitudes (5 = .499, o <.001) had low
signiﬁcant correlations. Since these intercorrelations are low, the issue of
multicollinearity was not of concern. Finally, as for cross correlations between the
dimensions underlying the support and control constructs, responsiveness and amount
of control were signiﬁcantly correlated. There was a negative correlation (I = -.258,
2 < .001))etween these variables. Respondents indicated that as they became more

responsive to their children, they also provided more control (See Table 7).

67

 

man a man a man a man a man a

:3 Eva ANNE a8 ﬁg

mac. owe: coo.- mwor an?- m
man a man a man- a man a man Q So." a

gs as: $8 Amos 68V Goa

vwor cmor omor m2.- woor m3. v
man a 8H a man a 8H a man Q So." a m8.“ a

ANS Amos 88 RE is GS SE

for So. moor m2. m2. mew: 52.- m
a" Q mt” Q m2" Q ma" Q mﬁ” Q ma" Q #8..." Q HOG." Q

God Ana: Q-omv A53 Awomv Amos Awomv Amomv

Go. wwo. wmor moo. Nae. m5.- onr mom. N
a“ Q m:” Q ma" Q ma” Q ma" Q 03." Q MC” Q E” Q ma" Q

Eu A88 35 35 A23 85 :89 SE Goa

moor 3o. Nae: So. 03.- a2: moo. 30. m8. ﬂ

3280 ESE—om .5252 donned 452 02 On 02 um

.22 .32

 

 

68

.6250
00 EsoE<H .Eo0 .HE< £28an 3532" €5an .32 .8252 3:258:02" .HmoEoZ .mmocozmcoqmomu dammed

02.8352" .952 dose-38930 5:82" 02 £28289ch 85am" Om .980 $502" 02 .980 55mm" 0m .90. Z.

 

 

mznm

:20

:9 a
28f; Sun

Aammv Aoomv

amms. mnog. w
28f; Eng :5ua

Aﬁmmv Aaomv Avmmv

hmmc 24o. wav. n
mzil-I Q 2" Q m2" Q ~00.” Q

Aammv Aaomv AVNNV AVNNV

was. woos. 42o. mmm. o
3980 mucus—0D 4896 Z dogmom 452 O2 Om 02 0 m

.25. .32

 

.583 5 22¢

69

Canoni l orrel tion for the P ental Bondin Instrument and the Parental Dimension
Invent u le

Explaoation of Croeial Canonical Correlation Concepts. The hypotheses of this
study were tested via canonical correlation analysis. In order to understand the
ﬁndings, a few of the crucial concepts for canonical correlations analysis will be
deﬁned.

Canonigal Variable. A canonical variable is a linear combination of a set of
variables or measures. There is a set of independent and a separate set of dependent
variables. For each set, several linear combinations are found. The best linear
combination is found ﬁrst, then the next and so on. The number of linear
combinations found depends on the lowest numbers of independent or dependent
measures. For example, in this study for the care and the support variables, there are
two care constructs (mother care and father care) and three support dimensions
(responsiveness, nonrestrictive attitudes, and nurturance). As for the overprotection
and control variables, there are two overprotection constructs (father control and
mother control) and two control dimensions (maturity demands and amount of
control). Although, one of the dependent construct (support) had three underlying
dimensions, the independent variables have only two underlying factors; therefore,
only two linear combinations were found for each set of independent and dependent
variables. The canonical variables or linear combinations were care 1 and care 2 and
overprotection 1 and overprotection 2 for the independent measures and support 1 and

support 2 and control 1 and control 2 for the dependent variables.

70

mm. The canonical correlation (R) measures the strength of
the overall relationships between each pair of canonical variables or linear
combinations. A pair consists of one independent and one dependent canonical
variable. Therefore, the best two canonical variables are correlated, then the next two,
and so on. For example, care 1 was correlated with support 1.

As with the canonical variables, the number of canonical correlations (R)
produced depended on the lowest number of independent or dependent measures in the
study. For this study, the output produced two canonical correlations (R). Only if a
canonical correlation was signiﬁcant at the .05 alpha level or lower was it reported. It
should be noted that if the ﬁrst canonical correlation was not signiﬁcant the second
canonical correlation was not reported.

Canonical Structure. A coefﬁcient gives information on the weight of a variable
within a group of variables and a correlation gives information on the strength of
association between variables. The canonical structure contains the coefﬁcients and
correlations between each independent’s and dependent’s underlying constructs and
each of its canonical variables or linear combinations. These canonical correlations,
indicated by the small letter "r", are different than the canonical correlation designated
by the capital letter ”(R). "

In this study, there were two canonical variables (linear combinations) found
for each set of independent and dependent measures. For example, therefore, a
coefﬁcient and a correlation were reported between mother care and each of the two
canonical variables or linear combinations (Care 1 and Care 2). Coefﬁcients and

correlations were reported for each of the other constructs (i.e. father care, mother and

 

71

father overprotection, nurturance, responsiveness, nonrestrictive attitudes, maturity
demands, and amount of control) and each of its canonical variables (i.e. care 1, care
2, overprotection 1, overprotection 2, support 1, support 2, control 1, and control 2).
The cross correlations were examined. This is a correlation between a variable, for
example mother care, and the other canonical variable or linear combination, for
example support 1 and support 2.
Rglunoancy Index. The redundancy index refers to the amount of variance

(v) explained in the dependent measures by canonical variables (linear combinations)
found in the set of independent variables and visa versa (SAS Institute Inc., 1988).

Testing the Hypotheses of the Study. Before canonical correlations were
computed, the current data set was divided into two groups. In the ﬁrst group, each
subject’s ﬁrst born was 13 years old or younger, and in the second group, each subject
reported that their ﬁrst born was 14 years or older. The data set was divided into two
groups because the Parental Dimension Inventory had norming data for an African
American sample of 13 years and younger, and not for an older sample. However, for
each hypothesis, information for both groups was provided. For each hypothesis, ﬁrst,
the ﬁndings for the 13 years old and younger group were provided and then
information for 14 years old and older was given.

For each hypothesis, the ranges of the within and between bivariate
correlations, which were also designated by the small letter "r", for each independent
and dependent measure as well the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) were reported. If the
ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) was signiﬁcant, only then was the second canonical

correlation (R) reported. If a canonical correlation (R) was accepted and in order to

72
interpret the ﬁndings, the signs (positive and negative) and the canonical coefﬁcients
and canonical correlations within the canonical structure were examined. The signs
were important to look at to determine if a variable was acting as a suppressor
variable. A variable was considered to be a suppressor variable if it had a positive
coefﬁcient and a negative correlation or visa versa. When there was a suppressor
variable, it acted in a way to enhance the contribution made by the other variables. A
description of the canonical correlations (R) and their signiﬁcance value (p-value) for
each of the hypothesis are provided below.
The Relations between Parent Care and Support
To restate hypothesis #1: There is a positive relationship between care and support.
Thirteen Years Old and Younger. Mothers and fathers were described as

moderately caring (m =2.13). The between bivariate correlations for mother and
father care and the three underlying dimensions, responsiveness, nonrestrictive
attitudes, and nurturance, of the support construct were examined. The bivariate
correlations between the care and support constructs were small, ranging from I = -
.004 to I = -.174 suggesting that the independent and dependent variables were very
weakly associated. Therefore, for this sample care was not highly associated with
support. This ﬁnding was further supported since the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R =
.307, _p <.15) was not signiﬁcant. This ﬁnding suggested that adults who
experienced care from either their mothers or fathers were not more likely to be
supportive in the parenting of their children.

Foorteen Years Old ano Qlder. There were 128 individuals with children whose

ﬁrst child was 14 years and older. This sample reported that their mothers were more

73

caring (m =1.68) than their fathers (m =2.11). Also, the between and within
bivariate correlations were very small. The bivariate correlations between care and
support ranged from L“ = .163 to I = .042. The within bivariate correlations were
also small and non-signiﬁcant. The bivariate correlation for mother and father care
was I = -.262, suggesting that as mother care increased father decreased. As for the
support dimensions, responsiveness and nonrestrictive attitudes had a z = .396
bivariate correlation, responsiveness and nurturance had a I = .447 bivariate
correlation, and the bivariate correlation for nurturance and non-restrictive attitude was
I = -.019. The canonical correlations (R = .206, p <.37) was not signiﬁcant. As
with the group whose ﬁrst child was thirteen years and younger, individuals in this
group reported that experiencing care from their mother and father did not make them
more supportive in the parenting of their children (See Table 8).

The Relatioos beMeen Parent Overprotgtion and Control
To restate hypothesis #2: There is a positive relationship between overprotection and
control.

1111an Ygss Old and Yoonger. There were 70 subjects in this group. As
stated earlier, the control construct has two underlying factors: maturity demands and
amount of control. Maturity demands refer to the responsibility a child has in the day-
to-day chores of a household and amount of control speaks to how much autonomy a
parent feels a child should be allowed. On the average, the subjects described their
mothers (or = 2.11) and fathers (m = 2.15) as somewhat overprotective, and as

parents themselves, they limited the amount of responsibilities for household chores (m

74

= 1.11) their children had and felt their children’s autonomy should be somewhat
restricted by parents providing more controls, rules, and discipline (7;: = 5.21).

The bivariate correlations between mother and father overprotection and
maturity demands and amount of control were low, ranging from I = .005 to z =
.216. These bivariate correlations suggested that there was a limited association
between overprotection and control, and this was conﬁrmed by the ﬁrst canonical
correlation (R = .319, p <.13), which was not signiﬁcant.

Fourteen Years Old and Older. There were 119 subjects in this group. As with
the other group, these individuals also described their mothers (Ln_ = 2.22) and fathers
(m = 2.24) as somewhat overprotective. In parenting of their children, they stated
that their children had an average amount of responsibilities for chores (_m = 1.65) in
the household, and these parents also felt their children’s autonomy needed to be
somewhat limited by parents providing more structure and rules (or = 5.11).

The between bivariate correlations for mother and father overprotection and
maturity demands and amount of control were low, ranging from _I: = -.011 to L‘ =
-.014. Again, there was a limited association between the independent and dependent
variables. The canonical correlation (R = .146, p <.65) was not signiﬁcant (See
Table 8). Therefore, for both groups, hypothesis number two was rejected. This
suggested that for this sample of African American parents there was not a signiﬁcant
relationship between subjects describing their parents as overprotective and themselves

being controlling with their children (See Table 8).

75

The Relatious between Parent Care and Control

Restating hypothesis 3: There is a negative relationship between care and control.

Th' n Y 1 and Y un er. On the average this group (N = 72) viewed
their mothers (or =3.41) as uncaring and their fathers (_m_ = 2.93) as somewhat
uncaring. Their children had limited responsibilities for household chores (m = 1.09).
Also, they indicated children should be encouraged to be autonomous; however, this
needed to be balanced with parental rules and restrictions (m =5.20).

The bivariate correlations between the care and control measures were low, the
largest being between mother care and amount of control (5 = .161). The within
bivariate correlation for mother and father care (I = .382) was larger than the
correlation for maturity demands and amount of control (I = .097). The canonical
correlation (_R =.249, p <.33 ) was not signiﬁcant.

Fourteen Years Old Ed Older. This groups (5 =119) also described their
mothers (m =3.35) as uncaring and their fathers (m = 2.90) as somewhat uncaring.
As far as providing control for their children, they expected their children to be
somewhat responsible for chores (m =1.65), and as parents, these individuals felt
autonomy should be somewhat limited by parents providing rules and structure for
their children (or =5.11).

The between bivariate correlations for the care and control variables were low,
ranging from _r; = .016 to z = .078. The largest bivariate correlation was between
father care and maturity demands. The within bivariate correlations, were also low but

larger than the between bivariate correlations. The largest bivariate correlation was

76

between mother and father care (I = .248). For this group, the canonical correlation
(R = .092, p <.91) was low and not signiﬁcant (See Table 8).

The Relations between Parent Oveuprotection and Support
Restating hypothesis 4: There is a negative relationship between overprotection and
support.

Thirteen Years Old and Younger. There were 74 individuals who were part of
the overprotection and control group. This group reported that both their mothers (r_n_
= 2.10) and fathers (m = 2.15) were somewhat overprotective. As parents, these
individuals indicated that they were very responsive (ﬂ = 5.28), highly nurturing (m
= 5.52) and fairly nonrestrictive in their attitudes (r_r_z = 4.34).

The between bivariate correlations were low, ranging from L = .012 to 5 =
-.152. There were larger within bivariate correlations: I = .226 for mother and father
care and L‘ = .434 for nonrestrictive attitudes and responsiveness. The canonical
correlation (L? = .277, p <.26) was not signiﬁcant. This suggested that there was
not a signiﬁcant relationship between overprotection and control.

Fourteen Years Old and Older. These individuals (ﬂ = 128) described their
mothers (r_n = 2.21) and fathers (m = 2.25) as somewhat overprotective. Overall, as
far as being parents themselves, these individuals reported being very supportive.
They reported being more responsive (r_n_ = 5.22) and nurturing (m =5.14) and less
nonrestrictive (_m_ = 4.31) in their attitudes.

The bivariate correlations between the overprotection and the support variables

were low, ranging from L‘ =.002 to I =-.143. There were larger within correlations: _r_

= .494 for mother and father care, I = .447 for nurture and responsiveness, and z =

77

.396 for nonrestrictive attitudes and responsiveness. The canonical correlation Q =

.169, p (.44) was not signiﬁcant (See Table 8).

Table 8. Canonical Correlations (R) for the First Four Hypotheses

 

 

Variable Group Canonical Correlation (R) P-value
Care/Support 13 Years/Younger .307 .15
Care/Support 14 Years/Older .206 .37
Overprotection/

Control 13 Years/Younger .319 .13
Overprotection/

Control 14 Years/Older .146 .65
Care/Control 13 Years/Younger .249 .33
Care/Control 14 Years/Older .092 .91
Overprotection/

Support 13 Years/Younger .277 .26
Overprotection/

Support 14 Years/Older .169 .44

 

Canonigl Correlation for Parental Bonding Instrument and Parental Dimension

 

Invent 1e ased on Dem ra hic D

Since none of the hypotheses were conﬁrmed and because there was a wide
range for the ages of the children of the respondents, it was decided that simply
looking at the data based on the respondents’ responses to instruments may result in
some true differences being overlooked. Therefore, the data were reexamined using
demographic information to better highlight the relationships between the independent
and dependent measures. Each hypothesis was reexamined for each group, 13 years

and younger and 14 years and older, by further dividing up the groups based on

78

demographic data. Only those canonical correlations (R) that were signiﬁcant are
reported. Although these ﬁndings have statistical signiﬁcance, it should be noted that
the sample sizes were small.

The Relations between Parent Care and Support based on Income and Church

 

Masha

 

Rgponoents with First Child Thirteen Years and Younger and with Income
between 321% to $49,000. There were 24 individuals in this group.

Looking at their mean scores for their responses to the various independent and
dependent measures, this group described their mothers as very caring 0!! =1.65) and
their fathers as moderately caring (m =2.25). In the parenting of their children, they
saw themselves as very supportive (m =5.40 for responsiveness, r_n_ =4.38 for non-
restrictive attitudes, and m =5.49 for nurturance).

As for the between bivariate correlations, the correlations, ranged from 5 =
.085 to z = .699. In general, mothers as compared to fathers, were seen as more
responsive (I; =.208 mother, [ =-.085 father), less restrictive (5 =.084 mother, 5 =
.233 father), and more nurturing (z =-.313 mother, [ =-.699). Only, the ﬁrst
canonical correlation (R =.707, p <.01) was signiﬁcant.

To interpret the ﬁndings, both the coefﬁcients and correlations within the
canonical structure were examined. For the canonical coefﬁcients for the care
variable, there was a weighted differences of mother care (-0.175) and father care
(-0.931), with more emphasis on father care. There was also a higher correlation for
father care (1; =-.986) than mother care (5 =-.469). The signs of the coefﬁcients and

correlations for mother and father care were the same, suggesting that neither of these

79
variables acted as suppressor factors. However, since both the magnitude was larger
for the coefﬁcient and correlation of father care, this suggested that this variable had a
greater impact. In looking at the magnitude and negative signs, this suggested that as
father care decreased care increased.

The ﬁrst canonical variable for the support variables was a weighted difference
of nurturance (-1.016), responsiveness (0.055), and nonrestrictive attitudes (0.032),
with the most weight for nurturance. This suggested that nurturance contributes the
most to the support canonical variable. The correlations for responsiveness (z =-
.060) and non-restrictive attitudes (z =-.287) had opposite signs from their
coefﬁcients, suggesting that these two factors were suppressor variables. The
correlation for nurturance was I =-.997.

Therefore, the general interpretation for the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) was
that responsiveness and nonrestrictive attitudes acted as suppressor variables to enhance
the correlations between father care and nurturance. The cross correlations for father
care (z = .698) and nurturance (_r_: =-.705) supported the idea that these two factors
accounted for more of the association between care and support (See Table 9).

However, the redundancy analysis showed that neither of the canonical
variables were good overall predictors of the opposite set of variables, the proportions
of variance explained being y =.298 and y =.180. The second canonical variables
added almost nothing, with the cumulative proportions for both canonical variables
being y =.326 and y = .216. The squared multiple correlations indicated that the

ﬁrst canonical variable of care had some predictive power for nurturance (z = .498)

80

Table 9. Canonical Correlation Analysis: Thirteen Years and Younger with Income
between 821%) to $49,000

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care -0.175 Responsiveness 0.055
Father Care 0931 Nonrestrictive Attitudes 0.032
Nurturance -1.016

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care -.469 Responsiveness -.060
Father Care -.986 Nonrestrictive Attitudes -.287
Nurturance -.997

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Support 1 Care 1
Mother Care .332 Responsiveness .042
Father Care .698 Nonrestrictive Attitudes -.203

Nurturance -.705

 

81

but almost none for responsiveness (L‘ =.002) and non-restrictive attitudes (z = .041).
Resmnoents with First Chilo Fourteen Years and Older with Income between
W. These individuals (ﬂ =37) described their mothers as less
caring (m =3.19) than their fathers (m =2.87). However, they saw themselves as
quite supportive in the parenting of their own children (r_n =5.17 for responsiveness, m
=4.37 for nonrestrictive attitudes, and m =5.16 for nurturance). The ﬁrst canonical
correlation (R =.575, p <.03) was signiﬁcant.

The ﬁrst canonical variable for the care measures was a weighted difference of
mother care (-0.963) and father care (-0.342). As for the correlations between mother
care and father care and their ﬁrst canonical variable, both were negative, 5 =-.939 for
mother care and [ =-.279 for father care. Because the signs did not change between
the coefﬁcients and correlations, neither mother or father care were suppressor
variables. However, since the magnitude and association for mother care were larger,
this variable had greater impact on the ﬁrst canonical care variable.

Weighted differences for the ﬁrst canonical variable for support dimensions
included the following: 0.867 for responsiveness, -0.167 for nonrestrictive attitudes,
and 0.314 for nurturance, with more emphasis on responsiveness. The correlations for
the support dimensions and the ﬁrst canonical variable were 5 = .931 for
responsiveness, [ =.173 for nonrestrictive attitudes, and [ =.704 for nurturance.
Therefore, the interpretation of the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) was that
nonrestrictive attitudes acted as a suppressor variable to enhance the cross correlations
between mother care (5 =-.541) and responsiveness ([ =.536). This suggested that as

mother care decreased, responsiveness increased (See Table 10).

82

Tabl 1 . C nonical Correlation Analvsis: Fourteen Years and Older with Income

between SZQQE to $49,000

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care -0.963 Responsiveness 0.867
Father Care -0.342 Nonrestrictive Attitudes -0. 167
Nurturance 0. 3 14

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care .939 Responsiveness .931
Father Care -.279 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .173
N urturance .704

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Support 1 Care 1
Mother Care -.541 Responsiveness .536
Father Care .160 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .099

N urturance .40

 

83

Although the canonical correlation (R) was signiﬁcant, once again, the
redundancy analysis showed that neither of the canonical variables were good overall
predictors of the opposite set of variables, the proportions of variance explained being
2 =.159 and y =.154. The squared multiple correlations indicated that the ﬁrst
canonical variable of care had some limited predictive power for responsiveness (I =
.287) but almost none for non-restrictive attitudes (z = .009) and nurturance ([ =
.164).

Respondents with First Child Fourteen Years ano Older and Repoﬂ

being Members of a Church. The 50 individuals in this group described their
mothers as somewhat uncaring (r_n =3.32) and their fathers as moderately caring @ =
2.77). They described themselves as quite supportive (m =5 .39 for responsiveness, m
=4.35 for nonrestrictive attitudes, and m =5.32 for nurturance) in the parenting of
their own children. The between bivariate correlations for care and support were low,
ranging from L =.058 to I =.498. The ﬁrst canonical correlation (R =.529, p <
.001) was signiﬁcant.

In Table 11 the important statistics are given. In looking at the canonical
structure for the care canonical variable, there was a weighted difference of mother
care (-1.010) and father care (0.024), with more emphasis on mother care. The
correlations between mother and father care and the ﬁrst canonical variables were both
negative, _r_: =-.999 for mother care and z =-.39O for father care. Father care was a
suppressor variable. This suggested that as mother care increased father care

decreased.

In examining the canonical structure for the ﬁrst support variables,

84

the coefﬁcients were 0.366 for responsiveness, -0.322 for nonrestrictive attitudes, and
0.854 for nurturance, with more emphasis on nurturance, and canonical variable were _r_
=.629 for responsiveness, 1: =.105 for nonrestrictive attitudes, and z = .941 for
nurturance. This suggested that nonrestrictive attitudes was a suppressor variable. In
looking at the cross correlations of the care and support measures, the general
interpretations of the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) was that father care and
nonrestrictive attitudes acted as suppressor variables to enhance the correlation between
mother care (1' =-.529) and nurturance (I = .498). This suggested that as mother care
decreased, nurturance increased.

In examining the redundancy analysis, it became clear that neither of the
canonical variables were good overall predictors of the opposite set of variables, the
proportions of variance explained being 2 = 1.61 and y =.121. The squared multiple
correlations indicate that the ﬁrst canonical variable of care had very limited predictive
power for nurturance ([ = .248) and responsiveness (I =.111) and almost none for
non-restrictive attitudes (z = .003).

The Relations between Parent Ovetprotection and Control based on Sex of

R n nts R nen ’Parents’ i las.

Male Resmndents with First Child Thirteen Years and Younger. These 27
individuals described their mothers (m =2.00) and fathers (m =2.09) as somewhat
overprotective. In the parenting of their own children, they expected their children to
have almost no responsibility for chores (m =0.961), and as parents, these individuals
felt autonomy should be somewhat limited by parents children (m =5.03). The

between bivariate correlations were low and negative, ranging from L =-.150 to _r_ =

85

T lell ni CrrlinAnl istu nY an ldrwithRe ed
being Members of a Church

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care -1.010 Responsiveness 0.366
Father Care 0.024 Nonrestrictive Attitudes -0.322
Nurturance 0.854

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Care 1 Support 1
Mother Care -.999 Responsiveness .629
Father Care -.390 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .105
N urturance .941

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Support 1 Care 1
Mother Care -.529 Responsiveness .333
Father Care .206 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .055

Nurturance .49

 

86

-.430. The negative correlations suggested that as overprotection decreased control
increased.

In looking at the canonical correlations, both the ﬁrst (5 =.499, p <02) and
second (R =.442, p <.02) canonical correlations were signiﬁcant. The ﬁrst canonical
variable for the overprotection variables was a weighted difference of mother
overprotection (0.888) and father overprotection (-1.018), with more emphasis on
father overprotection. For the second canonical variable the coefﬁcients for mother
overprotection (0.689) and father overprotection (0.476) were smaller, and this time,
there was more weight for mother overprotection.

The correlations between mother (I =.423) and father (5 =-.613)
overprotection and the ﬁrst canonical variable were positive for mother overprotection
and negative for father overprotection. As for the correlation for mother (_r_: = .916)
and father (I; = .790) overprotection and the second canonical variable, both were
positive. Because the signs between the coefﬁcients and correlations and their ﬁrst
and second canonical variables were similar, neither of these factors acted as
suppressor variables.

In looking at the ﬁrst canonical variables for the control variables, there was a
weighted difference of maturity demands (0.366 and -0.931) and amount of control
(0.942 and 0.338), respectively. For the ﬁrst canonical variable, there was more
emphasis on amount of control, and for the second factor, maturity demands had
greater weight. The correlations for the ﬁrst and second variables and between
maturity demands were I =.388 and 5 =-.941 and amount of control 1' = .931 and z =

.365, respectively. Both set of correlations were positive, again none of the factors

87

acted as suppressor variables. In examining the cross correlations between
overprotection and the ﬁrst control canonical variable and between control and the ﬁrst
overprotection canonical variable, the following relationship became apparent. The
cross correlation for father overprotection ([ =-.300) was larger than for mother
overprotection (I = .217) and amount of control (I; =.455) had a larger correlation
than (5 =.175) maturity demands. As for the cross correlation for the second
canonical variables, mother overprotection (z = .401) had a slightly larger correlation
than father overprotection (I = .349), and the correlation for amount of control (I =
.162) was smaller than for maturity demands (I =-.426) (See Tables 12 and 13).
Therefore, the general interpretation of the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) was that as
father overprotection decreased the amount of control increased, and of the second
canonical correlation (R) that as mother overprotection increased, maturity demands
increased. Both of these ﬁndings were unexpected, and the sizes of the correlations
suggested that these were weak relationships (See Tables 12 and 13).

Furthermore, the canonical redundancy analysis showed that neither of the ﬁrst
or second pair of canonical variables were a good overall predictor of the opposite set
of variables. The proportion of variance explained being y =.0662 and y = . 117, and
the second canonical variable added virtually nothing, with cumulative proportion for
both variables being y =.207 and y = .216. The squared multiple correlations indicted
that the ﬁrst overprotection canonical variable had some predictive power for amount
of control (z = .207) and none for maturity demands (1’ = .027), and the second
overprotection canonical variable had some predictive power for both maturity

demands (1' =.201) and amount of control (1; =.233).

1:4 E

1

Mn

Fatl

MOI

Fall

Mo

Fall

88

T ble 12. an ni l orrelation An I sis: Male Res ondents with First Child
Thirteen Ygts and Younger (First Canonical Variable)

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection -1.018 Maturity Demands 0.366
Father/Overprotection 0.888 Amount of Control 0.942

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection .423 Maturity Demands .338
Father/Overprotection -.6I3 Amount of Control .931

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Control 1 Overprotection 1
Mother/Overprotection -.300 Maturity Demands .175

Father/Overprotection .217 Amount of Control .455

 

89

Table] ' 1 rr la ion Anl i' M le Re onden wi First Child
Thirteen Yeﬂs and Younger (Second Canonical Variable)

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 2 Control 2
Mother/Overprotection 0.689 Maturity Demands -0.931
Father/Overprotection 0.476 Amount of Control 0.338

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 2 Control 2
Mother/Overprotection .916 Maturity Demands -.941
Father/Overprotection .790 Amount of Control .365

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Control 2 Overprotection 2
Mother/Overprotection .401 Maturity Demands -.426

Father/Overprotection .349 Amount of Control .162

l-J
l_.
\1

dale
50ml
5.35
van;
mat

Sign

010
0161’
the 5
Van:
cane
with
for 11
Contr

Table

Contrt

90
Respondents with First Child Thirteen Years and Younger and

Working Class Parents.
This group (N =40) described both their mothers (m =2.11) and fathers (Ln =

2.17) as somewhat overprotective. They expected their children to contribute to the
daily chqres of the household (r_n_ = 1.18) and felt their children’s autonomy should be
somewhat restricted by parents providing more controls, rules, and discipline ( m =
5.25). For this group, the bivariate correlations between overprotection and control
variables were low, the largest being I =-.238 between father overprotection and
maturity demands. The ﬁrst canonical correlation LR =.402, p (.05) was
signiﬁcant.

For the ﬁrst canonical variable, there was a weighted difference of mother
(1.001) and father (-0.906) overprotection, with a slight more emphasis on mother
overprotection. Also, the correlations between mother (I = .590) and father (I =-.452)
overprotection and the ﬁrst canonical variable were somewhat comparable. Because
the signs between the correlations and coefﬁcients were similar, neither of these
variable were suppressors. Weighted differences for the control variables and the ﬁrst
canonical variable were —0. 168 for maturity demands and 1.010 for amount of control,
with amount of control having more weight. As with the coefﬁcient, the correlations
for the control measures and the ﬁrst canonical variable also showed that amount of
control (I =.986) had a stronger correlation than maturity demands (2‘ =-.028) (See
Table 14).

In looking at the cross correlations between overprotection and for the ﬁrst

control canonical variable, the squared multiple correlations highlighted the following

trial
016-”
e:

01 C1

bath
oppc
can

had 1

91

relationship between the canonical correlation of the control variable. As mother
overprotection (z = .237) increased the amount of control (I = .397) also increased.
Therefore, there was a positive relationship between mother overprotection and amount
of control for those subjects who reported that their parents were working class. This
relationship was not found for respondents who described their parents as middle or
upper social classes. (See Table 14).

However, despite the positive relationship for overprotection and control for
individuals with working class parents, the canonical redundancy analysis showed that
both of the ﬁrst pair of canonical variables had almost no predictive power for the
opposite variable. The proportions of variance explained by the ﬁrst overprotection
canonical variable was y =.098 and y =.044 ﬁrst overprotection canonical variable
had no predictive power for maturity demands (I = .0001) and amount of control (5
= . 159).

Respondents with First Child Fourteen Years Old and Older and with Middle

Class Patents. There were 27 individuals in this group, who described their
mothers (m = 2.10) and fathers (or = 2.18) as somewhat overprotective. In parenting
their own children, these individuals expected their children to have little responsibility
for household chores (m = 1.05), and they restricted their children’s autonomy (r_n_ =
5.22). The bivariate correlations between overprotection and control variables were
low; however,they were larger than the bivariate correlations within each set. The
between bivariate correlations ranged from _r_' =.165 to 5 = .416, the largest was
between mother overprotection and amount of control. The ﬁrst canonical correlation

(R =.478, p <.05) was signiﬁcant.

5“
Cr

‘\

’5
a
m
"U

11

Mother

Father

*

Cone

Mother

Father,-I

92

Table 14. Canonical Correlation Analysis: Thirteen Years and Younger and Working
Clgs Parents

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection -0.906 Maturity Demands -0.168
Father/Overprotection 1.001 Amount of Control 1.010

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection -.452 Maturity Demands -.028
Father/Overprotection .590 Amount of Control .986

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Control 1 Overprotection 1
Mother/Overprotection -. 182 Maturity Demands -.011

Father/Overprotection .237 Amount of Control .397

 

father

mOIhE

suppr-

simiia

WCIE 1

demar

andtl.

n.
H

the C11
Overp;
the ﬁr
Variab
comm
that m-

1“ van"

93

Information on the coefﬁcients and the canonical correlations is provided in
Table 15. The weighted difference for the ﬁrst canonical variable for the
overprotection variables was 0.935 for mother care and 0.450 for father overprotection,
with greater emphasis on mother overprotection. The correlations between mother and
father overprotection and the ﬁrst canonical variable were both positive, 5 = .894 for
mother and z = .365 for father overprotection. Neither of these factors were
suppressor variables because the signs for the correlations and coefﬁcients were
similar.

As for the control variables, the weighted differences of maturity demands
were (0.708) and for amount of control (0.747), with slight more weight for maturity
demands. The bivariate correlations between maturity demands and amount of control
and the ﬁrst canonical variable were both positive, I = .666 for maturity demands and
_r = .706 for amount of control. Neither of these factors were suppressor variables.

In looking at the cross correlations the following relationships stood out. Since
the cross correlation for mother overprotection (; = .427) was larger than father
overprotection ([ = . 175), mother overprotection contributed more to the variance of
the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R). However, the cross correlations for the control
variables are fairly similar, 5 = .319 for maturity demands and 1; = .338 for amount of
control. Therefore, the general interpretation of the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) is
that mother overprotection and maturity demands and amount of control contribute to
its variance.

Once again,in looking at the canonical redundancy analysis it becomes apparent

-—3
Q).
(1)

C2
g

l l

Home

father

~

Corr

h-lothe

father

Moth-3

Father

94

T le 15 n ni Correl ti n A l sis: F rteen Years and Older with Middle
Qasslarcrtts

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection 0.935 Maturity Demands 0.708
Father/Overprotection 0.450 Amount of Control 0.747

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection .894 Maturity Demands .666
Father/Overprotection .365 Amount of Control .706

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Control 1 Overprotection 1

Mother/Overprotection .427 Maturity Demands .319

Father/Overprotection .175 Amount of Control .338

 

thatm

Opposi

their 1

Cone!
posith
and u

variab

dlflére

here u

95

that neither of the ﬁrst pair of canonical variables were good overall predictors of the
opposite set of variables, the proportion of variance being explained t_r = . 107 and y =
108. Also,the squared multiple correlations indicated that the ﬁrst canonical variable
of the overprotection measurement had almost no predictive power for maturity
demands (1' =.102) and amount of control (I =.114).

The Relations between Parent Care and Control based on Income

R_espondents with First Child Thirteen Years and Younger and with Income

between $25 .000 to $49,000. These individuals (5 =35) reported that both
their mothers (pt =3.19) and fathers (1: =2.86) were somewhat uncaring, and they
stated that their children were required to contribute some to completing daily chores
(m =1.65). Also, these parents felt that autonomy should be somewhat limited (at =
5.15). The bivariate correlations between the care and control measures were low, the
largest being 5 =-.461 between father care and maturity demands. The ﬁrst canonical
correlation (L? =.616, p <.001) was signiﬁcant.

The ﬁrst canonical variable for the care variables was a weighted differences
of mother (0.459) and father (0.917) care, with more emphasis on father care. The
correlations between mother and father care and the ﬁrst canonical variable were both
positive, [ =.403 for mother care and z = .889 for father care. Since the coefﬁcients
and correlations have the same signs, neither of these measures acted as suppressor
variables.

As for the ﬁrst canonical variable for the control variable, there was a weighted
difference of maturity demands (.897) and amount of control (.385). In this case,

there was more emphasis on maturity demands. In looking at the correlations between

appar
to thc

1111385

for a

Table

pair 1

varia

both
cone
Predi

Contr

96

the control variables and the ﬁrst canonical variable, the correlation for maturity
demands was 5 =.923 and for amount of control was [ =.445. For the control
variables, the signs for the coefﬁcient and correlations were the same; therefore,
neither of these variables were suppressor. In looking at the cross correlations between
each measure and its opposite canonical variable, the following relationship was
apparent. The cross correlation indicated that father care (I =.548) contributed more
to the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) than mother care (I = .248). As for the dependent
measures, maturity demands (1 = .569) had a higher correlation than amount of control
(5 = .274). Therefore, this suggested that father care and maturity demands accounted
for a greater proportion of the variance for the ﬁrst canonical correlation (R) (See
Table 16).

However, the canonical redundancy analysis indicated that neither of the ﬁrst
pair of canonical variables were good overall predictors of the opposite set of
variables, the proportions of variance explained being 1 =.181 and y =.199. The
second canonical variable added virtually nothing, with cumulative proportions for
both canonical variables being y =.215 and y =.230. The squared multiple
correlations indicated that the ﬁrst canonical variables for the care measure had some
predictive power for maturity demands (I = .324) but almost none for amount of

control (5 = .075).

llldll"
some
nunu
auhu
large

COIIC

Varia
Olen
betw
Van:

vane

(11er

I€Sp(

Were

97
The Relations between Parent Ovetprotection and Support based on the
Respondents’ Parents’ Social Class
Respondents with First Child Thirteen Years and Younger and with Working
Class Patents

A total of 44 individuals were part of this group. On the average, these
individuals described both their mothers (m =2.09) and fathers (m =2.16) as
somewhat overprotective. As parents, they saw themselves as being fairly supportive:
nurturing (m =5 .59), responsiveness (r_n =5.24) and nonrestrictive (_m_ =4.25) in their
attitudes. The between correlations were low, ranging from L = .050 to I = .332. The
largest correlation was between father overprotection and nurturance. The canonical
correlation (_R =.403, p <.05) was signiﬁcant.

Information on the coefﬁcients and correlations is provided in Table 17.
Looking at the coefﬁcients for the ﬁrst canonical variable for the overprotection
variables, there were a weighted differences of mother (-0.464) and father (1.127)
overprotection, with more emphasis on father overprotection. The correlations
between mother (I = .059) and father (I =.912) overprotection and the ﬁrst canonical
variable were both positive. Mother overprotection was, therefore, a suppressor
variable.

For the ﬁrst canonical variable for the support variables, there was a weighted
difference of responsiveness (-0.678), nonrestrictive attitudes (0.972) and nurturance
(-0.298), with more emphasis on nonrestrictive attitudes. The correlations between
responsiveness (I =-.418) and nurturance (I; =-.241) and the ﬁrst canonical variable

were both negative; however, it was positive for nonrestrictive attitudes (I = .663).

Table

R?

. 9
<

Metl

Fathc

Cor

Math

lathe

Meth

Fathe

98

Table 16. Canonigl Correlation Analysis: Fourteen Years and Older with In_come
Between 25 49

 

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection 0.917 Maturity Demand 0.897
Father/Overprotection 0.459 Amount of Control 0.385

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 1 Control 1
Mother/Overprotection .889 Maturity Demand .923
Father/Overprotection .403 Amount of Control .445

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Control 1 Overprotection 1
Mother/Overprotection .548 Maturity Demand .569

Father/Overprotection .248 Amount of Control .274

 

II
1'

99
Because the sign for the coefﬁcients and correlations were similar, none of these
factors acted as suppressor variables. The cross correlations conﬁrmed that father
overprotection (5 = .368) and nonrestrictive attitudes (5 = .267) had a strong
association with the other canonical variable. Therefore, the general interpretation was
that as father overprotection increased nonrestrictive attitudes increased.

In looking over the redundancy analysis, it became apparent that the ﬁrst pair of
canonical variables were not good overall predictors of the opposite set of variables,
the proportions of variance explained being only, 5 = .0678 and y =.0365. The
second canonical variables added almost nothing, with cumulative proportions for both
canonical variables being 5 =.139 and y =.085. The squared multiple correlations
indicated that the ﬁrst canonical variable of the overprotection measurement had

almost no predictive power for any of the support variables, responsiveness, 5 = .028,

nonrestrictive attitudes, 5 = .0715, and nurturance, 5 = .009.

ANOVAs for Care, Overprotection, Support, Control, and Attachment Sgles based on
Respondents’ Ingome and Pgents’ SES, and Gender

 

In reexamining the ﬁrst four hypotheses via demographic data, it became apparent
that there were signiﬁcant ﬁndings based upon respondents’ income and their parents’
social class, their gender, and the importance of the church in their lives. These
signiﬁcant ﬁndings suggested that the relationship between bonding and parenting was
mediated by these variables. Since the analyses performed were correlations, it was
not possible to determine how the different groups contributed to the relationship. In
order to get a better understanding of this, several ANOVAs were performed.

ANOVAs were performed for each major variable (care, overprotection,

100

l 7 n ni lC rrel tion A I si ° Thirteen Yearsand Youn er with
Working Class Pgents

 

Standardized Canonical Coefﬁcients for the Care and Support Measures

 

Overprotection 1 Support 1
Mother Overprotection 1.127 Responsiveness -0.678
Father Overprotection -0.464 Nonrestrictive Attitudes 0.972
Nurturance -0.298

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and Their Canonical Variables

 

Overprotection 1 Support 1
Mother Overprotection .912 Responsiveness -.418
Father Overprotection .059 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .663
Nurturance -.241

 

Correlations Between the Care and Support Measures and the
Canonical Variables of Support and Care Measures

 

Support 1 Overprotection 1
Mother Overprotection .368 Responsiveness -.169
Father Overprotection .024 Nonrestrictive Attitudes .267

Nurturance -.097

 

101

support, control, and attachment styles) of this study based on respondents’ income and
parents’ social class, gender, and whether respondents saw the church as important in
rearing their children. Only the signiﬁcant ﬁndings are reported.

ANOVA for Care based on Income. There was a signiﬁcant difference between
the mean scores for care (E (2, 213) =5.72, p <.003) based on income. The means
of the three groups were compared. There were 70 individuals who made between
$25,000 to $49,999, 74 subjects who earned between $50,000 to $79,999, and 72
respondents who reported earning $50,000 to $79,999. The Least Signiﬁcant
Difference (LSD) pair-wise post-hoc test revealed that mean scores differences were
between: $25,000 to $49,999 m =3.05) and over $80,000 051 =3.29) and $50,000 to
$79,999 ([5: =3.02) and over $80,000 (1! =3.29). These ﬁndings suggested that
individuals who made $25,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 to $79,999 described their
parents as more caring than those respondents who made over $80,000.

ANOVA for Conuol based on Gender. This sample included 97 females and
130 males. There was a signiﬁcant difference between the mean scores for control
(_E(1, 222) =10.46p <.001) and support (E0, 222) =6.07p <.01) based on gender.
For control, the t-test value was -3.23 and the mean for males was 6.15, and for
females it was 6.75. This suggested that females were less controlling than males in
their parenting behaviors. As for support, the t-test was -2.47 and the mean for males
was 4.77, and for females it was 4.95. This ﬁnding indicated that the females subjects
emphasized supportive behaviors more in their parenting behaviors than the male

respondents.

102
ANQVA for detproteetion bged on Respondents’ Parents’ SES. There was a

signiﬁcant difference between the mean scores for overprotection (E (2, 218) =4.58 p

 

<.01) based on respondents’ parents’ SES (deﬁned as either upper class, middle class,
and working class). Six subjects indicated that their parents were upper class; 75
respondents stated that their parents were middle class, and 140 described their parents
as working class. These ﬁndings should be accepted cautiously because of small
number of respondents who reported that their parents were upper class.

The LSD pair-wise post-hoc test revealed that mean scores differences were
between: middle class (r_n =2.78) and upper class (Q =2.48) and working class (at =
2.84) and upper class (r_n =2.48). These ﬁndings indicated that individuals who
described their parents as middle or working class reported that their parents were less
overprotective than those respondents who stated that their parents were upper class.

AN A f r A chmen S les based on Bondin and Parentin Dime ions

The Relations of Attachment Style to Cge, Ovetprotection, Support, Control,
and African Amerign Patenting

To restate hypothesis 5: There will be signiﬁcant relationships between attachment
styles and parental bonding and parenting factors.

No studies on the attachment styles of the African American population were
found in the literature. This exploratory hypothesis was incorporated to gain greater
understanding of how the bonding relationship expressed through attachment styles is
related to various constructs important in parenting. To delineate the relationship
between attachment styles and bonding and parenting constructs, several one way

ANOVAs were computed. As stated earlier, 171, 35, and ﬁve individuals described

103

their attachment styles as secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent, respectively.
Because of the small numbers of individuals in two of the attachment styles categories,
this may affect the power to pick up differences between the three groups.

Attachment Styles and AAPS. The AAPS measures those factors that the
African American family and parenting literature suggested may impact the rearing of
Black children. There was a signiﬁcant difference (E (2, 207) =3.41, p <.05)
between mean scores on AAPS based upon the independent variable attachment styles
(See Table 18). The LSD pair-wise post-hoc test revealed that mean scores differences
were between the secure (m =1.80) and avoidant (m = 1.90) styles of attachment. The
means were numerically very close, and, although, there was statistical signiﬁcance,
this suggested there may be little practical difference between the three groups.

Attachment Styles and Mother and Father Care. There was no signiﬁcant
difference between the mean scores for mother care (E (2, 207) = 1.88, 2 =15) or
father care (E (2, 195) =.944, p =.39) based on style of attachment. This suggested
that whether individuals had secure, avoidant, or anxious/ambivalent attachment styles
did not affect the level of care they reported experiencing from their mothers or
fathers.

A hmen les an M ther and Father Ove rotection. There was no
signiﬁcant difference between the mean scores for styles of attachment based on
respondents’ responses to the questions on the mother overprotection scale. As with
mother care, this suggested that whether individuals reported a secure, avoidant, or
anxious/ambivalent attachment style did not seem to distinguish them in the level of

control and intrusion that they experienced from their mothers.

104

As for father overprotection, there was a signiﬁcant difference (E (2, 193) =
4.05, p (.05) based on attachment styles. (See Table 18). The LSD pair-wise post
hoc analysis revealed that the signiﬁcant difference was between the secure (571 =2.92)
and avoidant (5r; =2.81) styles of attachment. Again, the means were statistically
different but with little practical signiﬁcance. However, this slight difference
suggested that individuals who described their attachment style as secure described
their fathers as less overprotective than those individuals with an avoidant style.

A_tta_chment Styles and Support. There was not a signiﬁcant difference
between attachments styles and nurturance. However, there was a signiﬁcant
difference on mean scores for nonrestrictive attitudes (E (2, 206) = 11.94, p <.001)
and responsiveness (E (2, 206) =3.98, p <.02) for parents based on their attachment
styles. The LSD pair-wise post hoc test was performed. This post hoc test revealed
that mean score differences for both groups were between the avoidant and secure
attachment styles. The means for the nonrestrictive attitudes were 3.83 for avoidant
and 3.45 for secure, and for responsiveness the means for the avoidant group was 5.02
and secure group was 5.30 (See Table 18). Once again, there was statistical
signiﬁcance but little practical difference.

Attachment Styles and Control. There was no statistical signiﬁcance for the
mean scores (E (2, 206) = 1.64, p <.20) for amount of control and E (2, 191) =
1.42, p <.24) for maturity demands) for the three attachment styles based on the
control. This suggested that whether respondents’ styles of attachment were secure,
avoidant, or anxious/ambivalent did not make a difference in the amount of control

they used in the parenting of their children. Based on the attachment literature, it

W0

hat

Ia!
P__at

501

AA
Fat

N01

105

would have been expected that individuals with a secure style of attachment might

have been less intrusive and overprotective of their children.

Eble 18. ﬁalysis of Variance of Adult Attachment Scores by Africzﬂ America_n

Pgenting Survey, Fatber metprotection, and Support (N =227)

 

 

Source of Variation SS df MS F

AAPS .315 2 .16 3.41*
Father Overprotection. .910 2 .45 4.06*
Nonrestrictive Attitudes 12.66 2 6.33 11.94*
Responsiveness 3. 14 2 1.57 3.98 *

 

*Note. p < .05

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The present study explored how the bonding experiences of adult African
Americans inﬂuenced their parenting behaviors. The general parenting literature
stressed that parenting greatly determines how individuals develop into adults. The
bonding and attachment literature suggested that parents’ own bonding experiences
inﬂuenced how they rear their children, and in particular, this affected the amount of
warmth and nurturance as well as how much control and protection parents provided.
Therefore, this study examined the association between parents’ bonding experiences
with their own parents and the amount of support and control they provided their
children.

Findings based on Descriptive Statistic

A majority of the sample was married and grew up with both parents in the
household. Three fourths of the sample and almost one half of their spouses had
graduate degrees; slightly over one third of the spouses and a little over one fourth of
the respondents had completed or had some college. Over three fourths of the sample
had professional or semi-professional careers.

Researchers (Billingsley, 1968; Bowman, 1993) have suggested that the
majority of Black families were formerly composed of two parent households, and that

the decline in the representation of two parent Black families was due to continued

106

107

social and economic discrimination they face. A majority of this sample stated that
they were currently part of two parent households. Although the Black community has
seen a decline in the two parent households, the ﬁnding from this sample supported
the idea that as economic conditions improve the stability of the Black family
increases (Hill, 1989). H. P. McAdoo (1990) suggested that as education and income
go up, two parent households become more common for Black families. This is true
for those in this sample.

Despite the high level of education and professional status, income was evenly
distributed between $25,000 to over $80,000. As Cotton (1989) has suggested, Black
families may not be fairly rewarded for their educational achievement. Another
important characteristic of this sample was that nearly three ﬁfths of the sample
reported that the church was an important resource in raising their children. Some
researchers (Hill, 1972; Pipes, 1988) have suggested that the Black church continues to
play a central role in the life of the African American family.

Along with the demographic statistics, important information about this sample
was further highlighted by examining the ﬁndings from the instruments measuring the
independent and dependent variables. The Parental Bonding Instruments and Adult
Attachment Scale were used to measure the independent variables, and the Parental
Dimension Inventory and African American Parenting Scale assessed for dependent
factors. The mean scores produced by the four subscales of the PBI showed that
mothers were more caring and somewhat more protective than fathers. This ﬁnding

was consistent with what Parker (1983) reported in his study.

108

The attachment styles reported for this sample were very different from what
was reported by Hazen and Shaver (1987) in their original study using the AAS. They
reported 56%, 25 %, and 19% for secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent styles,
respectively. Hazen and Shaver (1987) had a random sample; however, the sample of
this study was skewed in that it was much more highly educated than the general
population. Also, Hazen and Shaver (1987) did not provide information on the
ethnicity of their sample.

The results from the Parental Dimension Inventory and the African American
Parenting Survey have important implications. For the three dimensions of the support
construct of the PDI, the internal consistency reliability was somewhat higher for
nurturance (.79), lower for responsiveness (.44), and nonrestrictive attitudes (.55) than
what was reported by Power (1993), who reported internal consistency alphas of .76,
.54, and .70 for nurturance, responsiveness, and nonrestrictive attitudes, respectively.
For the control construct, the internal consistency reliability coefﬁcients were lower for
amount of control (.65) and higher for maturity demands (.81) than that reported by
Power (1993). Power (1993) reported internal consistency alphas of .74 and.70 for
amount of control and maturity demands, respectively. The AAPS’ mean score
suggested that these individuals felt it was important to emphasize parenting skills that
are signiﬁcant to the development of Black children.

The Rel tio tween ar Ov r tection S ort and Control

Based on the bonding/attachment and parenting research, it was hypothesized

that the care individuals experienced from their parents would positively affect the

support they provide their children and that there would be a similar relationship

P;

109

between overprotection and control. In keeping with this logic, it was further
hypothesized that care and control and overprotection and support would be negatively
related. These four factors: care, overprotection, support, and control, became the
major constructs of the study. Four of the ﬁve hypotheses predicted relationships
between these constructs.

Several canonical correlations were performed to determine the relationship
between the underlying dimensions of the care, overprotection, support, and control
constructs. Results from the canonical analysis indicated that none of the hypotheses
for either age group, 13 years and younger and 14 years and older, were supported. It
is difﬁcult to explain why a majority of the hypotheses were not met. Hypotheses 1
and 2 suggested that there were positive relationship between care and support and
overprotection and control. Hypotheses 3 and 4 indicated that there were negative
relationships between care and control and overprotection and support. However, in
looking at the p-values in Table 8, the non-signiﬁcant values were considerably higher
than the standard 2 <.05 level set to reject or accept a hypothesis. Along with the
canonical correlations, the bivariate correlations also did not ﬁnd signiﬁcant
relationships between these variables as predicted in the ﬁrst four hypotheses.

A possible explanation for the unexpected ﬁndings may be partially explained
by McLoyd’s (1990) and Baumrind’s (1972) research. Although, in general, there
have been mixed results, McLoyd’s (1990) comprehensive review of the empirical
literature on Black parenting suggested that there is a distinct pattern of childrearing
associated with Black parents. Baumrind (1972) also described this pattern of

parenting. Baumrind (1972) stated that this distinct pattern involved Black fathers

110

promoting conformity and being authoritarian and Black mothers seeming to be ﬁrm
and somewhat rejecting. Baumrind (1972) asserted that the children of these parents
were independent and well adapted to their environment.

The attachment and bonding literature seemed to suggest that this distinct
pattern of childrearing would be contradictory to what was necessary for the healthy
personality development of human beings. The attachment literature (Ainsworth et al.,
1978; Bowlby, 1982, 1988) suggested that for individuals to develop healthy, well
adjusted personalities their primary caregivers needed to be available, responsive, and
encouraged their children to explore their world independently, and parents, also,
needed to convey to their children that they would be protected from harm. For
African American parents, they may encourage secure attachment and bonding
behaviors; however, in doing this their parenting behaviors may look different from
that of the general population because of having to rear their children in a racist
environment. Black parents may, therefore, deﬁne and conceptualize attachment and
bonding very similarly to that of the dominant culture but go about developing these
experiences differently.

An attempt was made to review all the attachment and bonding literature that
was available on African Americans. Although there were no studies found from the
bonding and attachment areas that had been completed on a Black population, the
available literature suggested that the ﬁndings were applicable to all populations. In
fact, the studies supported the idea that attachment and bonding experiences were
partially biologically determined, and because these behaviors may have evolutionary

signiﬁcance, they were universal to all humans beings (Bowlby, 1982). Therefore,

111

despite the Black parenting research suggesting that there was a distinct style of
parenting for African American parents, the hypotheses for this study were developed
based on the current literature in order to test whether the current literature is
applicable to Blacks.

The earlier distinct pattern of parenting was supported by the ﬁndings of some
studies and not others. Also, this distinct parenting style was identiﬁed based on
research with a lower SES Black group and, therefore, may not be true for a middle
class Black sample. The bonding research reviewed suggested that attachment
behaviors that they described in their studies are universal to all humans. However, in
light of the ﬁndings of this study, it could be suggested that although bonding and
attachment behaviors are part of the universal human experience as suggested by
studies by Ainsworth et al. (1978) and Bowlby (1982; 1988), the way bonding and
attachment are currently conceptualized may not be accurate in explaining the
parenting behaviors of a Black population.

Another reason that signiﬁcant results, as would be predicted by the current
literature, may not have been found may be explained by an argument made by Van
Ijzendoorn (1992). In his review of attachment literature, Van Ijzendoorn (1992)
found support for the idea that there is intergenerational transmission of parenting
attitudes and inﬂuences. However, he warned that these ﬁndings should be cautiously
accepted because many studies to date have employed inadequate designs, poor
measures, and have not used appropriate statistical analyses. Therefore, although it is
accepted as a general fact that our attachment and bonding experiences affect how we

parent, we may not have enough information to be able to suggest what the

112

relationship between bonding/attachment and parenting behaviors may look like for
Black populations.
Limitations of tbe Study

A goal of this study was to use instruments that were highly reliable and valid
for a middle class African American sample. The PDI, which was the main
instrument used to measure current parenting behaviors, had normative data on an
African American population. However, it should be noted that for this sample the
internal consistency reliability for two of the support subscales (responsiveness and
nonrestrictive attitudes) and one of the control subscale (amount of control) were
somewhat to considerably lower than that reported by Power (1993). As for the
AAPS, although it was designed for this population based on the available literature, it
has not been extensively normed and its internal consistent reliability was low (.45).
Therefore, this raises the question whether the AAPS was truly assessing the various
factors it purported to measure.

As for the PBI and AAS, there were no studies located that had norming data
for an African American population. Initial review of the two instruments suggested
that the PBI was similar in a predictable way for this sample as it had been for other
samples in Parker’s (1983) study, in that mothers were seen as more caring and
overprotective. As for the AAS, this instrument did not clearly distinguish the
attachment styles for this African American population. As stated earlier, Hazen and
Shaver (1987) in their original norming study reported 56%, 25%, and 19% for secure,
avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent styles, respectively. Hazen and Shaver (1987)

further suggested that earlier attachment studies using different measuring methods had

113

reported similar portions of attachment styles for the general population. However for
this sample, there was hardly any variability in the attachment styles. A majority
(81%) of the sample reported a secure style of attachment. This made it almost
impossible to assess if attachment styles impacted parenting behaviors of adult African
Americans.

Along with limitations in the instruments, it might have also been important to
more thoroughly consider the impact of racism in the parenting behaviors of African
Americans. The African American Parenting Survey had one item on it that assessed
this variable. It may be important to determine if racism mediates the relationship
between feelings and behaviors. As with the general population, African American
parents may feel it is important to express to their children that they will be nurtured,
cared for and protected. However, they may express this differently because of the
racism that their children will experience in society. In addition, several researchers
(Baumrind, 1972; Peters, 1985; McLoyd, 1990) have stressed that White middle class
parenting behaviors should not be used as the standard because of the racist
environment that Black parents have to rear their children in. Because racism possibly
acts as a mediating variable some of the parenting behaviors of Black parents may
seem contradictory to the healthy development of their children (Richardson, 1981).

As Baumrind (1972) and McLoyd (1990) suggested, Black parents, especially
fathers, may seem more strict and controlling when compared to White middle class
standards; however, this different parenting style can be beneﬁcial to the development
of African American children. Therefore, it may seem logical that for the general

population that care and support and overprotection and control would go together;

114

however, it might be for a Black population, no matter what their social class, that this
may not be as straight forward a relationship because of mediating factors.

Finally, the generalizability of the results to the general Black population may
be limited. However, a strength of the study was that over half of the sample were
men. This will add to the literature in that we have limited understanding of the
impact of fathering by Black men. Because this was a non-randomly selected sample,
there was an over representation of persons who were highly educated and
professional. Also, a little over one half of the sample had children that were 14 years
old and older and the parenting instruments had not been normed for a population with
older children, the sample was divided into two. This resulted in lessening the power

to pick up true differences that may have existed.

The Relatioms between Care, Ovetprotection, Support and Control based on
Demographic Dat_a_

Although none of the ﬁrst four hypotheses were supported, it was felt that there
might be differences among the four major constructs that may be highlighted by more
thoroughly examining the demographic data. The resulting sample sizes were small
and this could limit generalizability of the result. There were, however, some
important and in some cases contradictory ﬁndings. Also, in looking at each of the
redundancy indices, it becomes apparent that overall very little of the variance was
explained by any of the variables.

Rgpondents with First Child Thirteen Years Old and Younger

For those subjects who were making $25,000 to $49,000, there was a negative

relationship between father care and nurturance and a positive relationship between

115

father care and maturity demands. These ﬁndings are contradictory to what was
expected: that care and support (nurturance) would be positively related and care and
control (maturity demands) would be negatively related.

However, these ﬁndings are consistent with what has been reported in pervious
studies (Baumrind, 1972; Bartz & Levine, 1978). Baumrind’s sample was middle
class as was this one. According to Baumrind (1972), Black fathers in her sample
appeared to promote conformity and were authoritarian. However, these fathers had
children, especially daughters, who were more independent, resistive, and dominant.
Baumrind (1972) cautioned that by White middle class standards this authoritarian
parenting style would not be expected to develop independent children.

In their study, Bartz and Levine (1978) reported that lower SES Blacks parents placed
greater emphasis on their children assuming responsibility (maturity demands) for their
behaviors than Anglo or Chicano parents, and because of this, they may seem less
nurturing.

For those respondents who described their parents as working class, there was a
positive relationships between mother overprotection and amount of control and
between father overprotection and nonrestrictive attitudes. The ﬁrst of these ﬁndings
was expected, in that overprotection would be positively related to control (amount of
control); however, the second ﬁnding, overprotection being positively related to
support (nonrestrictive attitudes) was not expected.

The ﬁrst ﬁnding, mother overprotection being positively related to amount of
control, partially supported hypothesis 2. The parenting (Maccoby & Martin, 1983;

Peters & Massey, 1983; McAdoo, 1985; Slater & Power, 1987) as well as the

116
attachment/bonding (Bowlby, 1982; Fraiberg, Adelson, & Shapiro, 1975; Stern, 1985)

literature suggested that how individuals are parented by their parents affected how
they reared their own children. Therefore, if parents’ own parents were restrictive and
controlling, they are more likely to be this way with their children.

However, why was there a statistically signiﬁcant positive relations between
mother overprotection and control and not father overprotection and control? The
general parenting and bonding/attachment literature suggested that individuals parents
the way they are parented, and the African American parenting literature (Hill, 1972;
Hines & Boyd-Franklin, 1982; McAdoo, J. L., 1986) states that Black males who face
economic hardships have been kept from becoming more involved in the parenting of
their children. Therefore, it is not surprising that there was a signiﬁcant positive
relationship between mother overprotection and control and none for father
overprotection and control for individuals with working class parents. Respondents
who had working class parents may have had fathers who were not as available
emotionally and physically due to the economic struggles they faced. Because their
fathers may not have been home as much, their mothers may have taken on even more
of a disciplinary and overprotective role to ensure their children’s safety. This may
partially explain why those respondents with working class parents may have had
positive signiﬁcant relations between mother overprotection and amount of control.

The second ﬁnding is harder to explain. First of all, a negative relationship
was expected between overprotection and support. Therefore, why would there be a
positive relationship between father overprotection and support (nonrestrictive

attitudes) for subjects who described their parents as working class? One possible

117

explanation could be that as Richardson ((1981) and Peters (1985) suggested, Black
parents in rearing their children prepare them for living in a racist environment.
Subjects whose parents, especially fathers, were working class may have experienced
more racism than these respondents who are middle class Black fathers. Therefore, the
fathers of these subjects may have felt they needed to be stricter and more controlling
in order to prepare their children for the harsh racist environment that they experienced
and felt their children would experience when they grew up. However, these subjects
can be more supportive of their children and do not feel they need to be as controlling
or restrictive because of having better economic conditions that help to buffer their
children against some of the additional racism that comes with economic hardship
(Scanzoni, 1985; McLoyd, 1990).

There was a negative relationship between overprotection and control for male
respondents. For this ﬁnding, there was a negative relationship between father
overprotection and maturity demands. This was contradictory to what was
hypothesized.

Maturity demands measure for the level of responsibility children have for
household chores. A probable explanation for this ﬁnding is that since these children
are 13 years and younger they may not have many responsibilities for household
chores. Also, because a majority of the sample was married or partnered, this may
take a lot of the pressure off their children to help with household chores. In addition,
as H. P. McAdoo (1985) suggested that as Black families have become middle class
and their economic power has increased, demands for greater achievement are not

being placed on or expected of their children.

118

Respondents with First Child Fourteen Years Old and Older

For those subjects who made $25 ,000 to $49,000 as well as those respondents
who saw the church as a resource in raising their children, there was a negative
relationship between care and support. For the group whose income was between
$25,000 to $49,000, there was a negative relationship between mother care and
nurturance. As for the second group which saw their church as a resource, there was a
negative relationship between mother care and responsiveness. Again, both of these
ﬁndings were unexpected.

As for the ﬁrst ﬁnding, in which mother care and nurturance are negatively
related, these subjects may have remembered their own parents as being caring and
nurturing towards them. However, in reference to their children, who are possibly still
in the household but soon will probably be leaving, they may currently be in a stage of
parenting where they are starting to separate and to be less nurturing or nurturing in
different ways than that was measured by the instruments (Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Also, in order to maintain their standard of living, both husband and wife may have to
work outside of the home. Therefore, these respondents may be less available and
responsive to their children’s needs, hence less nurturing.

As for the second ﬁnding, why would there would be a negative relationship
between mother care and responsiveness for subjects who describe their church as a
resource? Both Hines and Boyd-Franklin (1982) and Hill (1972) stated that the Black
church has been a very powerful resource in helping African Americans deal with the
pain and humiliation that they have had to endure as Blacks in American society. For

most of their history, Black Americans, have not been able to express directly or

119

openly their emotions. In fact, the church as well as the Black family have
encouraged indirect and nonverbal communication (Hale-Benson, 1987).

Several researchers (Comer & Poussaint, 1975; Peters & Massey, 1983;
Maccoby, 1980; Maccoby & Martin, 1983) have suggested that mothers whatever,
their income level, continue to be central ﬁgures of the family, and in the Black family
as in many other cultures, mothers are the ones most responsible for the moral and
religious development of their children. Therefore, for those subjects who see the
church as a resource in helping them raise their children, one of the possible value that
they may have picked up from their church is the idea that it is safer to express
feelings and thoughts indirectly. These subjects may feel that this is an important
survival skill to impart to their children because the environment may not always be
responsive to them and that there are indirect ways that their children may get their
emotional needs met. These subjects may identify learning this skill with their
mothers because it was their mothers who most often took them to church.

There was a positive relationship between overprotection and control for
respondents who described their parents as middle class. In particular, there was a
positive relationship between mother overprotection and both of the dimensions of
control (maturity demands and amount of control). This ﬁnding partially supported
hypothesis 2. During the time period these respondents were growing up, for a family
to be middle class, it took a lot of effort on the part of the fathers. Also, as
Billingsley (1992) suggested, a middle class family meant that the mothers were more
likely to be able to stay home to raise their children. Therefore, as fathers became

busier and mothers were more likely to be home, more of the disciplinary

120

responsibilities fell to the mothers. As Parker (1992) has stated, it is common for
subjects to see their mothers as both more overprotective and more caring than their
fathers. Therefore, by combining these two ideas, it may help to explain why those
subjects who had middle class parents saw their mothers as more overprotective, and
this being related to these individuals being more controlling.
Attachment Sgles and the Bonding and Parenting Measures

Seven one way ANOVAs were computed to explore the relationships between
attachment styles and parental bonding and parenting factors. Attachment styles were
the independent variables and each of the bonding and parenting constructs were the
dependent factors. There were three signiﬁcant ﬁndings, which suggested that styles
of attachment made a difference in the expression of these factors: parenting based on
those values described as important in the African American parenting literature

(AAPS), father overprotection, and support.

Attachment Sgles and African Amerigm Parenting Scale

 

The ﬁndings from the ANOVAs for the AAPS suggested that individuals who
are securely attached are more likely to emphasize those childrearing practices that the
African American family and parenting literature suggested as important to teach or
attend to in rearing African American children.

As it was expected, securely as opposed to avoidantly attached individuals
fostered those behaviors that the African American parenting literature suggested are
important for the development of Black children. Securely attached individuals trust
that their environments will meet their emotional needs (Ainswoth et a1, 1978). For

African American children to succeed, they need to develop secure attachments to their

121

families. Barbarin (1993) suggested that Black parents have to help their children
develop healthy emotional lives, ﬁrm ethnic identities, healthy self concepts,
understand the importance of the family, and realize that some things are outside of
their control. These are the very characteristics that the Black parenting literature
recommends in rearing emotionally healthy African American children.

Attachment Sgles and Father Ovetprotection

Father overprotection was signiﬁcantly related to subject’s attachment styles.
From the post-hoc analyses, individuals with secure attachments had fathers who were
less overprotective than those with avoidant attachment styles. Overprotective fathers
are seen as controlling, intrusive, and do not encourage their children to develop
autonomy (Parker, 1983).

Ainsworth et al. (1978) described avoidant attached persons as feeling that their
parents cannot take care or protect them, and in fact, they see their caregivers as
emotionally unavailable. Whereas, securely attached individuals feel that their parents
are nurturing, responsive, and available. Therefore, Ainsworth et a1. (1978) suggested
that individuals with avoidant styles of attachment are more likely to have fathers who
were overprotective. These overprotective fathers through their controlling and
intrusive behaviors may have provided inadequate emotional nurturance and may have
appeared to be intimidating to their children.

Attaehment Sgles and Supmg

There were signiﬁcant differences between the three attachment styles based on

support scores. When the post-hoc test was performed, the signiﬁcant difference was

between the avoidant and anxious/ambivalent groups; however, the test showed the

122

means to be identical for these two groups. Therefore, this made interpreting the
ﬁndings difﬁcult. A possible reason that the post-hoc test did not point to any true
differences is because of the small sample sizes for these two attachment styles..
Aﬂchment Styles and Mother and Father Care, Mother Ovetprotection, and Control

Since this was more of an exploratory hypothesis and there had not been
studies done on African American attachment styles, there is little to draw from the
literature as to why there were not signiﬁcant ﬁndings between attachment styles and
mother and father care, mother overprotection, and control. Logically, it would have
seemed that since the majority of the sample reported that their attachment style is
secure and since mother and father care measure whether individuals perceived
receiving nurturance from their parents that there should have been a signiﬁcant
relationship between these constructs. However, it could be suggested that since the
parenting of African Americans is complicated by the factor of racism, developing a
secure attachment style has much more to do with feeling nurtured by parents. Also,
it should be kept in mind that this was a highly educated sample who may have known
that reporting their attachment style as secure was desirable, and, therefore, the type of
attachment styles found may not truly represent the sample’s actual attachment
behaviors.

Unlike father overprotection, why was mother overprotection and attachment
style not signiﬁcant? Again it is difﬁcult to explain. However, there were more males
in the sample and since a large percentage of this sample reported that their fathers
were in the home when they were growing up and because of discrimination their

fathers may have faced, this may have contributed to their mothers being in the work

123

force. Fathers may have taken a major role in rearing their children and, therefore, the
attachment styles of these individuals were more affected by their fathers than mothers.
Also, as some studies (Baumrind, 1972; McLoyd, 1990) have suggested, some of the
parenting behaviors of Black fathers may appear to be authoritarian and controlling;
however, these behaviors can be beneﬁcial in the healthy development of their
children.

There was no signiﬁcant relationship between attachment style and control. It
would be expected that individuals who have avoidant and anxious/ambivalent styles
of attachment are more likely to be controlling. Avoidant individuals feel that their
parents cannot take care of or protect them, and anxious/ambivalent persons get mixed
messages in that sometimes their parents are supportive and dependable and other
times they are not (Ainsworth, et al., 1978). However, for this sample there were not
enough subjects in these two attachment styles.

W

If one just looked at parenting and bonding/attachment variables, one would
not see any important ﬁndings. However, certain demographic variables mediated the
relationship between bonding and parenting. Therefore, a clinician working with
Black families would need to be aware of other factors beside how the parents own
parenting may be impacting how they are raising their children.

Even if clinicians take into account that different variables may mediate the
relationship between parents’ bonding experiences and their own parenting behaviors,
it is important to note that several statistically signiﬁcant relationships found in this

study between bonding and parenting constructs were contradictory to what was

124

hypothesized. For example, for Black fathers it was found that there was a positive
relationship between care and control and not between care and support as
hypothesized. Therefore, the counselor needs to be aware that for a Black population
bonding and attachment may affect their parenting behaviors differently, and that these
differences may not need to be changed because they help Black children deal and
adapt better to their environment.

Aside from practitioners being aware of the ﬁndings in this study, it is also
important that they understand their preconceived biases that may prevent them from
being helpful to Black clients. In recent years the research in self psychology has
become extremely inﬂuential in shaping clinical work. Self psychology’s deepest
foundation is strongly inﬂuenced by the neo-Freudian view which itself is very much
built on White middle class values.

Since the foundation of attachment and bonding research is neo-Freudian, these
constructs may reﬂect only the views of the White middle class which is very
individualistic. Along with this, much of the attachment and bonding literature seems
to imply that there is a one to one correspondence between attachment styles and
parenting and do not take into account historical or cultural factors that may affect
parenting behaviors. Since self psychology is the foundation from which more and
more clinicians are trained, the whole idea of attachment and bonding are critically
shaping the conceptualization of cases and treatment of both majority and minority
clients. Clinicians need to be trained to use the richness offered by the self

psychology area; however, this conceptualization needs to be developed based on a

125

solid understanding of the important historical, social, and cultural factors that may
shape the reality of living as a Black person in White America.
Reeommendatious for Future Research

This study examined how bonding and attachment experiences of middle class
African American adults affected their parenting behaviors. Although the main
research hypotheses were not supported, this study found some important differences
between the groups when demographic variables were taken into account. This study
also sought to integrate literature from three disciplines: self psychology, child
development, and cross cultural family research. Research on bonding and attachment
is considered to be part of self psychology. The general parenting research is part of
the overall discipline of child development, and the literature on Black families and
parenting is part of the cross cultural family research. The following considerations
may be helpful for future research.

Often, when racial/ethnic groups are studied, the instruments used are usually
normed on members of the dominant culture. In the present study, some of the
parenting instruments had been normed on an African American population. However,
there were no instruments that measured bonding and attachment experiences that had
been normed on an African American population.

Therefore, based on the present study, the following speciﬁc suggestions can be
made to improve future instrumentation. Since the construct of bonding and
attachment are purported to be critical factors in the personality development of adults
and are believed to be passed on through parenting, they are currently receiving a great

deal of research attention. This type of research (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bowlby,

126

1982, 1988; Collins & Read, 1990; Crowell & Feldman, 1988) is shaping
psychological theories of personality and human development and functioning, which
is in turn shaping the ﬁeld’s application of these ideas to clinical work. Since this is
the case, it would be important to develop psychometrically sound instruments that
could be used to measure the attachment and bonding experiences of the Black
population, thus allowing more culturally relevant research on African Americans.
This would then provide clinicians with greater and more accurate information on how
to work with and clinically treat African Americans.

Along with designing more psychometrically sound instruments, the study of
the Black population’s bonding and parenting behaviors needs to be examined within a
broader framework. That is, the relationship between bonding and parenting behaviors
may not be as straight forward for a Black population as for the dominant culture.
The possibility of there being mediating factors was further highlighted when various
demographic variables were taken into considerations and certain signiﬁcant
differences between the sample were revealed. In this study, it appears that the
following variables: respondent’s income, respondent’s parents’ social class, sex of
respondents, and the church as a resource may be acting as mediating factors.
Respondent’s income and their parents social class acted as mediating variables for
both of the age groups.

Speciﬁcally, the ﬁndings suggested that for both age groups, parents’ or
grandparents’ income mediated the relationship between bonding experiences and
parenting behaviors. The relations between parenting received from one’s parents and

raising one’s own children may not be as simple as experiencing certain behaviors

127

from one’s parents and then passing them on. Therefore, in studying a Black
population, it may be important to ask the question: ”How does income or social
status mediates the relationship between bonding and parenting”?

Along with considering possible mediating variables that may be affecting the
relationship between bonding and attachment experiences and parenting behaviors, it
might be important to use different designs that would not depend solely on the
perceptions of the parents. A cross generational design may be more appropriate and
better highlight the relationship between bonding/attachment and parenting. In such a
design, both the parents and their parents could be asked to give their perceptions on
bonding, attachment, and parenting.

Finally, a strength of this study was the integration of literature from several
different disciplines. When psychological constructs are being studied and especially if
these constructs have been developed based largely on observing members of the
dominant culture, it is imperative that an understanding be gained within a broader
social-cultural perspective. Simply because of having to exist in a racist environment,
all aspects of African American family life are probably affected. Because Black
Americans are bicultural, their culture shapes all area of their functioning and
behaviors, including parenting. Given this, future research might further examine how
the psychological constructs of bonding and attachment look when examined from an

Afrocentric perspective.

REFERENCE

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427-554.

Armsden, G. C., McCauley, E., Greenberg, M. T., Burke, P. M., & Mitchell, J. R.
(1990). Parent and peer attachment in early adolescent depression. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 18(6), 683-697.

Barbarin, O. A. (1993). Emotional development of African American children. [he

Journal of Black Psychology, 1_9_(4), 381-390.

Bartels, K. M., & Frazier, P. A. (1991, August). The relations between attachment
style and social support to college adjustment. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Bartz, K. W., & Levine, E. S. (1978). Childrearing by Black parents: A description
and comparison to Anglo and Chicano parents. Journal of Mgiage and the
Eamibt, ﬁt), 709-719. .

Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool

behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 15, 43-88.

128

331111

129

Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children:
Some Black-White comparisons. Child Devel ment, ﬂ, 261-267.

Billingsley, A. (1968). Black families in White America. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Billingsley, A. (1992). Climbing Jacob’s ladder. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Boykin, A. W., & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A

conceptual framework. H. P. McAdoo & I. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children:

Social, educational and pﬂental environments (pp. 33-52). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinigl practices. New York: Aronson.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: vol 1: Attachment. New York: Basic
Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A sgure base. New York: Basic Books.

Bowman, P. J. (1993). The impact of economic marginality among African American
husbands and fathers. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicigt: Strength in
dﬂetsity (pp. 120-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Burton, L. M., & DeVries, C. (1992). Challenges and rewards: African American
grandparents as surrogate parents. Cenerations, 1_6(3), 51-54.

Burton, L. M., & Dilworth-Anderson, P. (1991). The intergenerational family roles
of aged Black Americans. Marriage and Family Review, 1_6(3-4), 311-330.

Carter, R., & Helms, I. E. (1988). The relationship between racial identity attitudes

and social class. Jourual of Negro Education, ,5_‘_7_(1), 22-30.

130

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children:
Characteristics and consequences. Momgrgphs of the Society for Reseatch in
Child Development, 38 (6-7, Serial No. 153).

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58(4), 644—666.

Compas, B. E., Howell, D. C., & Ledoux, N. (1989). Parent and child stress and
symptoms: An integrative analysis. Developmental Psychology, 2_5(4),
550-559.

Comer, J. P., & Poussaint, A. F. (1994). Raising Black children (2nd ed.). New
York: Penguin Books.

Cotton, J. (1989). The declining relative economic status of Black families. ﬂe
Review of Black Political Economy, (Summer), 75-85.

Crowell, J. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers’ internal models of relationships
and children’s behavioral and developmental status: A study of mother-child
interaction. Child Development, 3, 1273-1285.

Cubis, J., Lewin, T., & Dawes, F. (1989). Australian adolescents’ perceptions of their
parents. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 35-47.

DuBois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk: Essays and sketches. Chicago:
McClurg & Co.

Durrett, M. E., O’Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975). Child-rearing reports of
White, Black, and Mexican—American families. Developmental Psychology,

11(6), 871.

131

Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E., & Shapiro, V. (1975). Ghosts in the nursery: A
psychoanalytic approach to the problem of impaired infant-mother relationships.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiam, 1_4, 387-421.

Franklin, J. H. (1988). A historical note on Black families. In HR McAdoo (Ed.),
Black families, (pp. 23-26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Mal Methods In Education and
Psychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gelso, C. (1980). Research in counseling: Methodological and professional issues
Counseling Psychologist, 8, 7-35.

Gelso, C. J., Birk, J. M., & Powers, B. (1978). Intergenerational relationships in the
development of child rearing attitudes. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,
188, 31-41.

Hale-Benson, J. E. (1987). Blaok children; Their roots, culmre,and legning styles
(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Hair, J. R, Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis
(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Hamilton, C. V. (1972). The Blaok preacher in America. New York: William
Morrow

Harrison, A. O. (1985). The Black family’s socializing environment: Self-esteem
and ethnic attitude among Black children. In H.P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo

(Eds.), Blaok children: Social, educational and parental environments (pp. 174-
193). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

132

Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chain, S. Q., & Buriel, R. (1990).
Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development, 61(2), 347-
362.

Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personalig and Psychology, 3(3), 511-524.

Hill, R. B. (1972). The strengths of Black families. New York: Emerson Hall
Publishers, Inc.

Hill, R. B. (1989). Economics forces, structural discrimination and Black family
instability. The Review of Black Political Economy, (Winter), 5-23.

Hines, P. M., & Boyd-Franklin, N. (1982). Black families. In M. McGoldrick, J. K.
Pearce, and J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicigt and family therapy (pp. 84-107).
New York: The Guilford Press.

Jackson, J. S., McCullough, W. R., & Gurin, G. (1988). Family, socialization,
environment, and identity development in Black Americans. In HR McAdoo
(Ed.), Black families, (pp. 242-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Johnson, L. B. (1988). Perspectives on Black family empirical research. In H.
P.McAdoo (Ed.), Blaok families, (pp. 91-110). Newbury Hill, CA: Sage.

June, S. S. (1991). The role of the home in the spiritual development of Black

children. In L. N. June (Ed.). The Black family: Past, present and future.
Grand Rapids: Zonderoan.

133

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion:

Childhood attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal of the

Seientiﬁo Study of Religion, 82(3), 315-334.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in wire orientations.

 

Evanston, IL: Row, Patterson, & Co.

Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1991). Applied regression: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Lincoln, C. E., & Mamiya, L. H. (1990). The Black church in the African

American experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

 

Maccoby, E. (1980). Social development: Psychologi_ca_lgm_w_t_l_ia_nd_t_h_e_p;arent;cl_iﬂd
relationship. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family:
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology
(fourth ed.; vol. 4) (pp. 1-101). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mackinnon, A. J ., Henderson, A. 8., Scott, R., & Ducan-Jones, P. (1989). The
parental bonding instrument (PBI): An epidemiological study in a general
population sample. Psychological Medicine, 1_9, 1023-1034.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and
adulthood: move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, ﬂ (1-2, Serial No. 209).

Manns, W. (1988). Supportive roles of signiﬁcant others in Black families. In H. P.

McAdoo (Ed.), Blaok families, (pp. 270-283). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

134

Martin, P., Halverson, C. F ., Wampler, K. S., & Hollett-Wright, N. (1991).
Intergenerational differences in parenting styles and goals. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 13(2), 195-207.

McAdoo, H. P. (1978). The impact of upward mobility of kin--help patterns and the
reciprocal obligations in Black families. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
4(4), 761-776.

McAdoo, H. P. (1985). Racial attitude and self-concept of young Black children over
time. In H. P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social

educational and parental environments (pp. 213—242). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

 

McAdoo, H. P., & McAdoo, J. L. (Eds.). (1985). Black children: Social

 

educational and parental environments. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McAdoo,
H. P. (Ed.). (1988). Black families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McAdoo, H. P. (1990). A portrait of African American families in the United States.
In S. E. Rix (Ed.), The American woman 1990-1991: A status report, (pp.71-
93). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

McAdoo, J. L. (1988). The roles of Black fathers in the socialization of Black
children. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families, (pp. 257-269). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on Black families and

children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development.

Child Development, 61, 311-346.

135

Nobles, W. W. (1988). African-American family life: An instrument of culture. In
H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Blaok families, (pp. 44-53). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Palmer, R. L., Oppenheimer, R., & Marshall, P. D. (1988). Eating-disorded patients
remember their parents: A study using the parental bonding instrument.
International Journal of Eating Disorder, 1(1), 101-106.

Parker, G. (1983). Parental ovetprotection; A risk factor in psychosoical
development. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1973). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2nd ed.). Forth
Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Peters, M. F ., & Massey, G. C. (1983). Mundane extreme environmental stress in
family stress theories: The case of Black families in White American. In H.
L. McCubbin, H. I., Cauble, A. E., & Patterson, J. M. (Eds.), Social. stress in
the family: advances and development in family stress theogt and Research.
New York: Hayworth.

Peters, M. F. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. In H. P. McAdoo
& J. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational and parental
environments (pp. 159—173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Peters, M. F. (1988). Parenting in Black families with young children: A historical
perspective. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families, (pp. 228-241). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Pinderhughes, E. (1982). Afro-American families and the victim system. In M.
McGoldrick, J. K. Pearce, and J. Giordano (Eds.), Ethnicity and family therapy

(pp. 108-122). New York: The Guilford Press.

 

136

Pipes, W. H. (1988). Old-time religion: Benches can’t say "Amen.” In H. P.
McAdoo (Ed.), Blaok families, (pp. 54-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conﬂict
resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Relationships 8,

505-510.

Power, T. G. (1993). Parentin dimensio invento PDI ° A res ch m nual.
Unpublished manuscript.

Richardson, B. B. (1981). Racism and child-rearing: A study of Black mothers
(Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School). Dissertation Abstracts
Intermtioﬂl, ﬂ, 125-A.

SAS Institute Inc. (1988). SAS/STAT user’s guide, release 6.03 Qition. Cary, NC:

SAS Institute Inc.
Scanzoni, J. (1985). Black parental values and expectations of children’s occupational

and educational success: Theoretical implications. In H.P. McAdoo & J. L.

McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational and parental environments (pp.

 

113-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Slater, M. A. & Power, T, G. (1987). Multidimensional assessment of parenting in
single-parent families. In J. P. Vicent (Ed.), Advances in family Initerventions,
Qsessment and tbeog vol. 4 (197-228). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.

Stack, C. (1975). All our kin; Strategies for survival in a Black communig. New
York: Harper & Row.

 

Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersoual world of the infant: A view from
psyehoaualysis and developmengl psychology. New York: Basic

137

Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Interpreting the African heritage in Afro-American family
organizations. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), ﬂaok_fzunil_ies, (pp. 27-43). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory &
oriﬁce. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tolson, T. F., & Wilson, M. N. (1990). The impact of two-and three-generational
Black family structure on perceived family climate. Child Development, 61,
416-428.

Tseng, W. S., & McDermott, J. F. (1981). Culture, mind & therapy: An
introduction to cultural psychiatry. New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review
of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99.
Wilhelm, L., & Parker, G. (1990). Reliability of the parental bonding instrument and
intimate bond measures scales. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatgg, a, 199-202.

Williamson, D. S., & Bray, J. H. (1985). Family development and change across the
generations: An intergenerational perspective. In C. J. Falicov (Ed.), Fa_mily
uansitions: Continuigt and change over the life cycles. (pp. 113-122). New
York: Guilford Press.

Wilson, M. N. (1984). Mothers’ and grandmothers’ perceptions of parental behavior
in three-generational Black families. Child Development, QM), 1333-1339.

Wilson, M. N. (1986). The Black extend family: An analytical consideration.

Devel m ntal P cholo , 2_2_(2), 246-258.

138

Wilson, M. N. (1989). Child development in the context of the Black extended
family. American Psychologist, £0), 380-385.

Wilson, M. N. (1990). Familial support in the Black community. Special issue: The
stress of parenting. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12(4), 347-355.

Woodson, C. G. (1921). The histogt of the Negro church. Washington, DC: The

Associated Publishers.

139

Appendix A

Cover Letter Sent to Michigan State University’s Staff and Faculty

No.:

 

Date:

 

Dear Parent:

Thank you for considering taking the time to participate in this research project. The
purpose of this study is to assess adults’ bonding experiences with their parents and
how these bonding experiences affect their childrearing practices. Participation will
require you to complete the attached questionnaire/survey. The information gained
through this research will be used to better understand parenting behaviors.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You will not be asked to disclose your
identity and you may choose to end your involvement at any time. You have the right
to refuse to answer any questions, however, the information provided by each answer
is important in gaining a fuller understanding of views of parenting among adults.

It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete the entire survey. Your
responses will be kept completely conﬁdential (the number listed above on this form
will be used to assist in tracking the return rate). If you have any questions or
concerns regarding this study, please feel free to contact me at (517) 487-2316 or
(517) 336-1001. The study is being done in partial fulﬁllment for my Ph.D. degree in
Counseling Psychology and is being supervised by my advisor, Dr. Lee June.

Please return your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
The return of the completed survey reﬂects your informed and voluntary consent to
participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Sukhvender Nijjer

140

Appendix B

Cover Letter Sent to Members of The Association of Black Psychologists

No.:

 

Date:

 

Dear Parent:

Thank you for considering taking the time to participate in this research project. The
purpose of this study is to assess adults’ bonding experiences with their parents and
how these bonding experiences affect their childrearing practices. Participation will
require you to complete the attached questionnaire/survey. The information gained
through this research will be used to better understand parenting behaviors.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You will not be asked to disclose your
identity and you may choose to end your involvement at any time. You have the right
to refuse to answer any questions, however, the information provided by each answer
is important in gaining a fuller understanding of views of parenting among adults.

It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete the entire survey. Your
responses will be kept completely conﬁdential (the number listed above on this form
will be used to assist in tracking the return rate). If you have any questions or
concerns regarding this study, please feel free to contact me at (517) 487-2316 or
(517) 336-1001. The study is being done in partial fulﬁllment for my Ph.D. degree in
Counseling Psychology and is being supervised by my advisor, Dr. Lee June.

Please return your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope.
The return of the completed survey reﬂects your informed and voluntary consent to
participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Sukhvender Nijjer

P.S. The Association of Black Psychologists requested that I
inform your that I am a student member of this
organization.

141

Appendix C

Postcard Sent to Michigan State University’s Staff and Faculty
(Two Weeks After the Mailing of the Questionnaire)

No.:

 

Date:

 

Dear Parent:

Approximately two weeks ago you were sent a letter along with some survey
instruments requesting you to participate in a research project. The project is designed
to assess adults’ bonding experiences with their parents and how these bonding
experiences affect their childrearing practices.

If you have not yet completed the survey, please do so as soon as possible. If you
have completed it, thank you for your participation and please disregard this reminder.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please feel free to contact
me at (517) 487-2316 or (517) 336-1001. The study is being supervised by Dr. Lee

June.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sukhvender Nijjer

142

Appendix D

Postcard Sent to Members of The Association of Black Psychologists
(Two Weeks After the Mailing of the Questionnaire)

No.:

 

Date:

 

Dear Parent:

Approximately two weeks ago you were sent a letter along with some survey
instruments requesting you to participate in a research project. The project is designed
to assess adults’ bonding experiences with their parents and how these bonding
experiences affect their childrearing practices.

If you have not yet completed the survey, please do so as soon as possible. If you
have completed it, thank you for your participation and please disregard this reminder.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please feel free to contact
me at (517) 487-2316 or (517) 336-1001. The study is being supervised by Dr. Lee
June.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sukhvender N ijjer

P.S. The Association of Black Psychologists requested that I
inform-you that I am.a student member of this
organization.

143

Appendix E

Demographic Questionnaire

. Dm’ ions: Please provide the following information. In order to insure your
confidentiality please do not write your name anywhere on this survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Age: 2. Sex:
. Marital status (circle one) 4. If you have children, please state their
age sex
a. Married a.
b. Single/never married b.
c. Divorced/separated c.
d. Partnered d.
e. Widowed e.

. Please indicate if the following 6. Highest level of education you and
individuals currently live in spouse have attained (circle one
household? (circle all that apply) for each person)

a. Spouse Self
b. Biological children a. High school graduate (9-12)
c. Step-children b. Some college
(I. In law(s), please specify c. Completed college, please
specify
e. Your parents, please specify d. Graduate degree, please specify
f. Other relatives, please specify
Spouse

 

g. Other non-relatives, please specify

E”

High school graduate (9-12)

 

b. Some College

c. Completed college, please
specify

 

d. Graduate degree, please specify

 

144

 

8. Your gross income per year. 9. What was your parents’ social class
(circle one) when you were growing up? (circle
one)
a. 10,000 to 24,999 a. Working class
b. 25,000 to 49,999 b. Middle class
c. 50,000 to 79,999 c. Upper class
(1. Over 80,000
10. What is your occupational rank? 11. Are you a member of a church?
(circle one)
a. Executive or Professional No Yes
b. Manager and Proprietor of 12. What is your denomination?

medium sized business

 

c. Administration/Semi 13. How frequently do
Professional (circle one)

(1. Owner of a small business a. Never

e. Skilled worker b. Once a week

f. Semi-skilled worker c. Once a month

g. Unskilled worker (I. Couple times a year

h. Work in the house (housewife/ 14. How important is religion in your life?
househusband) (circle one)

15. Do you consider your church as a resource a. Not important
in helping you raise your children?
No Yes b. Important

c. Very important

16. During the ﬁrst 16 years of my life my mother and father were present in the
household? (circle one for each parent and each age group)

Mother Father
0 to 8 years 9 to 16 years 0 to 8 years 9 to 16 years
a. No a. No a. No a. No

b. Yes b. Yes b. Yes b. Yes

145

Appendix F

Parental Bonding Instrument

II. Directions: This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviors of
parents. Using the rating scale below, indicate to what extent each item
described how that parent was like in the ﬁrst 16 years of life. Circle
the appropriate scale number for each of the item below.

 

 

 

 

For items 1 - 25 For items 26 - 50
1 =Very like her 1 =Very like him
2 =Moderately like her 2 =Moderately like him
3 =Moderately unlike her 3 =Moderately tuilike him
4 =Very Lnlike her 4 =Very unlike her
During my ﬁrst 16 years my mother.... Very Moderately Moderately Very
Like Like mlik _IJuLike
1. Spoke to me with a warm and
friendly voice. 1 2 3 4
2. Did not help me as much as I needed 1 2 3 4
3. Let me do things I like doing. 1 2 3 4
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me. 1 2 3 4

5. Appeared to understand my problems

and worries. 1 2 3 4
6. Was affectionate to me. 1 2 3 4
7. Liked me to make my own decisions. 1 2 3 4
8. Did not want me to grow up. 1 2 3 4
9. Tried to control everything I did. 1 2 3 4
10. Invaded my privacy. 1 2 3 4

11. Enjoyed talking things over with me. 1 2 3 4

146

During my ﬁrst 16 years my mother.... Very Moderately Moderately Very
Like Like Mike _U_nlike

12. Frequently smiled at me. 1 2 3 4
13. Tended to baby me. 1 2 3 4
14. Did not seem to understand what I

needed or wanted. 1 2 3 4
15. Let me decide things for myself. 1 2 3 4
16. Made me feel I wasn’t wanted. 1 2 3 4

17. Could make me feel better when

I was upset. I 2 3 4
18. Did not talk with me very much 1 2 3 4
19. Tried to make me dependent on her. 1 2 3 4
20. Felt like I could not look after myself

unless she was around. 1 2 3 4
21. Gave me as much freedom as

I wanted. 1 2 3 4
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted. 1 2 3 4
23. Was overprotective of me. 1 2 3 4
24. Did not praise me. 1 2 3 4

25. Let me dress in any way I pleased. I 2 3 4

 

147

During my ﬁrst 16 years my father.... Very Moderately Moderately Very
Like Like LEIIik mtljke
1. Spoke to me with a warm and
friendly voice. 1 2 3 4
2. Did not help me as much as I needed 1 2 3 4
3. Let me do things I like doing. 1 2 3 4
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me. 1 2 3 4

5. Appeared to understand my problems

and worries. 1 2 3 4
6. Was affectionate to me. 1 2 3 4
7. Liked me to make my own decisions. 1 2 3 4
8. Did not want me to grow up. 1 2 3 4
9. Tried to control everything I did. 1 2 3 4
10. Invaded my privacy. 1 2 3 4
11. Enjoyed talking things over with me. 1 2 3 4
12. Frequently smiled at me. 1 2 3 4
13. Tended to baby me. 1 2 3 4
14. Did not seem to understand what I

needed or wanted. 1 2 3 4
15. Let me decide things for myself. 1 2 3 4
16. Made me feel I wasn’t wanted. 1 2 3 4

17. Could make me feel better when
I was upset. I 2 3 4

18. Did not talk with me very much 1 2 3 4

19. Tried to make me dependent on her. 1 2 3 4

148

During my ﬁrst 16 years my father.... Very Moderately Moderately Very
Like Like [_Julik Unlike

20. Felt like I could not look after myself
unless she was around. 1 2 3 4

21. Gave me as much freedom as

I wanted. 1 2 3 4
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted. 1 2 3 4
23. Was overprotective of me. 1 2 3 4
24. Did not praise me. 1 2 3 4

25. Let me dress in any way I pleased. I 2 3 4

 

149

Appendix G

Parental Dimension Inventory

111. pm: The following statements represent matters of interest and
concern to some parents.Not all parents feel the same way about them.
Circle the number which most closely applies to you and your children.

Not at all Slightly Somewhat Fairly
Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive
of Me of Me of Me of Me

p—e

. I encourage my child to talk about

his or her troubles. 1 2

I do not allow my child to get angry
with me 1 2

. I think a child should be encouraged to

do things better than other children. 1 2

. My child and I have warm intimate

moments together. 1 2

. I encourage my child to be curious,

to explore, and to question things. 1 2

I ﬁnd it interesting and educational
to be with my child for long periods. 1 2

. I don’t think children should be

given sexual information. 1 2

. I believe that a child should be

seen and not heard. 1 2

Quite

Highly

Descriptive Descriptive

of Me

of Me

150

Not at all Slightly Somewhat Fairly Quite Highly

Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive Descriptive

of Me of Me of Me of Me of Me of Me
1 2 3 4 5 6

9. I believe it is not always a good idea to
encourage children to talk about their
worries because it can upset them
even more. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I encourage my child to express
his/her opinions. I 2 3 4 5 6

11. I make sure my child knows that I
appreciate what he/she tries
to accomplish . 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. I let my child know how ashamed and
disappointed I am when he/she
misbehaves. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. I believe in toilet training a child
as soon as possible. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. I believe that most children change
their minds so frequently that it is
hard to take their opinions seriously. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. When I let my child talk about
his/her troubles, he/she ends up
complaining even more. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. I expect my child to be grateful to
his/her parents, and appreciate all
the advantages he/she has. 1 2 3 4 5 6

17. I respect my child’s opinion and
encourage him/her to express it. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. I believe that once a family rule
has been made, it should be strictly
enforced without exception. 1 2 3 4 5 6

151

IV. M1311: Listed below are pairs of statements concerning parents’ attitudes
toward childrearing. For each pair, please read both statements. Then
determine which statement you agree with most, and circle the phrase
mneath that statement that most reﬂects the strength of your agreement.
If you agree with both statements equally, circle "Agree Equally with
A & B." iny circle one phrase gr Question.

1. A B
Nowadays too much emphasis is Nowadays parents are too
placed on obedience for concerned about letting
children. children do what they want.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly

 

Agree Agree Agree Equally Agree Agree Agree
more more more more more more more
with with with with with with with
A A A A&B B B B
2. A B
Children need more freedom to make Children need more guidance
up their own minds about things from parents than

than they seem to get today. they seem to get today.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly

Agree Agree Agree Equally Agree Agree Agree
more more more more more more more
with with with with with with with

A A A A&B B B B

152

3. A B
I care more than most parents I care less than most
I know about having my parents about having
child obey me. my child obey me.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly

 

Agree Agree Agree Equally Agree Agree Agree
more more more more more more more
with with with with with with with
A A A A&B B B B
4. A B
I try to prevent my child I try to provide freedom for
from making mistakes by setting my child to make mistakes
rules for his/her own good. and learn from them.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Agree Slightly 'Moderately Strongly

 

Agree Agree Agree Equally Agree Agree Agree

more more more more more more more

with with with with with with with

A A A A&B B B B

5. A B
If children are given too It is important to set and enforce
many rules, they will grow rules forchildren to grow up and
up to be unhappy adults. to be happy adults.

Strongly Moderawa Slightly Agree Slightly Moderately Strongly

Agree Agree Agree Equally Agree Agree Agree
more more more more more more more
with with with with with with with

A A A A&B B B B

153

V. M: Circle the number of regular assigned chores in the following
areas your child is responsible for.

Three
or
None One Two More
1. Meals (e. g.,buy groceries,
cook, set table, wash
dishes, etc.) 0 1 2 3
2. Housekeeping (e. g. ,clean
room, make bed, dust, put out 0 1 2 3
garbage, etc.)
3. Laundry (e. g.,put dirty clothes
in hamper, wash the clothes,
fold clothes, iron, etc.) 0 1 2 3
4. Yardwork (e. g.,mow, pull
weeds, sweep walk, etc.) 0 1 2 3
5. Pet care (e.g.,feed pet, take
pet for walk, clean up after
pet, etc.) 0 1 2 3

6. Other (e.g.,babysit, water
plants wash car, bring
in mail, etc.) 0 1 2 3

154

Appendix H

Adult Attachment Scale

VI. 12mm: Please read each of the descriptive paragraphs below and place a
checkmark ( ) next to the one that best describes your feelings.

I. I ﬁnd it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending
on them and having them depend on me. I don’t often worry about being
abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

2. I am some what uncomfortable being close to others; I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I
am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, lover partners want me to
be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

3. I ﬁnd that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often
worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me.
I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire
sometimes scares people away.

155

Appendix 1

African American Parenting Survey
VII. Dm’ ions Please rate each of the following statements:
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4

 

I feel or think it is important that in raising African American children they are
made aware of:

1. that racism will impact their lives.
1 2 3 4

2. their bicultural status or identity.
1 2 3 4

3. that they will be given unconditional love.
1 2 3 4

4. that they need to respect themselves.
1 2 3 4

LI!

. that it is equally important to learn to communicate nonverbally as well as verbally
for their survival in the dominant culture.
1 2 3 4

6. a sense of history of their people.
1 2 3 4

7. the importance of family bonds.
1 2 3 4

8. that their extended family is important.
1 2 3 4

9. that their sense of identity and being is in their family.
1 2 3 4

10. that there is a higher power.
1 2 3 4

MICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRnRIEs
1111111111111111111111111111111llllllllhlhllhhl
31293014210714