CHILD- REARING ATTITUDESV AND
‘PERCEPTIONS 0F CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR
ACROSS TWO GENERATIONS IN FAMILIES

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHBGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT JAY GREEN
1975

......mu.. .4ng

  
 
  

  
 

Mutt-u

  
 

 

’g
This rs to certify that the
thesis entitled
Child—Reari g Attit es and Perceptions
of Children s Behavior Across en—
tio 3 Families
presented by
Robert J ay Green
has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

  

(I Major professor

 

  
 

. _ ~.& so“,
”0mm mc.

L'BRARY BINDE ’§

 

Am

ABSTRACT

CHILD—REARING ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN'S
BEHAVIOR ACROSS TWO GENERATIONS IN FAMILIES

BY
Robert Jay Green

The objectives of this study were: (a) to explore the relation-
ship between adults' child-rearing practices and their styles of
perceiving the behavior of children, and (b) to examine the continuity
of child-rearing attitudes and perceptions of children's behavior in
two generations within families.

More than a thousand undergraudate subjects were recruited
through newspaper advertisements to participate in research for pay.
In groups of 20-30, these subjects were shown a videotape of a male
or female child in play with an adult. The child (an actor) demon—
strated on the tape approximately equal numbers of behaviors that had
differentiated clinic-referred (”disturbed") from non-clinic referred
("normal") children in previous research on parental perceptions.
After viewing the videotape, undergraduate subjects rated the child's
behavior on the "Children's Behavior Checklist-—Form A" (CBC-A).

Each CBC-A protocol was scored for perceptual style by substracting
the number of "negative" (i.e., "disturbed") child behaviors checked
from the number of ”positive" (i.e., "norma1") behaviors checked.

Three groups of undergraduates were selected for further

study on the basis of their perceptual style scores: "Positive

Robert Jay Green

Behavior Perceivers" (30 females and 33 males with the highest
perceptual style scores); "Negative Behavior Perceivers" (34 females
and 33 males with the lowest scores); and ”Balanced Behavior Per-
ceivers" (32 females and 34 males with scores closest to zero). Each
of these selected subjects was administered a 104-item "Child-Rearing
Concerns and Practices Questionanire" (CRCP) developed by the investi-
gator for the present study.

Mothers and fathers of 156 of these undergraduate subjects were
contacted by mail and asked to complete CRCP Questionnaires and the
Children's Behavior Checklist-~Form Q (identical to CBC-A except that
the parents rated their own undergraduate child retrospectively).
Parents were paid $10.00 per couple for their participation. Usable
responses were received from 105 mother-father pairs (72%) distributed
quite evenly across the three perceptual style conditions. Only
parents for whom addresses were available and who were living
together in one household were contacted.

Analyses of variance were performed on the data using CRCP
and CBC dependent variables, some of which were derived from several
principal axis factor analyses. Independent variables included under-
graduate's perceptual style (positive, balanced, or negative), sex of
undergraduate (male, female), and family role (mother, father, or
undergraduate child).

Results were equivocal with regard to perceptual style. In

 

the few instances where significant differences were obtained,
comparisons showed that in hypothetical parent-child conflict
situations: (1) negative behavior perceivers were more likely than

balanced or positive behavior perceivers to endorse "criticizing" and

Robert Jay Green

"shaming" techniques of parental discipline; and (2) positive behavior
perceivers were more likely than balanced or negative behavior
perceivers to "do nothing," i.e., to withdraw from the situation and
comply with the child's wishes. These findings were in line with the
hypothesis that adults who show positive or negative biases (distor-
tions) in their perception of child behavior also employ more
"ineffective” child-rearing practices as compared to adults who are
accurate (balanced) perceivers.

Sex differences found in child-rearing attitudes indicated

 

that: (1) males were more likely than females to endorse authoritarian-
punitive practices; (2) females were more likely than males to show
"concern with prosocial child behavior," to "express pride" in their
child's behavior, and to "demand appropriate self-control"; and (3)
females were more likely than males to use indirect forms of punishment
(i.e., "non-verbal rejection" as opposed to verbal criticism). These
findings were consistent with previous research showing that fathers
used more "ineffective" authoritarian methods in child-rearing than

did mothers (who were more "loving" and "permissive").

With regard to family role, children (undergraduates)

 

expressed attitudes that were similar to their parents' attitudes in
the majority of comparisons, although they differed from at least one
of their parents on several child-rearing dimensions. In all
instances of parent—child differences, the children advocated
practices in the more "desirable" direction (i.e., greater use of
reasoning, fewer threats, less use of criticism, and less use of

non—verbal rejection). These results supported previous findings of

Robert Jay Green

a cultural trend toward more democratic-permissive child-rearing
practices over the last several decades in the United States.

Moreover, children may select from a variety of intrafamilial
and extrafamilial sources the child-rearing attitudes which have been
most helpful and least disturbing in their own experience. Child-
rearing attitudes would seem to be influenced by factors in the
individual's earlier development as well as current family and cultural
values. Methodological considerations in the interpretation of

results and some directions for future research were explored.

CHILD-REARING ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN'S

BEHAVIOR ACROSS TWO GENERATIONS IN FAMILIES

By

Robert Jay Green

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1975

In Memory of My Teacher

BILL L. KELL,

A Master Psychotherapist

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very grateful to Dr. Lawrence A. Messé and Dr. Gary E.
Stollak for their constant availability, good advice, and encouragement
throughout this project. Whatever I know about research, I have
learned from these creative, energetic, and scholarly teachers. They
have my deepest respect and affection.

Thanks also go to Dr. J. Gordon Williams and Dr. Elizabeth
Seagull for their support and participation on the committee. Their
trust in my ability was the very best help possible.

I want to acknowledge the voluntary aid of several under-
graduate students who scored the data: Fred Simons, Michael Bloom,

Neal Barnett, Letha Moore, and Dave Myers. Project secretaries Jane
Rice and Beth Talmadge generously gave assistance in data collection.
Mr. Bill Brown, my consultant at the Computer Institute for the Social
Sciences, was most patient and helpful in the process of data
analysis.

I would also like to take this Opportunity to thank some of
the other faculty from whom I have learned so much during my five
years of graduate study: Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson, Dr. Cyril Worby,

Dr. William J. Mueller, Dr. Arthur Seagull, Dr. Martha Karson, Dr. Mary

Leichty, and Ms. Marsha Worby.

iii

Lastly, I wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made
by my family. My wife, Loretta, has been unbelievably helpful and
understanding in every aspect of my work and life over the past four
years. I will be forever grateful to parents and grandparents for

encouraging me to value and continue my education.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
INTRODUCTION.
Parents' Perceptions of Children
Theoretical Constructs. .
Parental Behavior and Child Functioning . .
Intergenerational Child- -Rearing Attitudes in Families

METHOD.

Introduction .

Measurement of the Independent Variable (Perceptual Style).

Measurement of the Dependent Variables
Final Subject Pool .
Experimental Design and Statistical Analysis

RESULTS

CRCP Factor Analysis .
Analyses of Variance--Family Data . .
Analyses of Variance-~Undergraduate Data.
The Effects of Perceptual Style.

Sex of Undergraduate Effects.

The Effects of Family Role

DISCUSSION

Dimensions of Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices
Biases in Adults‘ Perceptions of Children
Sex Differences in Child- -Rearing Attitudes . .
Intergenerational Continuities and Discontinuities in
Child- -Rearing Attitudes. .
Methodological Considerations in the Interpreation
of Findings.
Implications of the Study.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .

Page

vii

11
15

21

21
21
24
27
28

30

30
32
39
43
50
52

57
57
63
68
7O

75
79

81

BIBLIOGRAPHY .
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Children's Behavior Checklist--Form A.
B. The Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices Questionnaire .
C. Letter to Parents and Instructions.
D. The Children's Behavior Checklist--Form Q
E. Analysis of Variance Summary Tables--CRCP Factors I
through IX .
F. Analysis of Variance Summary Tables--Parents' CBC.
G. Analysis of Variance Summary Tables-~CRCP Undergraduate
Factors 111 and VIII.
H. Analysis of Variance Summary Tables—-CRCP New

Undergraduate Variables 1 and 2 .

vi

Page

85

89
94
106

109

113

118

120

121

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Checklist Items Differentiating Clinic from Non-Clinic
Children .

Mean Bias Scores and Cell Frequencies .

Distribution of Whole Family Data Used in Analyses.

Summary of Factor Loadings--CRCP Part I

Summary of Factor Loadings--CRCP Part II

Summary of Significant Results Reflecting Comparisons Not
Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for ANOVAS on
Family Data . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Undergraduate Factors III and VIII

New Undergraduate Variables

Summary of Significant Results Reflecting Comparisons
Not Qualified by Higher—Order Interactions for
ANOVAS on Undergraduate Data

Summary of Perceptual Style Results.

Summary of Sex of Undergraduate Results

Summary of Family Role Results

Dependent Variables and Their Presumed Consequences
for the Deve10pment of Children's Psychosocial

Well-Being

Dependent Variables and Their Continuity Across
Generations .

vii

Page

24
28
31

33

39
41

44

45
46
51

S3

64

73

INTRODUCTION

Parents' Perceptions of Children

 

Although the study of person-perception has generated a large
research literature, past reviews show that most of these studies have
focused on impression-formation and factors which affect perceptual
accuracy (Hastorf, Schneider, and Polefka, 1970). Few investigations
have been concerned with behavioral consequences of perceptual
differences, parents' perceptions of their children, or the influence
of parental perceptions on child-rearing behavior and child functioning.

The minimal research on these latter issues has revealed:

(1) Parental perceptions ("delineations") of adolescents are important
determinants of the youth's self-image, interpersonal functioning,

and ability to separate from the family (Shapiro, 1967; Stierlin,
Levi, and Savard, 1971); (2) Parents of low-adjustment children show
significantly less inter-parent agreement in their perceptions of the
family as compared to parents of high-adjustment children (Van Der
Veen, Huebner, Jorgens, and Neja, 1964); and (3) Parents of clinic-
referred children tend to perceive their children as aggressive,
authority-defiant, and physically uncoordinated while parents of
non-clinic children tend to perceive their children as competent, able

to maintain self—control, and having the interpersonal skills

essential for deve10ping satisfying relationships (Ferguson, Partyka,
and Lester, 1974).

The research by Ferguson, gt_§l:, provided the impetus for the
current investigation. In their study of the parents of 81 children
who were referred to a University Psychological Clinic and 96 non-
referred children (normal controls), they assessed parental perceptions
by having both parents independently complete a 154-item checklist on
the behavior of their child ("The Children's Behavior Checklist"—-
Ferguson, Mackenzie, and Does). Chi-square tests were performed on
each of the 154 items of the checklist. Thirty-four items yielded
significant values in the non-clinic direction ("positive" behaviors)
while 32 items yielded significant values in the clinic direction
("negative" behaviors)1 [see Table 1]. Of these items, a number had
high loadings on the dimensions of Competence, Impulsivity, and
Moodiness emerging from factor analysis.

Thus Ferguson, gt_al, showed that clinic-referred children were
perceived by their parents as having and emitting more socially
undesirable and negative characteristics and behavior, and less
positive behavior, when compared to non-clinic children. One could
speculate that although the child's behavior may have been the primary
determinant of parental perceptions, it is also possible that the
parents in their study had differences in their perceptual "sets."

This possibility and its ramifications are explored in the next section.

 

1The terms "positive" and "negative" are used throughout this
paper to denote behaviors which are characteristically perceived by
parents of non—clinic vs. clinic children respectively in Ferguson,
et a1.'s study. They are not intended to imply any value judgment by
{he—Eurrent investigator.

Table 1. Checklist Items Differentiating Clinic From Non-Clinic
Children.

 

Significant Behavior Checklist Items
Characteristic of Non—Clinic Children
("Positive" Behaviors)

 

 

Is concerned about feelings of others

Handles small objects skillfully

Can be depended on to do what he (she) is supposed to do without
reminders

Activity is focused on a particular purpose, seems to accomplish what
he (she) sets out to do

Can accept new ideas without getting upset

Shows pride in accomplishment

Does what other adults ask him (her) to do

Moves gracefully--is well coordinated

Plays to win

Others seem to want to be with him (her)

Makes friends quickly and easily

Self—confident

Polite and cooperative with others

Prefers competitive games

Energetic

Shows pleasure and involvement in most things he (she) does--
enthusiastic

Competes with other children

Pitches in when things are to be done

Learns quickly from others

Likes to play with girls instead of boys

Seems confortable in new situations

Able to stand up for himself (herself)

Careful in explanations-~precise

Shows appreciation when others help or do things for him (her)

Quick and clever

Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a bit fussy about it

Is curious about things

Retains composure even when those around him (her) are acting in a
boisterous way

Asks sensible questions in new situations

Feelings are apparent in facial expression

Easily embarrassed

Starts things off when with others

Talks all the time

Prefers playing with older or bigger children even when children of
own age are around

Table 1. Continued.

 

Significant Behavior Checklist Items
Characteristic of Clinic Children
("Negative" Behaviors)

 

 

Gets irritated or angry easily

Plays with toys in a rough way

Doesn't pay attention to what grownup says to him (her)

Acts in ways that make others not like him (her)

Quickly loses interest in an activity

Plays mostly with younger or smaller children--even when children of
own age are around

Often has to be reminded of what he (she) can and cannot do

Seems out of touch with what is going on around him (her)--off in his
(her) own world

When told to do something he (she) doesn't want to do, he (she)
becomes very angry

Doesn't seem to care about how he (she) looks--often looks sleppy

Blows up very easily when bothered by someone

Seems sad and unhappy

Tends to go too far unless frequently reminded of rules

Threatens to hit or hurt others

Has uncontrollable outbursts of temper

Will lie to get out of a tight spot

Fidgety and restless

Often breaks the rules in games with others

Gets other children stirred up to mischief

Has a characteristic mannerism or nervous habit

Bullies younger children

Play is aimless, doesn't seem to make or accomplish anything

Seems selfish, always wants own way

Acts as if everyone were against him (her)

Is left out and ignored by others

Prefers following others to taking the initiative

Can't wait--must have things immediately

Looks awkward when he (she) moves around

Appears stiff in walking or moving about

Has trouble finding the right words to say what he (she) means

Will fight in a rough way where others could really get hurt

 

Adapted from Ferguson, 2: a1}, 1974.

Theoretical Constructs

 

In addition to previous research on parental perceptions, a
number of theoretical assumptions provided a framework and impetus for
the present investigation. These constructs pertained to the form and
origin of parenting behaviors and their influence on the development
of psychosocial "competence" or "dysfunction" in children. Basic
notions were: (a) parents may have different and enduring styles of

perceiving the behavior of children; (b) these perceputal style differ-

 

ences may be associated with specific patterns of parental behavior;

 

and (c) these different patterns in parental behavior over time may

influence the direction of a child's psychosocial development.

 

Perceptual styles can be viewed as internal response dispositions
involving attention and/or inattention to various child behaviors.

As an illustration, let us assume that a given parent, for
whatever reasons, has a perceptual orientation or "bias" toward
perceiving the kinds of aggressive and authority-defiant behavior that
all_children emit at various times. Let us further assume that this

perceptual bias involves selective attention to these aggressive and

 

authority-defiant (i.e., "negative”) child behaviors and a concomitant

inattention to prosocial and competent (i.e., "positive") child

 

behaviors. It would seem likely that this parent would respond in
some way to the negative behaviors perceived. However, by virtue of
his or her inattention to the positive behaviors, a response to these
behaviors would be unlikely. Non-responsiveness to positive child
behaviors would tend to decrease the frequency of such behaviors

(experimental extinction).

Furthermore, it is possible that any overt response to the
negative behaviors perceived (when coupled with non-responsiveness to
positive behaviors) would constitute social reinforcement, tending to
increase the frequency of negative child behaviors relative to positive
ones. This can be conceptualized as a "deviation—amplifying” process,
or a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. The negative behavior perceptual
bias may lead to an increase in negative child behavior which, in turn,
would "feed into” or reinforce the perceptual bias, and so on.

As this process continues, the parent will likely use more
and more desperate and punitive attempts to control the child's
undesirable behavior. While such attempts may be temporarily
effective in ”suppressing" the negative behavior, they are not likely
to reduce its overall frequency unless "competing" positive behaviors
are simultaneously reinforced. The child's behavior will be reinforced
by any_form of parental response if it becomes the only form of
parental attention available.

We can inquire further as to the genesis of this process in
terms of the parent's initial perceptual bias toward negative child
behavior. According to psychoanalytic theory, the mechanism of
projection involves first repression of forbidden impulses, followed
by projection of these same impulses onto an external object. In the
case of a negative behavior perceptual bias, we could assume that the
parent is conflicted about his or her own hostile or rebellious
impulses and "projects" these onto the child. Increased parental
vigilance on such "negative behavior" in the child would further
serve to keep the parent unaware of his or her own forbidden impulses,

while simultaneously acting them out against the child through

punishment. The parent then can rationalize his or her punitive
behavior as a necessary response in order to manage the "uncontrollable"
child. To maintain the image of the child as being "bad" and uncon-
trollable, the parent must deny the presence of positive behavior in

the child's repertoire and selectively ignore such behavior.

 

If we look further into the parent's internal conflicts around
"negative" impules, it becomes entirely conceivable that he or she also
is the product of a family in which one or both parents was a negative
behavior perceiver. Since the child in such a family may be constantly
made aware of and harshly punished for aggressive and authority-defiant
impulses, the child grows into adulthood with severe conflicts around
impulse control. Via the mechanisms elaborated above, these con-
flicted impulses can be managed through projection onto the adult's
children.

In this manner, negative perceptual behavior bias, conflicts
over impulse control, and authoritarian-punitive methods of child-
rearing may be transmitted from one generation to the next. For this
reasons, a goal of the present investigation was to determine whether
various perceptual styles in adult offspring would be associated with
specific patterns of child-rearing in the offsprings' family of origin.

Let us now turn our attention to another form of perceptual
style--positive behavior perceiving. On face value, it would seem that
a bias toward perceiving prosocial and competent (i.e., "positive")
behaviors in children would be associated with positive psychosocial
development in children. Ostensibly the positive behavior perceiving
parent would selectively attend to and reinforce desirable behaviors

in the child's repertoire while simultaneously ignoring and extinguishing

undesirable, "negative" child behaviors (i.e., aggression, authority
defiance, etc.). However, we must keep in mind that any form of

perceptual bias would involve a distortion of reality and could lead to

 

the encouragement of maladaptive behaviors.

The hypothesized failure of a positive behavior perceivers to
attend and respond to the sort of negative behavior that all_children
emit at various times, suggests that this sort of person also may have
internal conflicts over the expression and control of "negative"
impulses. In this case, the parent's impulses may have been so
"threatening" in his or her family of origin that the only way to
manage such impulses was total or near total denial of their
existence. By ignoring the presence of obvious aggressive and/or
rebellious behavior and feelings in the child, the parent would
communicate that such events were "too dangerous" to be recognized for
what they were. Such parental behavior may constitute an implicit
parental rejection of important aspects of the child's experience and
action. Ultimately, it may involve an inability to set apprOpriate
limits on the child's "negative" behaviors.

The consequences in terms of the child's development may be
more varied in families where one or both parents are positive behavior
perceivers. For example, the child's negative behavior may be denied
on an overt, verbal level, but it may be encouraged on a covert level
by over-permissiveness. The child may be permitted to engage in
destructive behavior while the parent maintains that it is actually
positive behavior (i.e., "creativity," or "nonconformist individuality,"

or "self-expression").

On the other hand, the child of a positive behavior perceiver
may become inhibited or constricted, particularly if the perceptual
bias involves a parental rigidity in terms of unrealistic expectations

for perfection or "morality." In this sense, selective attention to

 

positive behavior may involve severe punishment when the child does not
show near-perfect performance in school. Thus while "bad" behavior is
ignored, excessive demands may be placed on the child to do "better
than good."

On another level, excessive parental demands for perfection,
or positive views of the child which are unrealistic, suggest that the
parents themselves may have low self-esteem. In identifying their
child as "all good," they do not have to face their child's short—
comings which may represent, via identification, their own "deficits,"
feelings of inadequacy, or failures. The child may be heavily
burdened with parental needs for vicarious success. In the extreme,
the positive behavior perceiving parent has a relationship with an
"image" of the child, but not with the child as a real person.

It should be apparent that either mode of biased behavior
perception ultimately may involve more than a differential rate of
attending to various kinds of child behavior. Biased perception of
behavior can include implicit but powerful forms of denial, mystifi-
cation, and neglect. The two modes of biased perceiving can be viewed
as "two sides of the same coin." Both may be related to internal
parental conflicts over ”negative" impulses, low self-esteem, and they
suggest an inability to cope with the reality of a "flesh and blood”
child who exhibits a wide variety of socially "desirable" and "un-

desirable" behaviors.

10

It should also be stressed that biased behavior perceivers are
likely to pass their child rearing-practices down from one generation
to the next. Not only may such biases be associated with parental
child-rearing practices that influence the development of intrapsychic
conflicts in the offspring, but children seem likely to model and
adopt directly some of their own parents' methods of child-rearing.

Lastly, we will turn our attention to a third perceptual style-—
balanced behavior perception. A parent who is unbiased in perceptual
orientation would be free to perceive "whatever is there to be seen"
(rather than imposing on, or selecting from, reality what he or she
needs, or needs not, to see). Furthermore, the first step in an
effective response to child behavior is an awareness of what behavior
and feelings exist in the child at the time. The perceptual
"flexibility" of the balanced behavior perceiver suggests that such
persons may be able to show greater flexibility in their child-rearing
practices. Thus, depending on the context and the particular child
behavior being exhibited, the balanced behavior perceiver could choose
from a variety of potentially appropriate responses the one that best
fits the reality of the moment.

Furthermore, the balanced behavior perceiver could shift
"perceptual set" more easily, decreasing the possiblity of escalating
reciprocally, a negative parent-child interaction sequence. The
balanced behavior perceiver could empathize, for example, with the
"negative" attention-getting behavior of a child by perceiving the
"positive" need for parental attention implicit in the behavior. The
accurate perceiver of child behavior may thus be more able to infer

from overt actions the intentions or feelings underlying the behavior.

11

Perhaps balanced perceivers are also better able to "read" non-verbal
behavior, and more "cognitively complex" in their ability to non-
defensively deal with interpersonal stimuli.

To return to our initial assumptions, this investigation was
an exploratory effort to examine possible associations between adult's
perceptual styles and their child-rearing attitudes. 0n the basis of
the theory reviewed here, we expected that negative behavior perceivers
and their parents would show more authoritarian-punitive attitudes
toward child-rearing. Specific hypotheses regarding positive behavior
perceivers and their parents' child—rearing attitudes were more
difficult to make, but both groups of biased behavior perceivers
(positive and negative) were expected to endorse more "ineffective"
and less "effective" child-rearing. Lastly, balanced behavior per—
ceivers and their parents were expected to show more use of "effective"
and less use of "ineffective" child-rearing practices.

We turn, inthe next section, to a review of research on
parental behavior and the psychosocial development of children in order
to shed some light on what may constitute "effective" child-rearing

concerns and attitudes.

Parental Behavior and Child Functioning.

 

There now exists a voluninous research literature on child—
rearing attitudes, parental behavior, and the development of socio-
emotional behavior in children (Mussen, 1970). Most pertinent to the
current investigation are the studies by Coopersmith (1967), Baumrind
(1967, 1973), Hoffman (1963, 1970), and Becker (1964).

Coopersmith (1967) studied junior high school children with

various levels of self-esteem as determined by subjective and

12

behavioral indices. Differences in level of self-esteem were associated
with differences in child-rearing practices of mothers as determined
through interviews with them. In general, results showed the following
maternal behavior correlates of self—esteem in children: (I) nearly
total acceptance of the child by his mother; (2) clearly delineated and
enforced limits; and (3) latitude and respect for the child's needs
and wishes within the defined limits:
In effect we can conclude that parents of children with high self-
esteem are concerned with and attentive toward their children,
that they structure the world of their children along lines they
believe to be appropriate and that they permit relatively great
freedom within the structure they have established. (p. 236)
Baumrind (1967) studied the child-rearing practices of parents
whose pre-scbool children were rated by observers in nursery schools as
either: Pattern I--self—reliant, self-controlled, explorative, and

content; Pattern II-—discontent, withdrawn, and distrustful; or

Pattern III--1acking in self-control, lacking in self-reliance, and

 

having a tendency to retreat from novel experiences. Data were obtained
on parents' behavior through structured interviews, naturalistic
observations of parent-child interaction, and observations of
structured parent-child interaction. Parents of Pattern I children
were found to be "firm, loving, demanding, and understanding."
Parents of Pattern 11 children were found to be "firm, punitive, and
unaffectionate." Mothers of Pattern III children "lacked control and
were moderately loving" while fathers of these children were "ambivalent
and lax" (p. 83).

In a comprehensive review of three such research studies,

Baumrind (1973) concluded:

13

The main thrust of the results of these three studies, is that,
in the preschool years, authoritative control, by comparison with
authoritarian control or permissive noncontrol, is associated with
social responsibility (achievement orientation, friendliness toward
peers, and cooperativeness toward adults) and independence (social
dominance, nonconforming behavior, and purposiveness) whereas
authoritarian control is net associated with social responsibility
and permissive noncontrol is 293 associated with independence.

(pp. 30-31)

In this context, the term authoritarian control denotes a pattern of

 

parental restrictiveness and arbitrary rule. The term authoritative

 

control denotes a pattern in which the child's independence and indivi-
duality are encouraged within appropriate limits.

Hoffman (1963) studied the child-rearing behavior of parents
whose children were judged to be considerate of others. Results showed
that, in the context of a non-power-oriented relationship, parents who
had highly considerate children were: (I) warm; (2) clear about the
consequences of their children's behavior toward others; and (3)
explanatory while administering discipline or punishment.

In a more comprehensive review of his research on moral
development, Hoffman (1970) pinpoints three types of parental discipline:

(a) Power Assertion ("includes physical punishment, deprivation of

 

material objects or privileges, the direct applications of force, or

the threat of any of these"); (b) Love Withdrawal ("techniques

 

in which the parent simply gives direct but non-physical expression to
his anger or disapproval of the child for engaging in some undesirable
behavior"); and (c) Induction ("includes techniques in which the
parent gives explanations or reasons for requiring the child to change
his behavior") [pp. 285-86]. Hoffman concludes:

The frequent use of power assertion by the mother is associated

with weak moral development to a highly consistent degree.
Induction discipline and affection, on the other hand, are

14

associated with advanced moral development, although these
relationships are not quite as strong and consistent across the
various age levels as the negative ones for power assertion.

. . . In contrast to induction, love withdrawal related infre-
quently to the moral indices and the few significant findings
obtained do not fit any apparent pattern. (p. 292)

Becker (1964) conducted a comprehensive review of research on
the consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. He
summarized the findings of many studies in terms of two orthogonal
dimensions of parental behavior: warmth vs. hostility, and restrictive-
ness vs. permissiveness. Becker concluded:

The counter—aggression generating properties of hostility are
apparent in the child of both permissive-hostile and restrictive-
hostile parents. In the former the aggression is expressed
directly with little control. In the latter, the aggression is
expressed in certain safe areas (with peers) but is more likely
to be inhibited and turned against the self, or be revealed in
manifestations of internal conflicts

The findings for the warm-permissive condition are consistent

with the recommendations of child-rearing specialists concerned
with maximizing socially out-going characteristics and indivi-
duality. The child with warm—permissive parents is socialized
mainly through love, good models, reasons, and a trial and error
learning of how his actions . . . have an impact on others.
(p. 198)
It should be noted that Becker seemed to be using the term "permissive"
here to denote what other researchers have termed "democratic" or
"authoritative" (as opposed to authoritarian or laissez-faire) parental
control.

Assuming that our previous hypotheses about the child-rearing
behaviors of parents having balanced vs. positive vs. negative behavior
perceptual biases was correct, we expected that: (1) "balanced behavior
perceivers" would express child-rearing attitudes and practices

associated with more socially responsible and independent behavior in

children (e.g., praise of behavior, demonstrations of love, empathy,

15

appropriate limit-setting with reasons given); and (2) "Negative
behavior perceivers" and "positive behavior perceivers" would express
child-rearing attitudes and practices associated with less socially
responsible and independent behavior in children (e.g., criticism,
power assertion, love—withdrawal, non-responsiveness, or excessive

permissiveness).

Intergenerational Child—Rearing Attitudes in Families

 

Only a few reports of empirical research on intergenerational
child-rearing attitudes have appeared in the literature (Cohler,
Grunebaum, Weiss, and Moran, 1971; Kell and Aldous, 1960; Staples and
Smith, 1954). However, a great deal of clinical speculation exists
surrounding the transmission of interaction patterns across generations
in families (e.g., Boszormenyi—Nagy and Spark, 1973; Bowen, 1960;
Laing, 1971). Clinical observation and testing suggest that members of
"disturbed" families acquire fairly rigid patterns of interaction and
psychological difficulties in their families of origin which are
carried over into their families of procreation (Fisher and Mendell,
1956). Theoretically, family members' internalized expectations
and behavioral patterns are re—enacted in their family of procreation
and elicit reciprocal responses in the new milieu, recreating patterns
from the family of origin.

In this context, Laing (1971) speaks of the internalization of
the "family" as a concept and the "transference of group modes":

The family as a system is internalized. Relations and

operations between elements and sets of elements are internalized,
not elements in isolation. . . . Parents are internalized as

close or apart, together or separate, near or distant, loving,
fighting, etc., each other and self. (p. 4)

 

16

When such an internal template of space-time relations-in-
sequence is externalized, it appears to function both as a schema
governing ways external events are hoped, feared, seen to happen,
and, by inducing action and reaction, as self-fulfilling fantasy
and prophecy. (p. 11)

Staples and Smith (1954) researched the child-rearing attitudes
of 87 grandmother—mother pairs who lived in the same urban community.
Data on child-rearing attitudes and practices were collected by means
of a questionnaire and personal interview. Grandmothers proved to be
more strict, authoritarian, and punitive than mothers in all areas of
child care studied (i.e., home standards, verbal standards, expression
of hostility, feeding, toilet training, sexual behavior, sex-role
conformity, and crying). When the grandmothers lived in their own
homes, both grandmother and mother were more permissive than when they
lived in the same hosuehold. Also, the child-rearing attitudes of
maternal grandmothers and their daughters were significantly correlated
when they lived apart. However, no significant relationship between
child-rearing attitudes across generations was obtained when maternal
grandmother and daughter lived together or when scores for paternal
grandmothers and mothers were compared. The degree of permissiveness
for both generations showed a positive relationship to number of years
of education.

Kell and Aldous (1960) studied trends in child care within
families over three generations through exploratory interviews with
27 female and 23 male college students and their mothers (N = 50
mother-child pairs). The interviews covered three areas of child-
rearing practices: rules for behavior, discipline, and affection-giving.

The college students reported on their own child-rearing attitudes and

on their mothers' child-rearing practices. Mothers reported on their

l7

own mothers' child-rearing practices (i.e., the child-rearing practices
of the students' grandmothers).

In terms of intergenerational discontinuity vs. continuity of
child-rearing practices within families, results indicated that mothers
and female students had child-rearing values differing from their own
mothers' more frequently than did male students. In the area of
discipline for the grandmother-mother comparisons and the area of
rules of behavior for the mother-female student comparisons, the data
supported the theory that children adopt their own mothers' child-
rearing values. For the male students, the continuity hypothesis was
upheld by the data in the areas of rules of behavior and discipline.
Overall, the data from neither mothers nor students supported the inter-
generational discontinuity theory for within-family comparisons. How-
ever, there was a consistent trend for these mothers and female students
who did differ significantly from their own mothers' child-rearing
practices to do so in the direction of greater permissiveness.

Cohler, Grunebaum, Weiss, and Moran (1971) studied the child
care attitudes of 90 mother-grandmother pairs, in each of which the
mother had a child below the age of five. All subject were administered
the Maternal Attitude Scale which yields scores based on five
orthogonal rotated factors: (a) apprOpriate vs. inappropriate control
of child's aggression; (b) encouragement vs. discouragement of
reciprocity; (c) appropriate vs. inappropriate closensss with the
child; (d) acceptance vs; denial of emotional complexity in child
care; and (e) feelings of competence vs. lack of competence in per-
ceiving and meeting the child's needs. Comparisons between mother-

grandmother pairs yielded significant positive relationships for three

18

of the five factors: Appropriate Control, Encouragment of Reciprocity,
and Competence in Meeting the Child's Needs. However, grandmothers
showed significantly less adaptive attitudes than mothers regarding
the factors of Appropriate Control, Encouragement of Reciprocity, and
Appropriate Closeness. 0n the other hand, grandmothers showed
significantly more adaptive attitudes than mothers on Competence in
Meeting the Child's Needs.

The researchers also found significant intragenerational
differences between the child care practices of these mothers who
volunteered with their own mothers as compared to a matched control
group of mothers:

The attitudes of these mothers who volunteer suggest that they

are a rather compliant, dependent, and conventional group of
women who have particular difficulty in separating from their own
mothers and in achieving autonomy from them. While these women
express less concern than their peers about their ability to
control their children's anger, they also feel less able than their
peers to take independent action and they express more conventional
and stereotyped attitudes regarding child care. (p. 11)
Other intragenerational differences were found in comparisons between
mothers and grandmothers living in separate households versus those
living together in one household. These findings indicate that a
woman's current relationship with her own mother has an impact on her
child-rearing practices.
Taken together, the results of the three studies by Staples

and Smith (1954), Kell and Aldous (1960) and Cohler, 93.31: (1971)

suggest that adults' child-rearing attitudes are related to but

 

different from their own mothers' child-rearing attitudes. Further-

 

more, important intervening variables emerging from these studies

include: (1) the adults' current rleationships with their mothers (as

19

exemplified in the separate vs. shared residence variable); (2) the
adults' sex; (3) prevailing cultural values in child-rearing which have
been changing toward greater permissiveness over the last several
decades; (4) years of education; (5) whether subjects are currently
parents; (5) current age of subject's children; and (6) whether the
generations volunteer together or separately to participate in the
research.

It should be noted that none of these studies (nor the present
investigation) can claim to have examined changes in child-rearing
attitudes over time from one generation to the next, nor do they assess
the impact of earlier family experience on adults' current child-
rearing attitudes or practices. Rather, the research viewed in this
section reports only current similarities and differences in child-
rearing practices among members in two generations of families. Only
longitudinal research in this area could establish a causal link between
adults' child-rearing practices and the child-rearing practices of
their offspring (Bell, 1958; Burton, 1972; Cohler, 1972).

In addition, recent research shows that reported child-rearing
attitudes change significantly in retrospect. For example, Yarrow,
Campbell, and Burton (1970) asked mothers to recall their child-rearing
practices, relationships with their children, and certain personality
characteristics of their children, with the length of time involved in
recall varying from three to 30 years. The results showed significant
systematic shifts in the retrospective reports over all categories
regardless of length of time involved in recall. In some cases,
changes in reported child-rearing practices were in the direction of

more "adaptive" attitudes, while in other cases attitudes changed in

20

the "less adaptive" direction. Therefore, the results from studies
such as those reviewed above and the present investigation, can only

be interpreted as "current attitudes being strongly influenced by
current value systems as they interact with the respondents' previously
learned values regarding child rearing" (Burton, 1972, p. 62).

The present investigation examined additional areas of inter-
generational child-rearing attitudes. Most notably, data on fathers'
child-rearing attitudes were included in addition to data on the child-
rearing attitudes of college students and mothers. Also examined were
the relationships between child-rearing attitudes and perceptions of
children within and between the two generations of the families.

On the basis of theory and research reviewed in this section,
it was expected that, in general, significant positive relationships
in comparisons among family members' would emerge in terms of child-
rearing concerns, practices and perceptions of children. It was also
expected that comparisons between parents as a group and college
students as a group would yield significantly greater "authoritative-
ness" or "democratic permissiveness" on the part of college students
(i.e., greater use of induction, demonstrations of love, empathy, and

less use of power assertion, love—withdrawal, and criticism).

METHOD

Introduction

 

The present investigation was an addition to and extension of a
research project being conducted by Messé and Stollak in the Department
of Psychology at Michigan State University (NIMH Grant #24250). It
shared with their project a common independent variable (undergraduate's
perceptual style). However, the dependent variables were unique to the
present study: (1) Undergraduate's child-rearing concerns; (2) Under-
graduate's prospective child—rearing practices; (3) Parent's perceptions
of his/her undergraduate child; (4) Child-rearing concerns of the
undergraduate's parents; and (5) Child-rearing practices of the under-

graduate's parents.

Measurement of the Independent Variable (Perceptual Style)

 

1. Standard Perceptual Stimuli.--In the fall of 1974, two 20-

 

minute videotapes were developed for use as Standard Perceptual Stimuli
in this research. One videotape was of a male, the other of a female,
child interacting with an adult in a playroom setting. A script was
deveIOped for these interactions based on the results of Ferguson,
gt_al,'s study. The children (paid actors) demonstrated on the
videotape approximately equal numbers of "negative" and "postive"

behaviors. "Negative" and "positive" behaviors were defined by the

21

22

child behavior descriptions which significantly differentiated
parents of clinic from non-clinic children in Ferguson, gt_al:'s
research. Negative behaviors were those reported more frequently by
parents of clinic children while positive behaviors were those
reported more frequently by parents of non-clinic children.

Two male and two female children who seemed well-suited were
selected to make the tapes. These four children were taught the
script, rehearsed, and then videotaped in interactionuith a graduate
student. When each child had produced a satisfactory videotape, the
four tapes were reviewed by the researchers and the "best" tape of a
male and of a female child were selected for use as the Standard

Perceptual Stimuli (SP8).

2. Undergraduate Subject Recruitment and Selection.—-During Winter
term, 1975, an advertisement was placed in the Michigan State Univer-
sity student newspaper soliciting undergraduates who were interested
in coming to a "pre-employment" screening interview for $1.00. The
advertisement stated that persons who were selected after screening
would receive $S/hour for further participation in research.

More than 1,100 undergraduates responded and were shown the
20-minute SPS in groups of 20-30. The research was introduced as a
study of their reactions to a practice session between a graduate
student in training and a volunteer child. The subjects were asked to
pay close attention to the adult's behavior because they would be asked
to assess her effectiveness afterwards. The latter instruction was
given to focus the undergraduate's attention away form the child so
that increased vigilence on the child's behavior would not mask

potential perceptual biases.

23

For control purposes, half of the female and half of the male
undergraduates were shown the videotape of the female child. The rest
of the undergraduate subjects viewed the videotape of the male child.
Thus any interactive effects on perceptual style between sex of child
and sex of undergraduate could be determined. After viewing the SPS,
subjects were asked to complete a number of questionnaires. Responses
to one of these questionnaires were used in the present study: The
Children's Behavior Checklist (CBC) Form A (see Appendix A).

The undergraduates' responses to the Children's Behavior
Checklist Form A were used to obtain indices of the indepencent
variable--undergraduate's perceptual style. The CBC Form A was a
modification of Ferguson, et_al,'s Children's Behavior Checklist,
revised to include only those items relevant to the positive and negative
child behaviors shown on the videotape. Usable CB§_protocols were
obtained from 1,068 undergraduate subjects. Perceptual bias scores on
this instrument ranged from -23 to +21, with an overall mean of -4.77
(perceptual bias = number of "positive" behaviors seen minus the
number of "negative" behaviors seen).

Using scores on the CBC, subjects were selected along the
following criteria: (a) to be selected as a "negative behavior
perceiver," a subject had to check at least 20 behaviors (that he or
she saw the child emit on the videotape) and receive a perceptual bias
score of at least ~14; (b) to be selected as a "balanced behavior
perceiver," a subject had to check at least 20 behaviors and receive
a perceptual bias score that ranged from -1 to +1; (c) to be selected
as a "positive behavior perceiver," a subject had to check at least 20

behaviors and receive a perceptual bias score of at least +5. These

24

criteria were used so that the selection of groups seemed valid and so
that a minimum of 15 males and 15 females of each perceputal bias type
who had viewed either a male or female child would be available for
further study. One-hundred ninety-six (196) potential undergraduate
subjects were selected by these criteria. Mean bias scores and cell

frequencies for each condition are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Mean Bias Scores and Cell Frequencies.

 

Positive Bias Balanced Perception Negative Bias

 

 

Sex of Sex of

Subject Child Viewed Mean N Mean N Mean N
F F +6.80 (15)_ -0.24 (17) -l6.20 (18)
F M +7.02 (15) -0.07 (15) -16.38 (16)
M F +9.52 (18) +0.07 (18) -18.19 (16)
M M +9.07 (15) -0.81 (16) -l6.30 (l7)

 

Measurement of the Dependent Variables

 

l. Undergraduate's Child-Rearing Concerns.--After selection, 149

 

of the 196 positive, balanced, and negative behavior perceiving under-
graduates were administered the Child Rearing Concerns and Practices
Questionnaire (CRCP) along with completing other tasks not related to
the present investigation. The other potential subjects could either
not be contacted or scheduled. The CRCP Questionnaire was developed
by the present investigator for this study (see Appendix B).

Part 1 of the CRCP asked the subject to indicate on a scale
from ”very little” to "a great deal" how much he/she would be concerned

about or emphasize various aspects of the child's behavior. The 24

25

items were adapted from the Children's Behavior Checklist (Ferguson,
e£_§l;) and the Parent's Value Orientation Questionnaire (Olejnik and
McKinney, 1973). These items measure to what degree a parent or
prospective parent would focus his/her attention and be concerned with
various negative and positive behaviors of young children.

The positive behavior items of the CRCP Part I were conceptually
designed to tap the dimensions of competency-mastery or prosocial-
considerateness. The negative behavior items were geared to the
dimensions of aggression-hostility or authority-defiance. Scores on
the CRCP Part I thus revealed the relative salience for a parent of

various positive and negative behaviors typical of children.

2. Undergraduate's Child-Rearing Practices.--Part II of the CRCP

 

Questionnaire was administered to the 149 undergraduates along with
Part I (see Appendix B). It presented the subject with descriptions
of four typical parent-child interaction situations, each involving
one of the four dimensions of children's behavior: competence-mastery,
prosocial-considerateness, aggression-hostility, and authority-
defiance. Twenty responses were listed after each situation, and the
subject was asked to indicate on a scale from "Never" to "Usually" how
often he/she would respond in each of the 20 ways in such a situation
(or similar situations).

The 20 responses on situation A and the 20 responses on
situation C were conceptually designed to measure four kinds of
parental behavior: power assertion, love-withdrawal, induction, or
non-response. The 20 responses on situation B and the 20 responses on

situation D were designed to measure five kinds of parental behavior:

26

reward, demonstrate love, empathize—explain, take for granted, or
improve-criticize. Hence Part II of the CRCP assessed the ways in
which a parent or prospective parent might respond to a child who was

showing various kinds of positive or negative behavior.

3. Parent's Perceptions of Undergraduate Child.-—A letter was

 

mailed to the parents (couples) of 156 potential undergraduate

subjects requesting their participation in research for pay ($10.00/
couple). The parents of the remaining 40 potential undergraduate
subject were not contacted because they were either separated,
divorced, deceased, or because their addresses were not available (see
Appendix C for a cepy of the letter). Along with the cover letter,
cepies of the Children's Behavior Checklist Form Q and the CRCP
Questionnaire were enclosed. Each parent (mother and father) was

asked to complete independently the two instruments and return them in
an enclosed stamped envelope. The Children's Behavior Checklist Form Q
was almost identical to Form A except that some of the directions had
been modified and the items slightly reworded (see Appendix D). Form Q
asked the parent to complete the items in terms of how he/she perceived
the undergraduate who participated in the study. Hence Form Q attempted
to measure the child behavior perceptions retrospectively of the
parents who raised the positive, balanced, and negative behavior

perceiving undergraduates.

4. Child-Rearing Concerns of the Undergraduate's Parents.--As

 

described previously, Part I of the CRCP questionnaire assessed an

adult's emphasis on various positive and negative child behaviors, in

27

four areas: competence-mastery, prosocial-considerateness, aggression-

hostility, and authority-defiance.

5. Child-Rearing Practices of the Undergraduate's Parents.--As

 

described previously, Part II of the CRCP Questionnaire assessed the
ways in which a parent might respond to a child who was showing
various types of positive or negative behavior. More specifically, it
measured nine kinds of parental behavior (Reward, Demonstrate Love,
Empathize-Explain, Take for Granted, Improve-Criticize, Power
Assertion, Love Withdrawal, Induction, and Non-Response) in the four
parent-child interaction situations presented: Competency-Mastery,
Prosocial-Considerateness, Aggression—Hostility, and Authority-

Definance.

Final Subject Pool

 

Responses were received from 113 parental couples (72%). This
participation rate made it highly likely that the final parent subject
pool was representative of the population sampled. In nine cases the
protocols received were unusable because of incomplete responses
(7 cases) or because it was readily apparent from examining the pattern
of responses and the subject's handwriting that one person had completed
both sets of questionnaires (2 cases). The data potentially usable for
statistical analyses of dependent measures included: 147 under—
graduates' CRCP protocols; 105 mothers' CRCP protocols; 105 fathers'
CRCP protocols; 104 mothers' CBC protocols, and 105 fathers' CBC
protocols. Data apprOpriate for within-family comparison included:
CRCP protocols for all family members in 91 families; and CBC

protocols for both parents in 104 families. The frequencies of whole

28

family data within perceptual bias and undergraduate sex cells of the

design are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Distribution of Whole Family Data Used in Analyses.

 

 

 

Group % Returns N(CRCP) N(CBC)
Positive Males 70 15 families 19 couples
Positive Females 66 13 families 16 couples
Balanced Males 68 16 families 17 couples
Balanced Females 71 17 families 20 couples
Negative Males 63 15 families 15 couples
Negative Females 61 15 families 17 couples

Totals 91 families 104 couples

 

Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses

 

The study used factorial designs. For CRCP family data
(N=91 families), the dimensions of the design were 3(undergraduate's
perceptual style) X 2(sex of undergraduate) X 3(family role).
Dependent variables from the CRCP were generated through a principal
axis factor analysis using all available data (N=357 subjects). R?
was used as the estimate of communality, and factors were rotated to
a varimax solution. A separate analysis of variance was performed on
each of nine composite scores derived from the results of the factor
analysis.

For parents' perceptions of the undergraduate (CBC parents'
data, N=104 couples), the dimensions of the design were: 3(under-

graduate's perceptual style) X 2(sex of undergraduate X 2(family role).

29

Separate analyses of variance were performed for each of the four
composite scores on parents' CBC protocols.

For CRCP undergraduate data (N=l47 undergraduates), the
dimensions of the design were 3(undergraduate's perceptual style) X
2(sex of undergraduate). Separate analyses of variance were performed
on the nine dependent variables emerging from the factor analysis of
all data. Eight additional analyses of variance were conducted on
eight dependent variables emerging from another factor analysis based
on only undergraduate data. Also, two analyses of variance were
undertaken on new variables not originally suggested by factor
analysis.

Tests of simple effects were conducted when results from
analysis of variance yielded meaningful interactions. The Newman-Keuls
method was used to make multiple comparisons among means when

appropriate.

RESULTS

CRCP Factor Analysis

 

Principal axis factor analyses using R? as the estimate of
communality and varimax rotation were conducted for CRCP Part I
(concerns) and CRCP Part II (practices) separately. All available
data were used (147 undergraduate protocols, 105 mothers' protocols,
and 105 fathers' protocols; total N=357 subjects). Factors that were
produced by varimax rotation were further refined using the following
criteria: (1) an item had to load at least .45 on a factor; (2) an
item could not have a loading of greater than .30 on any other factor,
or there had to be a difference of at least .20 between an item's
loading on its two highest factors; and (3) a factor has to be defined
by at least three items.

Two factors meeting the above criteria emerged from the factor
analysis of CRCP Part I (child-rearing concerns). Together, they
accounted for 78.3 percent of the variance. Factor I was composed of
five items and was labelled "Concern With Child's Prosocial-Competent
Behavior." Factor 11 was composed of four items and was labelled
"Concern With Child's Aggression—Hostility." Items defining each
factor, rotated factor loadings, and percentage of variance accounted

for by each factor are presented in Table 4.

3O

31

Table 4. Summary of Factor Loadings-—CRCP Part I.

 

(Based on an N of 357 subjects)

Factor I (52.8% of variance)

”Concern With Child's Prosocial-Competent Behavior"

 

 

 

 

Item Loading
6. Shows concern about the feelings of others .67271
8 Shows self-confidence .66660
10. Makes friends easily .57221
14. Is polite and c00perative with others .53057
18. Pitches in when things need to be done .57748
Factor II (25.5% of variance)
"Concern With Child's Aggression—Hostility"
Item Loading
3. Gets irritated or angry easily .58973
7. Fights with friends or with brothers and sisters .55581
19. Blows up easily when bothered by someone .54010
23. Threatens to hit or hurt others .49331

 

 

 

32

Seven factors meeting the criteria emerged from the factor
analysis of CRCP Part II (child-rearing practices). Together, they
accounted for 77 percent of the variance. These factors were labelled
as follows: Factor III—-"Criticize-Threaten” (Power Assertion);

Factor IV--"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"; Factor V--
"Point Out Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior"; Factor VI--"Non-
Verbal Rejection" (Love—Withdrawal); Factor VII—-"Express Pride and
Happiness Over Child's Behavior;" Factor IX--"Demand Self-Control.”
Items definined each of these factors, rotated factor loadings, and
percentage of variance accounted for by each factor are presented in
Table 5.

Additional factor analyses then were performed separately for
mothers' data, fathers' data, all undergraduates' data, undergraduate
females' data, and undergraduate males' data. Inspection of results
from these separate analyses indicated that subgroups' factors were
highly similar to those of the group as a whole, and the minimal
differences that did occur were probably the result of sampling error
arising from smaller subgroup frequencies. The original factor
analysis thus yielded a useful reduction of the data in terms of nine
response dimensions that conceptually (as well as statistically) seemed

meaningful.

Analyses of Variance--Family Data

 

A total of thirteen analyses of variance were performed on the
family data (N=91 families). Dependent variables for nine of these
analyses were composite scores based on the nine CRCP factors reported
above. Dependent variables for the other four analyses were composite

scores from parents' CBC protocols.

33

Table 5. Summary of Factor Loadings--CRCP Part II.

 

26.

28.

37.

40.

43.

44.

67.

76.

79.

80.

(Based on an N of 357 subjects)

Factor III (27.7% of variance)

"Criticize--Threaten" (Power Assertion)

 

 

 

Item Situation Loading
Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself A .71630
Tell him he's being selfish A .60700
Tell him I'm disappointed in him A .56969

Tell him I would like him to be more considerate

of my wishes A .49214
Tell him he is just being stubborn and that he

better stOp it right now A .64125
Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't do it

right away A .54128
Tell him I don't like children who don't show

respect for their parents C .53433
Tell him he is acting like a little baby and

that he better stop it right now C .57816
Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't be quiet C .58267
Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself for

talking like that C .68242

 

 

45.

Factor IV (18.5% of variance)

"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"

 

Item Situation Loading

 

Give him some extra spending money or something

else he wants B .66634

34

Table 5. Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

Item Situation Loading
49. Promise him something he wants B .69831
55. Buy him something he wants B .75955
61. Tell him he'll be rewarded for doing so well B .57592
64. Make arrangements for him to do something he
has wanted to do for a long time B .57155
85. Let him do something special he wants to do D .51669
90. Reward him for doing the good deed D .68530
97. Give him some extra spending money or something
else he wants D .84038
101. Promise him something he wants D .72745
104. Buy him something he was wanted for a long time D .81435
Factor V (9.5% of variance)
”Point Out Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior"
Item Situation Loading
58. Explain to him that doing well will help
him feel good about himself and get what he
wants in life B .61836
59. Tell him I know how proud and happy he must be
because he did so well B .51272
63. Tell him that a job well done is rewarding for
its own sake B .57343
87. Explain to him that doing good will make him
feel good about himself in life D .78451

 

 

 

35

Table 5. Continued.

V...—..» -fl-.--o --—o".- ——- --. .—. —. -

 

93.

94.

99.

100.

H

Item Situation Loading

 

 

Say it is good when you treat others as you

would like to be treated D .57189
Explain how it makes him happy to do kind and

helpful things D .76411
Explain that being considerate to others makes a

person feel worthwhile D .82002
Tell him that doing something kind is very

rewarding just in itself D .78601

 

 

33.

35.

38.

41.

73.

82.

Factor VI (6.6% of variance)

"Non-Verbal Rejection" (Love-Withdrawal)

 

Item Situation Loading

 

 

Go and do it myself, but show him I'm hurt
and disappointed in him A .50623
Give him an angry look and walk away A .68638

Do it myself and show him I don't like it by

not talking to him for awhile A .60540
Do nothing A .45141
Give him an angry look and walk away C .73251

Give him an angry look and ignore him for awhile C .67089

 

 

36

Table 5. Continued.

 

Factor VII (6.4% of variance)

"Induction Discipline” (Reasoning)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lEee_ Situation Loading
27. Explain that if he would do it now, then I
would have a chance to do some other things
I need to do A .48159
29. Give reasons why the thing has to be done
right away A .67692
34. Tell him I'm sorry he'll miss the program and
explain why the thing has to be done now A .63041
39. Tell him we each have to help each other out and
I need for him to do the thing right away A .59579
Factor VIII (5.4% of variance)
"Express Pride and Happiness Over Child's Behavior"
Item Situation Loading
52. Show him how proud I am B .63263
53. Tell him to keep up the good work B .55657
54. Tell him that what he did makes me haPPY B .64901
96. Tell him I am proud of the way he acted D .55739

 

 

37

Table 5. Continued.

 

66.

69.

72.

Factor IX (2.8% of variance)

"Demand Self-Control"

 

Item Situation Loading

 

 

Tell him I don't like it when he talks back

angrily and that he can discuss it more

calmly C .64439
Explain that even though he's angry, I would

prefer that he express his feelings in a

regular tone of voice C .59243
Tell him that what he said hurts my feelings

and that he can express his anger without

saying nasty things to me C .52977

 

38

The nine CRCP dependent variables were computed by summing
scores over the items defining each factor. For example, a subject's
composite score on CRCP Factor I-—"Concern With Prosocial-Competent
Behavior"--was equal to the sum of his or her scores on items 6, 8, 10,
14, and 18. In this way, nine CRCP composite scores were computed for
each subject. These nine CRCP dependent variables were examined for
possible relations with the independent variables through nine
separate 3(undergraudate's perceptual style--positive, balanced or
negative) X 2(sex of undergraduate--male, female) X 3(family role--
child, mother, or father) analyses of variance. Summary tables for
these analyses are presented in Appendix E.

Four dependent variables from parents' CBC protocols were
subjected to four separate 3(undergraduate's perceptual style) X 2(sex
of undergraduate) X 2(fami1y role--mother, father) analyses of variance.
The CBC dependent variables were: (2) "Positive Items that Apply"--sum
of positive items checked in CBC column #1; (b) "Positive Items that
Are Characteristic”—-sum of positive items checked in CBC column #2;
(c) "Negative Items that Apply"--sum of negative items checked in CBC
column #1; and (d) "Negative Items that are Characteristic"--sum of
negative items checked in CBC column #2. Summary tables for these
analyses of variance can be found in Appendix F.

A summary of all significant results (p < .05) for these
analyses of variance on family data is presented in Table 6. A number
of significant §_ratios were obtained for family role main effects
in the analyses of CRCP dependent variables (Factors III, VI, VII,
VIII, and IX). These results indicated that children, mothers, and

fathers differed significantly from one another in certain child-rearing

39

Table 6.--Summary of Significant Results Reflecting Comparisons Not
Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for ANOVAS on Family
Data (N=91 Families).

-.._..-7 ---_..-7 - --.- -
_._.~__—_.—_—.. .—

 

Dependent

Variable Source F_ p
Factor I Sex of Undergraduate X Family Role 6.08 .005
Factor III Family Role 9.01 .001
Factor VI Family Role 8.01 .001
Factor VII Family Role 12.13 .001
Factor VIII Family Role 3.70 .025
Factor IX Family Role 10.23 .001
CBC

Negative

Column #2 Sex of Undergraduate X Family Role 6.25 .025

 

practices. Two results revealed a significant sex of undergraduate X
family role interaction effect (Factor I and CBC variable "Negative
Items that Are Characteristic"). A more detailed presentation of these
results from family data is organized according to independent vari-

ables later in this chapter.

Analyses of Variance--Undergraduate Data

 

Since the preceding analyses of variance on family data
included only those undergraduate subjects for whom parents' data was
also available (N=91), additional analyses were conducted using all
available undergraduates' CRCP protocols (N=l47). This larger under-
graduate data pool included 46 positive perceivers, 50 balanced per-

ceivers, and 51 negative perceivers.

40

Using the same CRCP dependent variables as were used in the
analysis of family data, nine separate 3(undergraduate's perceptual
style) X 2(sex of undergraduate) analyses of variance were performed
on the undergraduate area. These analyses yielded no significant
results.

A second set of analyses of variance was performed on the
undergraduate data, this time using as dependent variables eight
composite scores based on the factor analysis of only the 147 under—
graduate CRCP protocols. As noted previous, there seemed to be only
minimal differences between the results of the factor analysis on all
data (N=357) and the results of the factor analysis on only the under-
graduates' protocols. However, this set of eight analyses of variance
produced significant main effects for sex on Undergraduate Factor III--
"Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior" and Undergraduate Factor
VIII--"Take Desirable Behavior for Granted." Items composing these
factors and their rotated factor loadings are presented in Table 7.

The corresponding analyses of variance summary tables can be found in
Appendix G.

A third set of analyses of variance was performed on the
undergraduate data. This set followed from a careful examination of
the differences between F ratios obtained through the two sets of
analyses of variance on undergraduate data described above. It appeared
that certain items on similar factors were contributing to lower
significance of effects on four of the dependent variables in the
second set of analyses. Four new composite variables were created,
deleting those items which potentially were masking significant effects.

Separate analyses of variance were conducted for these new variables.

41

Table 7. Summary of Undergraduate Factors 111 and VIII.

 

(Based on an N of 147 undergraudate subjects)

Undergraduate Factor III (16.1% of variance)

 

"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Situation Loading
45. Give him some extra spending money or some—
thing else he wants B .72325
49. Promise him something he wants B .76509
55. Buy him something he wants B .86558
64. Make arrangements for him to do something he has
wanted to do for a long time B .63923
90. Reward him for doing the good deed D .63829
97. Give him some extra spending money or
something else he wants D .80311
101. Promise him something he wants D .66415
104. Buy him something he has wanted for a long time D .79250
Undergeaduate Factor VIII (2.8% of variance)
"Take Desirable Behavior for Granted"
Item_ Situation Loading
60. Show him that these things are just expected
and that they are no big deal B .60714
91. Ask why he isn't always so cooperative and

considerate D .58621

42

Table 7. Continued.

 

Item Situation Loading_

 

 

95. Show him that these things are just expected
and are no big deal D .74785
98. Point out some other good things he ought to

be doing but hasn't been doing D .66634

 

43

Two of these tests yielded significant main effects for perceptual
style. Items composing these two new variables are presented in

Table 8. The corresponding analyses of variance summary tables can be
found in Appendix H.

A summary of all significant results (p < .05) for analyses of
variance on undergraduate data is presented in Table 9. Two of these
results indicated male vs. female differences in child-rearing
practices (Undergraduate Factor III and Undergraduate Factor VIII).
The other two significant results revealed differences between
positive, balanced, and negative behavior perceiving undergraduates'
child-rearing practices (Undergraduate New Variable 1 "Shaming—
Criticizing” and Undergraduate New Variable 2 "Do Nothing"). A
more detailed presentation of these results from undergraduate data is

organized according to independent variables later in this chapter.

The Effects of Perceptual Style

 

l. Undergraduate Data.--A significant main effect was obtained for

 

perceptual style on New Undergraduate Variable l-—"Shaming—Criticizing”
(F=3.867, p < .025). The Newman-Keuls procedure for comparisons among
means revealed that negative behavior perceivers scored significantly
higher on this dimension than balanced or positive behavior perceivers
(p < .05). Balanced and positive perceivers did not differ signifi-
cantly from one another on this variable. Cell means for the three
groups of undergraduates are presented in Table 10

These results show that negative behavior perceivers are

significantly more likely than positive or balanced behavior

44

Table 8. New Undergraduate Variables.

New Undepgraduate Variable l

 

"Shaming-Criticizing"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item Situation
26. Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself A
28. Tell him he is being selfish A
37. Tell him I'm disappointed in him A
40. Tell him I would like him to be more considerate
of my wishes A
67. Tell him I don't like children who don't show
respect for their parents C
76. Tell him he is acting like a little baby and that
he better step it right now C
79. Tell him he'll be sorry if he doesn't be quiet C
80. Tell him he ought to be ashamed of himself for
talking like that C
New Undergraduate Variable 2
Item Situation
41. Do nothing A

 

45

Table 9. Summary of Significant Results Reflecting Comparisons Not
Qualified by Higher-Order Interactions for ANOVAS on Under-
graduate Data (N=147 undergraduates).

 

 

Dependent Variable Source 5_ p_
Undergraduate Factor 111 Sex of Undergraduate 4.203 .05
Undergraduate Factor VIII Sex of Undergraduate 8.158 .005
New Undergraduate Variable
"Shaming-Criticizing" Perceptual Style 3.867 .025
New Undergraduate Variable
"Do Nothing" Perceptual Style 3.863 .025

 

perceivers to use "Shaming-Criticizing” techniques of discipline with
their children.

Another significant main effect was obtained for perceptual
style on New Undergraduate Variable 2--"Do Nothing" (F=3.863, p < .025).
The Newman-Keuls method revealed that positive behavior perceivers
scored significantly higher on this dimension than did balanced or
negative behavior perceivers (p < .05). Balanced and negative behavior
perceivers did not differ significantly from one another on this
variable. Cell means for the three groups of undergraduates are
presented in Table 10. These results show that when faced with a
conflict situation in which the child refuses to meet an important
parental request, positive behavior perceivers are more likely than
balanced or negative behavior perceivers to withdraw and comply with

the child's wishes (i.e., Do nothing).

2. Family Data.--No significant main effects or interaction

 

effects involving perceptual style were obtained in the analyses of

46

.Amv cues no m<u cams Hespfio scum saucmoflmficwflm

segues so: mace Ame A<V cam: .Amc memes seem ”mo. v av ssocaoflmflcmhm whomeae A<U camz..

ow A<S eoHHoEmH meme:

.wezuocm eco Eowm xfipcmeflmficwflm wemmfie we:

.A<c eossmsma memos seem “mo. v ac saucmuamacwam meoemfie Ami cmmz.

 

adv oon.o
e>Hummez mo wedged»

Ame Hom.oH
o>fipmmez mo whenpoz

Ame oom.m~
Amwcfiumm .mucesmav
mefimz eeucmfimm

Amy mv.

o>apamoa

”my so.as
m>flummez

n<v oom.o

e>flufim0d mo myocumm

Ame n<c mam.m~

o>fiufimom mo mpozpoz

Ame n<v mmN.wH
Ammcfiumm .mucowmav
mefimz e>flummez

fl<v AN.
veucmfimm

n<v Hw.m
beecmamm

Ame wma.s

beecmamm mo whenumd

.:Hoeo:ou
-chm usages:

a«:pofl>m:om
economeou-flmfloom
noun spa: caeucou:

n<v mem.4H
woodmamm mo mnoguoz
flag Ham.ofi

Ammcwumm .mucewmmv
mean: e>fluamom

seagumfiuouemumnu

eh< push
mEewH e>Hufimom umu

n<v NH.
e>fiumwez «:mcflzuoz on:
A<v ow.m

.:mcaeaem
e>flufimom -mcflNHUAHARU:

 

mewoum can:

oanmflum> uceecemeo

 

.muasmem eaxum Hmsumeouem mo kneessm .oH ofinmh

47

variance on the family data. Because differences among family members
of positive, balanced, and negative perceivers were expected on the
basis of theory, the decision was made to investigate further (through
analyses of simple effects) the interaction effects involving per-
ceptual style when the overall F_had p_less than .20. This extremely
liberal statistical approach was suggested by Winer (1971): "The
specific comparisons which are built into the design or suggested by
the theoretical basis for the experiment can and should be made
individually, regardless of the outcome of the corresponding over-all
F_test" (p. 384). Because of the large number of dependent variables,
a cut-off point of p < .20 was used.

The results regarding perceptual style for family data

presented below are intended only to spggest possible trends and

 

directions for future research. Results are described for simple
effects analyses that yielded significant F_ratios (p < .05). Signi-
ficant results from the analyses of simple effects were explored
further utilizing the Newman-Keuls procedure.

The perceptual style X sex of undergraduate interaction
obtained for CBC dependent variable "Positive Items that are Charac-
teristic" was non-significant (F=l.97, p < .02). However, further
exploration via simple effects analysis (looking at the three con-
ditions of perceptual style within males and females separately)
yielded a significant E_for males (F=3.099, p < .05). The Newman—Keuls
procedure then was used to make comparisons among the means of
parents' ratings of their positive, balanced or negative behavior
perceiving undergraduates. These comparisons revealed a significant

difference between parents' ratings of positive and balanced behavior

48

perceiving males, with the latter being rated significantly higher than
the former (p < .05). Negative behavior perceiving males were not
rated significantly differently from the other two groups. Cell means
for the three groups of parents' ratings are presented in Table 10.

The perceptual style X family role interaction obtained for
CRCP Factor I-—"Concern With Prosocial-Competent Behavior"--was non-
significant (F=l.66, p < .20). However, further exploration via simple
effects analysis (looking at the three conditions of perceptual style
within each family role separately) yielded a significant §_for mothers
(F=3.474, p < .05). The Newman-Keuls method revealed that mothers of
balanced behavior perceivers were significantly less concerned with
prosocial-competent behavior than were mothers of negative behavior
perceivers (p < .05). There was not a significant difference on this
dimension between mothers of positive behavior perceivers and the other
two groups. Cell means for the three groups of mothers are presented
in Table 10.

The perceptual style X family role interaction obtained for
CRCP Factor IV—-"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"
approached significance (F=2.30, p < .10). Further exploration via
analysis of simple effects (looking at the three conditions of per-
ceptual style within each family role separately) yielded a significant
§_for mothers (F=3.0836, p < .05). The Newman-Keuls procedure did not
reveal significant differences among mothers of positive, balanced, or
negative behavior perceiving undergraduates. However, the differences
between mothers of balanced behavior perceivers and the other two
groups closely approached significance, with the mothers of balanced

behavior perceivers scoring higher. Cell means for the three groups

49

mothers' scores on Factor IV were mothers of negative = 10.967; mothers
of positive = 11.536; and mothers of balanced = 15.121.

The perceptual style X family role interaction obtained for
CRCP Factor IX--"Demand Self-Control" was non-significant (F=l.92,
p < .20). However, further exploration via simple effects analysis
(looking at the three conditions of perceptual style within each family
role separately) yielded a significant F_for fathers (F=4.581, p < .05).
The Newman-Keuls test revealed that fathers of balanced behavior per-
ceivers scored significantly lower on Factor IX than fathers of positive
and fathers of negative behavior perceivers (p < .05). Fathers of
positive and fathers of negative behavior perceivers did not differ
from each other significantly. Cell means for the three groups of

fathers' scores on Factor IX are presented in Table 10.

3. Summary of Results for Perceptual Style.-—On the basis of

 

undergraduate CRCP data (N=l47 undergraduates), negative behavior
perceivers were found to use ”Shaming-Criticizing" responses in
parent-child conflict situations significantly more often than did
balanced and positive behavior perceivers. Positive behavior per-
ceivers were found to comply with the child's wishes (i.e., Do Nothing)
in such situations significantly more often than did balanced and
negative behavior perceivers.

On the basis of family CRCP data (N=91 families), differences
that occurred among parents of positive, balanced, and negative
behavior perceivers must be viewed with caution since they were
associated with nonsignificant overall E_ratios. These differences,

if substantiated by future research, would suggest: (a) Parents of

50

balanced behavior perceiving males view their children as showing more
positive behavior characteristically than do parents of positive
behavior perceiving males; (b) Mothers of negative behavior perceivers
show more "Concern with Child's Prosocial-Competent Behavior" than do
mothers of balanced behavior perceivers; (c) Mothers of balanced
behavior perceivers "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"
more often than do mothers of positive and negative behavior per-
ceivers; and (d) Fathers of balanced behavior perceivers are less
likely than fathers of positive and negative behavior perceivers to
"Demand Self-Control" when the child is expressing anger toward the
parent.

A summary of means reflecting significant (p < .05) Newman-
Keuls comparisons for perceptual style that were not qualified by

higher-order interactions is presented in Table 10.

Sex of Undergraduate Effects

 

l. Undergraduate Data.--Significant main effects for sex were

 

obtained on Undergraduate Factor III--"Give Extrinsic Reward for
Desirable Behavior" (F=4.203, p < .05). Inspection of means on this
dimensions revealed that male undergraduates scored significantly
higher than female undergraduates. Cell means are presented in
Table 11.

Significant main effects for sex also were obtained on Under-
graduate Factor VIII--"Take Desirable Behavior for Granted” (F=8.158,
p < .005). Inspection of means for this dimensions showed that male
undergraduates scored significantly higher than female undergraduates.

Cell means are presented in Table 11.

 

51

Table 11. Summary of Sex of Undergraduate Results.

 

 

Dependent Variable Mean Scores
"Extrinsic Reward"* Females Males
10.02 (A) 11.89 (B)
"Take Desirable Behavior Females Males
for Granted”*
1.57 (A) 2.52 (B)
"C”C Negative Items That Females Males
Are Characteristic”* (Mothers' Ratings) (Mothers' Ratings)
1.094 (A) 2.529 (B)
"Concern With Prosocial- Fathers of Males Fathers of Females
Competent Behavior"*
12.913 (A) 15.289 (B)

 

*Mean (A) differs significantly (p < .05) from mean (B).

2. Family Data.--The sex of undergraduate X family role inter-

 

action for CRCP Factor I--"Concern With Child's Prosocial-Competent
Behavior" was significant (F=6.08, p < .005). Further exploration via
analyses of simple effects (looking at the sex of undergraduate
variable within each family role) yielded a significant E_for fathers
(F=l3.84ll, p < .001). Fathers of females scored significantly higher
on this dimension than fathers of males. Cell means are presented in
Table 11.

The sex of undergraduate X family role interaction obtained
for CBC variable ”Negative Items that Are Characteristic” was signifi-
cant (F=6.25, p < .025). Further exploration through analysis of

simple effects (looking at the sex of undergraduate variable within

52

each family role) yielded a significant F_for mothers (F=8.301, p <
.005). Mothers of males rated their child significantly higher on
this dimension than mothers of females. Cell means are presented in

Table 11.

3. Sex of Undergraduate Effects-~Summary.--On the basis of under—

 

graduate CRCP data (N=l47 undergraduates), males were more likely than
females to "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior," and males
were also more likely than females to "Take the Child's Desirable
Behavior for Granted." For family data (N=91 families), fathers of
females showed more "Concern With Prosocial-Competent Behavior" than
did fathers of males. Also, male undergraduates were rated by their
mothers as showing more negative behaviors characteristically than
female undergraduates. Cell means reflecting significant (p < .05)
Newman-Keuls comparisons for sex of undergraduate effects that were not

qualified by higher order interactions are summarized in Table 11.

 

The Effects of Family Role

1. Family Role Main Effects.--A significant main effect for family

 

role was revealed for CRCP Factor III--"Criticize-Threaten (Power
Assertion)" (F=9.01, p < .001). The Newman-Keuls procedure showed
that fathers scored significantly higher (p < .01) on this dimension
than did mothers or children. Mothers and children did not differ
significantly from each other in their use of this technique. Cell
means for the three family roles on Factor III are presented in

Table 12.

53

.eoeaoca ago gone Ame. V dc saucmoflmucwam pmmmHe Ham new new .nmv .A<V mammz..t

evades so: woos Ame A<v an»:

as fl<c emssonas memo:

.mmv came so a<v came umguwo scum xfiucmewmficwflm

.fimv came gone Ame. v as sspcaoucwcmfim assumes A<v amoz..

.nocuocm eco scum smucmofimwcmfim nommfiw uoc

.fl4v nosaonas mamas scum “mo. V dc saucmoamucwam mwmmmae Ame cmoz.

 

A<v omo.ms
mafia: mo mpmguoz

flue Noma.a
cmeesueu

Ame vemo.mH
mpecuoz

Ame ANmN.HH
cmensanu

Ame ammm.m
whenuoz

any Hmmm.mH
mnozumm

A<V Nmo.eH
amassueu mam:

Amy Hmwm.o
mwecuoz

fimVfi<v mmmo.m~
coeeflagu

m<v mono.m
mhmcuoz

fl<c HNHQ.m
whenumm

fl<v Awsm.ms
mposuoz

Amy mam.ms
mean: we whecumm

fl<c Hmvm.m
mwmnumm

m<v «Hum.ms
whenumm

A<v noem.m
maenpmm

fl<v Acmm.m
conesagu

A<V wwom.NH
:ehvfifinu

«:nofl>mnem
uceuemEouifimfleomopa
m.efiflnu :HH3 anoecouz

ass:~0hu:ou
iMHmm flCMEOQ:
..:oeaea massage:

fiwcflcommemv
.:o:usdaumuo couuosecsz

fismzaee:ua2-m>osc
*:fiOMHUOhOm HNDH®>ICOZ:

Acoflpaemm< uozomv
s::eumeugh ouwofiufinu:

 

moaouw awe:

oflnmfinm> ucmvceaea

 

.mufismem oHom xfiflswm mo xnmeeam .NH magma

54

A significant main effect for family role also was obtained
for Factor VI-—"Non-Verba1 Rejection (Love Withdrawal)" (F=8.01, p <
.001). The Neman-Keuls test revealed that mothers scored significantly
higher on this dimension than did fathers and children (p < .01).
Fathers and children did not differ significantly from each other.
Cell means for the three family roles on Factor VI are presented in
Table 12.

The family role main effect for Factor VII--"Induction
Discipline (Reasoning)" was significant (F=12.13, p < .001). The
Newman—Keuls method showed that children were significantly higher on
this dimensions than were mothers and fathers (p < .01). Fathers and
mothers did not differ significantly from one another in their use of
"Induction Discipline." Cell means for the three family roles on
Factor VII are presented in Table 12.

The family role main effect for Factor VIII-~"Express Pride
and Happiness Over Child's Behavior" was significant (F=3.70, p <
.025). The Newman-Keuls procedure showed that mothers scored signifi-
cantly higher on this factor than fathers (p < .05). Children did not
differ significantly from either of their parents. Cell means for the
three family roles on Factor VIII are presented in Table 12.

A significant main effect for family role was obtained for
Factor IX--"Demand Self-Control" (F=10.23, p < .001). The Newman-Keuls
procedure revealed that mothers scored significantly higher on this
dimension than did fathers (p < .05); children scored significantly
higher than their mothers (p < .05); and children scored significantly
higher than fathers (p <.01). Cell means for the three family roles

on Factor IX are presented in Table 12.

55

2. Family Role X Sex of Undergraduate Interactions.--The family

 

role X sex of undergraduate interaction obtained for CRCP Factor I--
"Concern With Child's Prosocial-Competent Behavior" was significant
(F=6.08, p < .005). Further exploration via simple effects analysis
(looking at family role within each sex of undergraduate condition)
yielded a significant F_for males (F=9.7986, p < .001). The Newman—
Keuls test revealed that fathers of males scored significantly lower

on Factor I than mothers of males and male children (p < .01). Mothers
of males did not differ significantly from their children on this
dimension. Cell means for male children, their mothers, and their
fathers are presented in Table 12.

The family role X sex of undergraduate interaction for CBC
variable "Negative Items That Are Characteristic" also was significant
(F=6.25, p < .025). Further exploration via simple effect analysis
(looking at family role within each sex of undergraduate condition)
yielded a nonsignificant F for males (F=2.810, p < .10). Inspection of
the means showed that mothers of males, as compared to fathers of males,
rated their children as showing somewhat more negative behavior
characteristically. The mean for mothers of males was 2.529, while

for fathers of males the mean was 1.686.

3. Summary of Family Role Results.--The results for family role

 

revealed: (a) Fathers were significantly more likely to use criticism
and threats in parent-child conflict situations as compared to mothers
or children; (b) Mothers were significantly more likely to use non-
verbal rejection in parent-child conflict situations as compared to

fathers or children; (c) Children were significantly more likely to

56

use non-verbal rejection in parent-child conflict situations as compared
to fathers or children; (c) Children were significantly more likely to
use induction discipline (reasoning) in parent-child conflict situations
as compared to mothers or fathers; (d) Mothers were significantly more
likely to express their own feelings of pride in response to the

child's desirable behavior as compared to fathers; (e) Children were
significantly more likely than mothers and fathers to demand that the
child control his anger toward the parent in a conflict situation, and
mothers were significantly more likely than fathers to demand self—
control; and (f) Fathers of males were significantly less concerned
with the child's prosocial-competent behavior than were mothers of
males or male children. Cell means and significant (p < .05) Newman-
Keuls comparisons for family role effects that were not qualified by

higher-order interactions are summarized in Table 12.

DISCUSSION

Dimensions of Child-Rearing Concerns and Practices

 

A central question in the interpretation of results is the
meaning of CRCP dependent variables emerging from factor analysis.

The CRCP dependent variables will be discussed below in terms of their
presumed potential for influencing the social and emotional well—being
of children.

Factor I--"Concern With Child's Prosocial-Competent Behavior"
would seem to bear a positive relationship to the child's development
of socially responsible behavior. In line with our previous hypothesis,
a lack of concern with prosocial-competent behavior implies that such
behavior would be unnoticed and ignored by the parent and consequently
extinguished from the child's repertoire. 0n the other hand, a high
degree of such concern implies perceptual sensitivity to the value of
prosocial and competent actions and permits the parent to respond
supportively to them. Theoretically, the child whose parent shows a
high degree of concern with prosocial-competent behavior would be more
likely to value and demonstrate kindness, helpfulness, self-confidence,
and cooperation. In turn, each of these traits would seem to lead to
interpersonal success with peers, teachers, and within the family. On
the other hand, it is also conceivable that an extremely high score on
concern with prosocial-competent behavior indicates moral rigidity or

excessive demands for obedience.

57

58

Support for the hypothesis that parental conCern with positive
behavior is associated with the development of such behavior in children
can be found in a study by Olejnik and McKinney (1973). Parental
prescriptive value-orientation to child-rearing (emphasis on doing or
avoiding doing geee) compared to parental prescriptive orientation
(emphasis on doing or avoiding doing pee) was related to generosity in
four year-old children. Children of "prescriptive” parents tended to
be givers while children of "prescriptive" parents tended to be non-
givers. This research is also relevant to Factor II--"Concern with
Child's Aggression-Hostility." High-scorers on Factor I would appear
to be sililar to "prescriptive" parents, while high—scorers on Factor
11 would appear to be similar to "prescriptive" parents.

However, parental concern with the child's aggression-hostility
(Factor II) is more complex. Clearly, a parent who was unconcerned with
his child's aggressiveness of the sort described on the CRCP would be
viewed as lax, insensitive to needed limit-setting, and possibly as
giving tacit approval for the child's acting-out (Baumrind, 1973;
Becker, 1964; Johnson, 1959). At the other extreme, high-scorers may
be so intent on finding asocial behavior that their "over-concern" acts
as a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., leading then to attend to negative
behavior excessively and thereby rewarding or encouraging it (Johnson,
1959). In this sense, concern with the child's aggression-hostility
would seem to bear a curvilinear relationship to the development of
socially responsible behavior in children (moderate levels being the
most facilitative when coupled with effective limit-setting).

Some of the dependent variables emerging from factor analysis

of CRCP Part II bear meaningful similarities to parental behavior

59

dimensions utilized in previous research on personality development
(Baumrind, 1967, 1973; Becker, 1964; Hoffman, 1963, 1970; Reif and
Stollak, 1972). In accordance with Reif and Stollak's review, some
of the factors from CRCP Part II can be divided into those presumed
to facilitate the child's well-being ("effective" parental behaviors)
and those presumed to be non-facilitative of his well-being and
potentially contributing to social and emotional disturbance ("in-
effective" parental behaviors). Effective child-rearing practices
would include:
(1) behaviors associated with understanding the child, e.g.,
Reflection of verbal content, Reflection of Feelings, Reflection
of motor behavior, and Interpretation; (2) behaviors associated
with the expression of positive feelings toward the child, e.g.,
Praise of behavior, Affection, and Warmth; (3) behaviors
associated with appropriate control and participation, e.g.,
Setting limits with explanations, Orienting, Clarifying compliance,
Giving help, and Reciprocal participation in fantasy behavior;
and (4) behaviors associated with the [Adult's] expression of
himself as an individual, e.g., Statements of own emotion and
global Genuineness. (Reif and Stollak, 1972, p. 19)
On the other hand, ineffective parental practices appear to involved:
"(1) behaviors associated with non-acceptance of the child, e.g.,
Criticism, Asking questions, Praise person on the basis of behavior,
and global Rejection-hostility; and (2) behaviors associated with over
or under control of the child, e.g., Direction, Setting limits without
explanation, Initiating fantasy behavior, Non-attention, and Un-
clarified compliance" (Reif and Stollak, 1972, p. 19).
As is readily apparent, some of the CRCP dependent variables
can be presumed on the basis of previous research to be effective.
Factor V-—"Point Out Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior" contains

a Reflection of feelings component and an other-oriented induction

component, both of which seem facilitative of the child's developing

6O

self-awareness, internal locus of control, and sensitivity to others
(Axline, 1947; Hoffman, 1963, 1970). Items in Factor VIl—-"Induction
Discipline" involve setting appropriate limits, statements of own
feelings, and reasoning. Such practices have consistently been found
to relate positively to the child's development of self-control, self-
confidence, prosocial behavior, autonomy, and advanced morality
(Baumrind, 1973; Becker, 1954; Hoffman, 1970; and Coopersmith, 1967).

Similarly, Factor IX——"Demand Self-Control" contains items
which involve statements of own feelings, appropriate limit-setting, and
other-oriented induction. However, it also contains an inhibitory
component, demanding that the child suppress his verbal expression of
anger, and perhaps a guild-inducing component (e.g., item #72--"Tell
him that what he said hurts my feelings and that he can express his
anger without saying nasty things to me"). The effectiveness of Factor
IX responses is therefore somewhat unclear, although the items seem
generally to be in the direction of facilitating the child's appro-
priate self-control (see Baumrind, 1967).

Factor VIII--"Express Pride and Happiness Over the Child's
Desirable Behavior" has a praise of behavior component and a statement
of own feelings component, both of which are presumed to be effective.
However, the items in Factor VIII suggest that the child should do
"good" for the parent's sake, possibly to boost the parent's self-
esteem, and seem to shift "ownership" of the child's desirable behavior
to the parent. For these reasons, the overall effectiveness of
Factor VIII child-rearing practices is unclear, but again the items

appear to be in the facilitative direction.

61

Factor IV and Undergraduate Factor 111 have both been labelled
"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior." All items in these
factors consist of positive reinforcement for prosocial-competent
behavior, and on face value, such practices would seem to increase
their frequency. However, contingent reward may suggest to the child
that kindness, helpfulness, and achievement have value only insofar as
they bring external financial benefits and special privileges unrelated
to the behavior itself. The intrinsic value or ethical principle
involved in the behavior is ignored. The parent's response does not
seem to encourage the child's awareness of his or her own competence
motivation nor does it explicitly encourage the child to develop
internalized moral principles, internal locus of evaluation, and
sensitivity to the needs of others. Moreover, it seems to this author
that the emphasis on external reward and the nature of some of the
rewards (e.g., gifts and money) would inhibit the development of
advanced morality, e.g., Kohlberg's Stage 6 (Kohlberg, 1963). Instead,
techniques of external reward would seem to promote an instrumental
or role-confirming approach to prosocial behavior (stages 2 and 3).
At best, Factor IV and Undergraduate Factor III can be considered
neutral with regard to their impact on the child's positive socio-
emotional development.

The remainder of the factors clearly appear to be ineffective.
Factor III-~"Criticize-Threaten (Power Assertion)" involves a parental
hostility component as well as setting limits without explanation.
These practices have consistently been associated with the child's
weak moral deveIOpment and counter-aggression (Becker, 1964; Hoffman,

1970). The same may be said for New Undergraduate Variable I--

62

"Criticizing-Shaming," and Undergraduate Factor VIII-—"Take Desirable
Behavior for Granted.” The latter seems to have a high criticism
component.

Factor VI--"Non—Verbal Rejection (Love-Withdrawal)" contains a
parental hostility component. Such rejection has been found to bear
little relation to moral development, but it seems to be associated
with the development of conduct disorders, lower self—esteem, and
withdrawn-inhibited behavior (Becker, 1964).

Lastingly, New Undergraduate Variable 2--"Do Nothing" implies
that the adult is overly permissive, ambivalent, or lax with the child,
and has difficulty setting consistent and appropriate limits. In
Baumrind's studies (1967, 1973), parents' permissive non-control was
associated with the child's lack of self-control, lack of self-
reliance, and tendency to retreat from novel experiences.

In summary, high scores on the following CRCP dimensions are
presumed to be the most facilitative of the children's social and
emotional well—being: Factor I--"Concern With Child's Prosocial-
Competent Behavior"; Factor V--"Point Out Intrinsic Reward of Desirable
Behavior"; and Factor VII-~"Induction Discipline." On the other hand,
high scores on the CRCP dimensions listed below are presumed to be
ineffective or to contribute to the development of weaker morality and
possibly behavior dysfunctions in children: Factor III--"Criticize-
Threaten (Power Assertion)"; New Undergraduate Variable l--"Criticizing-
Shaming"; Undergraduate Factor VIII--"Take Desirable Behavior for
Granted"; Factor VI--"Non-Verbal Rejection"; and New Undergraduate
Variable 2--"Comply with Child's Wishes." Factor I[--"Concern With

Child's Aggression-Hostility" would seem to bear a curvilinear

63

relationship to positive child development, with moderate scores being
Optional. The consequences of parental dimensions "Demand Self-
Control" (Factor IX) and ”Express Pride” (Factor VIII) are ambiguous
but seem to be in the facilitative direction. The effects of Factor IV
and Undergraduate Factor III--"Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable
Behavior"are also ambiguous but seem to be in the non-facilitative
direction from the point of view of moral development. A summary
table is presented below (Table 13).

It must be stressed that the actual (as opposed to the
theoretical) consequences of the parental dimensions derived from
factor analysis of the CRCP have not been determined. Only a
longitudinal or cross-sectional design investigating the association
of CRCP responses with child behavior would yield a more definitive

specification of their meaning and influence.

Biases in Adults' Perceptions of Children

 

The small number of significant findings regarding perceptual
style suggests either that (a) this variable's relation to child-
rearing practices is less potent than predicted, or (b) methodological
weaknesses in the measurement of dependent variables masked potential
effects of perceptual style (see section on Methodology below).
Furthermore, some of the trends regarding parental attitudes associated
with undergraduates' perceptual biases seem to contradict what was
expected on the basis of theory.

The finding that negative behavior perceiving undergraduates
were more likely than balanced or positive perceivers to use

"Criticizing-Shaming" disciplinary techniques is clearly in the

64

Table 13. Dependent Variables and Their Presumed Consequences for the
Development of Children's Psychosocial Well-Being.

 

 

Dependent Variable Score Effectiveness
Factor I: "Concern with Child's Prosocial High E*
Competent Behavior"
Factor V: "Point Out Intrinsic Reward High E
of Desirable Behavior"
Factor VII: "Induction Discipline" High E
Factor 11: "Concern with Child's Moderate E
Aggression—Hostility"
Factor IX: "Demand Self-Control" High (E)**
Factor VIII: "Express Pride" High (E)
Factor III: "Criticize-Threaten High I***
(Power Assertion)”
Factor VI: "Non-Verbal Rejection High I
(Love-Withdrawal)"
New Undergraduate Variable: High I
"Criticizing-Shaming"
New Undergraduate Variable 2: High 1
"Do Nothing"
Undergraduate Factor VIII: High I
"Take Desirable Behavior for Granted"
Factor IV: "Give Extrinsic Reward High (I)
for Desirable Behavior"
Undergraduate Factor III: "Give High (1)

Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"

 

*E=Effective.

**Parentheses denote greater ambiguity about

child's development.

***I=Ineffective.

effects on

65

predicted direction. It suggests that negative behavior perceivers

are more authoritarian and punitive. In this sense, they seem somewhat
similar to Baumrind's (1967) pattern 11 parents whose children were
discontent, withdrawn, and distrustful. Of course, only longitudinal
research could substantiate this hypothesized similarity.

The finding that positive perceivers, as compared to balanced
and negative perceivers, were more likely to do nothing in response
to the child's refusal to meet a parental demand indicates that positive
perceivers are less able or more ambivalent about exerting parental
authority. Parental inability to set limits or exert authority within
a democratic framework has been associated with the child's lack of
self-control, lack of self-reliance, and tendency to retreat from
novel experiences (Baumrind, 1967; Becker, 1964).

The tenor of these two results is that adults who are most
realistic and accurate in their perceptions of children (i.e., balanced
perceivers) are also less likely to endorse child-rearing practices
that may promote behavior disorder in children. At one extreme, adults
with negative behavior perceptual biases seem more rejecting and
authoritarian. 0n the other end of the perceptual continuum, positive
behavior perceivers are more likely to do nothing in a parent-child
conflict situation, i.e., they seem less able to use parental influence
effectively.

In general, the findings of this study did not yield strong
support for the notion that perceptual styles of undergraduates are
related to their parents' child-rearing attitudes or perceptions. Some
trends (associated with non-significant F_ratios) were found in the

data, but these findings must be interpreted skeptically pending

66

further investigation. One of these trends indicated that balanced
males were viewed more positively by their parents than were positive
males. This finding implies one of several things: (a) balanced
behavior perceiving male undergraduates demonstrated more positive
behaviors in middle childhood than did positive males; (b) the parents
of balanced behavior perceiving males selectively perceived more
positive behavior when their offspring were young children; or (c)
parents of balanced behavior perceiving males responded more "defen-
sively" to the CBC, making items in a socially desirable direction.

If one assumes that (a) and/or (b) above are the case, then the
finding suggests that children who are viewed more positively by their
parents are also most likely to be accurate perceivers as adults.
Assuming further that positive parental perceptions tend to increase
offsprings' self-esteem, there would be less "need" for balanced
behavior perceivers to form perceptual biases or distortions.2

However, the tentative nature of this trend in the data and the
openness of the CBC to social desirability responses makes further
clarification difficult at this time.

A second trend in the data showed that mothers of negative
behavior perceivers scored higher than mothers of balanced behavior
perceivers on Factor I--"Concern With Prosocial-Competent Behavior."
This result runs counter to expectations in that negative behavior
perceivers were predicted to yield lower scores on positive concern.

Again, the fact that the trend was associated with a non-significant

 

2See particularly the comments by Wynne (1971) on the "trading
of dissociation"; and the comments by Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark
(1973) on "parentification."

67

§_value makes interpretation difficult. Alternative explanations
would be that (a) Factor I items are also open to social desirability
and hence parents of negative behavior perceivers are simply more
likely to present a defensively flattering picture of themselves, or
(b) high scores on Factor I indicate excessive parental demands,
moralism, and rigidity rather than an effective prescriptive approach
to socialization.

A third trend also seemed to run counter to expectations.
Fathers of balanced perceivers were significantly lower on Factor IX--
"Demand Self-Control," which was discussed above as appearing to be an
effective response. 0n face value, the finding implies that the
parents of the most accurate perceivers (balanced) are last likely to
use reasoning and limit-setting in response to their child's anger.
However, Factor IX also contains a "suppression of anger" component,
and it may have been this subdimension which accounted for the
finding. In other words, fathers of negative and positive behavior
perceivers may be more likely to demand suppression of hostility than
are fathers of balanced behavior perceivers. Again, it is difficult
to confidently interpret this result when the meaning of factors is
uncertain and when the result itself is not associated with a
significant 5 value.

In summary, it seems fair to conclude that the results regarding
perceptual style are somewhat equivocal. The few significant results
that were obtained indicate that positive and negative behavior per-
ceiving undergraduates are more likely than balanced behavior per-
ceivers to advocate child-rearing practices associated in previous

research with poorer personal and social development in children.

68

Sex Differences in Child-Rearing_Attitudes

 

Intragenerational comparisons regarding sex of subject yielded
rather consistent findings. Contrasting fathers with mothers and male
undergraduates with female undergraduates, male subjects in both
generations scored significantly higher on "ineffective" factors (i.e.,
"Criticize-Threaten," "Extrinsic Reward," and "Take Desirable Behavior
for Granted"). The one exception to this pattern involved "Non-verbal
Rejection (Love-Withdrawal)," a dimension on which mothers scored
higher than fathers. On the other hand, mothers scored higher than
fathers on the presumed "effective" factors "Express Pride," "Demand
Self-Control," and "Concern with Prosocial Competent Behavior." In
general, these findings are in line with previous research showing
fathers to be stricter, more punitive, less nurturant, and less
accepting (Becker, 1964; Jackson, 1956; Teyber, 1975). Considering
the evidence attesting to the effects of fathers' marital and parental
behavior on the positive or disturbed emotional development of
children, the findings of the present study gain further importance
(Barry, 1969; Lidz, 1973; Robins, 1966).

It is also interesting to note that fathers and undergraduate
males seem more direct in their use of punishment and in their
expression of anger (e.g., criticism, shaming, demand compliance)
while mothers are more likely than fathers to utilize a more passive~
manipulative form of punishment (i.e., non-verbal rejection). This
finding, as well as the others regarding sex, are in line with role
stereotypes of males as being more punitive, harsher, authoritarian
and women as being more nurturant and less overtly assertive or

aggressive. The fact that there were more significant stereotypical

69

differences between mothers and fathers than between male and female
undergraduates is perhaps a testimony to changing cultural values
concerning sex-role-appropriate behavior. Nevertheless, the data still
indicate some continuing stereotypical differences in the younger
genration.

Additional findings involving sex-role were: (a) fathers of
males scored lower than fathers of females on "Concern with Prosocial-
Competence"; (b) fathers of males scored lower than mothers of males
on "Concern with Prosocial—Competent Behavior"; and (c) males were
rated as showing more negative characteristics than females (mothers'
CBC ratings). Findings (a) and (b) above are consistent with results
of a study by Aberle and Naegle (1952) of middle class fathers'
attitudes toward their children. In their research, areas of paternal
concern differed as a function of child's sex. For boys, fathers were
pleased with demonstrations of initiative, responsibility, standing up
for oneself, school achievement, athletic ability, and emotional
stability. Fathers' satisfaction with girls focused more on daughter's
being "sweet," "nice," pretty, affectionate, and well-liked.

In the present investigation, Factor I seemed to have items
more similar to characteristics that fathers preferred for girls rather
than boys. However, the lower scores on Factor I for fathers of boys
as compared to fathers of girls cannot be explained on this basis
unless we assume that fathers responded to the CRCP with reference to
the sex of their child who participated in the study. While these
instructions were not specified for the CRCP, parents did rate their

"index" child on the CBC. It thus seems likely that instructions

7O

generalized and that the response set assumption may be accurate,
although no empirical evidence currently exists to support this view.

Finding (c) above is consistent with studies on child-guidance
clinic populations and sex—role research that boys tend to Show more
aggressive behavior than girls (Ferguson, 23.31:, 1974; Mischel, 1970).
However, why mothers rate boys higher on negative characteristics than
girls while fathers' ratings do not reflect this difference remains an
open question. Perhaps this difference in the perceptions of mothers
and fathers is related to the latters' greater tolerance for
aggressivity or to fathers' greater identification with sons (whom they
therefore need to see as showing fewer negative characteristics).

In summary, sex differences in child-rearing attitudes
generally supported previous research showing that: (1) males are more
likely than females to endorse authoritarian practices associated with
less competent psychosocial development in children; (2) females are
more likely than males to advocate practices associated with positive
psychosocial development; (3) females are more likely than males to use
indirect (non-verbal) versus direct (verbal criticism) methods of
expressing hostility toward their children; and (4) male children are
described by their mothers as showing more negative characteristics
while their fathers are less concerned with prosocial-considerate
behavior.

Intergenerational Continuities and Discontinuities in Child-Rearing
Attitudes

 

The findings regarding parent—child comparisons on child-
rearing practices show both similarities and differences across

generations. In some instances, undergraduates' child-rearing

71

attitudes are similar to the attitudes of both of their parents. In
other instances, undergraduates scored differently from both parents.
Still at other times, undergraduates' attitudes were similar to one
parent's but different from the other parent's attitudes.

Undergraduates did not differ from either parent on the
following child-rearing dimensions: "Concern With Child's Aggression-A
Hostility"; "Give Extrinsic Reward for Desirable Behavior"; "Point Out
Intrinsic Reward of Desirable Behavior"; and "Express Pride and
Happiness Over Desirable Behavior." In addition, female undergraduates
did not differ from either parent on the dimension, "Concern With
Prosocial-Competent Behavior." These findings supported the "con-
tinuity" hypothesis that parents and their children are alike in child-
rearing attitudes. Previous researchers did not examine these
dimensions of child-rearing in two generations, and the results here
highlight the issue of the selection of child-rearing practices for
study.

In other comparisons, undergraduates differed significantly
from both of their parents on two child-rearing dimensions: "Induction
Discipline” and "Demand Self-Control." It is noteworthy that these two
dimensions both contain a high "use of reasoning in discipline" component
which is associated with children's self-control, social responsibility,
and advanced moral development (Baumrind, 1973; Becker, 1964; and
Hoffman, 1970). Undergraduates scored higher on these factors than
either their mothers or fathers. These findings do not support the
intergenerational continuity hypothesis.

In another set of parent-child comparisons, undergraduates

scored similarly to one parent but not to the other parent. On the

72

dimension ”Criticize-Threaten (Power Assertion)" undergraduates were
similar in child-rearing attitudes to their mothers, but dissimilar
with regard to fathers. Since power assertion has been associated with
behavior disorder, poorer moral development and less social responsi-
bility in children, undergraduates' scores were less in the "in-
effective" direction than their fathers' (Baumrind, 1973; Hoffman,
1970). On the dimension "Non-Verbal Rejection (Love Withdrawal),"
undergraduates' scores were similar to fathers' but not to mothers'.
Again, "Non-Verbal Rejection (Love-Withdrawal)" is considered an
"ineffective" response, and undergraduates' scores were lower than
their mothers'. Male undergraduates' scores were similar to their
mothers' (but not their fathers') socres on Factor I—-"Concern With
Prosocial-Competent Behavior." Factor I is considered an "effective"
factor in promoting positive emotional development in children, and
undergraduates responded higher on this dimension than did their
fathers. These findings lend partial support to both the continuity
and the discontinuity hypotheses.

All parent—child comparisons on child-rearing attitudes are
summarized in Table 14 with regard to the continuity-discontinuity
hypotheses. Out of the 20 parent-child comparisons, 13 supported the
continuity hypothesis while only 7 supported the discontinuity
hypothesis. It is also noteworthy that for every comparison in which
the discontinuity hypothesis was upheld, undergraduates scored in the
more facilitative and effective child-rearing direction than their
mothers and/or fathers. The intergenerational findings were consistent
with the hypotheses that, in general, similarities would obtain

between parents and undergraduates and that differences would reflect

73

Table 14. Dependent Variables and Their Continuity Across Generations.

 

 

Dependent Variable Mother-Child Father-Child
Factor I: "Concern With C (for females) C (for females)
Prosocial-Competent Behavior" D (for males) D (for males)
Factor 11: "Concern With Child's D C

Aggression-Hostility"

Factor III: "criticize-
Threaten (Power-Assertion)” C D

Factor IV: "Extrinsic Reward" C C

Factor V: "Point Out Intrinsic .
Reward" C C

Factor VI: "Non-Verbal Rejection
(Love-Withdrawal)" ' D C

Factor VII: "Induction

Discipline" D D
Factor VIII: "Express Pride" C C
Factor IX: "Demand Self-Control" D D

 

*C=continuous; D=discontinuous.

74

greater "permissiveness" (e.g., greater use of induction; less use of
criticism, power assertion and love-withdrawal) of college students.

Nevertheless, these undergraduates were not yet parents.

Perhaps the actual tasks of child-rearing will influence their attitudes
in such a way as to make them more and/or less similar to their

parents' attitudes on various dimensions. It would be interesting

to re-study the attitudes of these undergraduate subjects after they

had begun raising children of their own. Follow-up study of their
actual behavior with their own children and of their children's

behavior patterns would also help us to understand the relation between
prospective child-rearing attitudes and their consequences for later
parenting and child development.

The findings regarding intergenerational child-rearing attitudes
supported previous research showing that adults' child-rearing practices
are similar on some dimensions to their parents' and dissimilar on
other dimensions (Cohler, 95.21:, 1971; Kell and Aldous, 1960; and
Staples and Smith, 1954). The results also support previous research
by Bronfenbrenner (1958, 1961) showing an increase in love-oriented
inductive socialization techniques and a decline in the use of
punishing-threatening techniques among American parents from 1930 to
1955. No support was found for the hypotheses that an undergraduate's
perceptual style (positive, balanced, or negative) is reflected
similarly in his or her parents' perceptions of the undergraduate
(CBC responses).

This study did not directly examine the impact of under-
graduates' earlier family experience on current child-rearing

attitudes. Therefore, conclusions with regard to causality cannot be

75

made on the basis of the data. However, the results showing current

similarities and differences between generations suggest that

 

longitudinal research should examine the processes by which child-
rearing attitudes are selected or influenced by each parent as well as
by extrafamilial sources. The data in this study indicate that
children may be adopting attitudes from a range of sources which have
been most helpful in their own past and current experience, while

rejecting those practices that have been most ineffective or destructive.

Methodological Considerations in the Interpretation of Findinge_

 

Clearly, the present study was only exploratory in nature.
Its major methodological weaknesses were: (a) its reliance on
retrospective self-report data in measuring perceptions of the under-
graduates' parents and (b) its reliance on self-report data in the
measurement of child-rearing practices. Among others, Radke-Yarrow
(1963) has raised serious criticism about the validity of the question-
naire and interview as information sources on parental behaviors.
Social desirability, poor memory, and the influence of current life
factors may reduce the accuracy of parental reports of actual
parental behavior. While a few studies have found parents to be
fairly accurate reporters of their parental behavior, the questionnaire
method would seem to sacrifice in validity what it makes up for in
convenience (Smith, 1951; Ferguson and Rowland, 1969). On the other
hand, it is enormously difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to
obtain records of lp_plye_adult behavior with children, and it is
sometimes virtually impossible to do so (as in the present investi-
gation where data were required about the behavior of undergraduates'

parents who were geographically scattered across the United States).

76

It is more apprOpriate to say that child-rearing questionnaires
measure parental attitudes towards child-rearing rather than actual
behavior or practices. The question remains: to what degree do
parental attitudes and perceptions predict actual parental behavior?
In a subsequent study, this question will be examined with regard to
the predictive ability of undergraduates' responses on the CRCP
Questionnaire to the behavior of these same undergraduates with
children. Messé and Stollak have obtained videotapes of the positive,
balanced, and negative behavior perceiving undergraduates interacting
with children. They will be undertaking a detailed coding of this
videotaped behavior, so that ultimately the validity question with
regard to the CRCP will be answered.

Nevertheless, the CRCP Questionnaire--Part II would seem to
have some redeeming qualities as a self-report measure of parental
behavior that are lacking in other such questionnaires (e.g., the
Child-Rearing Practices Report—-Block, 1972). A particular criticism
leveled against such questionnaires is that they fail to take into
account powerful situational or child-behavior variables in the
measurement of parental-behaviors. Thus there are items on Block's
Child-Rearing Practices Report such as "I often feel angry with my
child"; "I let my child make many decisions for himself"; "I expect a
great deal from my child"; "I am easy going and relaxed with my child";
"I talk it over and reason with my child when he misbehaves"; and so
on. These items would seem to be too vague and lacking in detailed
description of the child's situational behavior.

For example, it seems less useful to know that a parent

"expects a great deal" from his child, than to know what the parent

77

expects with regard to school performance ye_tasks at home !e_relations
with peers. When a parent endorses the statement "I often feel angry
with my child," it is not clear how the parent manages the feeling
(suppression, acting—out) or whether the anger is in response to
situations of sibling aggression !e_stuttering pe_authority defiance,
pe_all three, and so on.

Part II of the CRCP Questionnaire attempts to control for some
of this potential variance in response sets by describing four fairly
specific parent-child interaction situations and by asking the parent
to respond in frequency terms to descriptions of parental behavior
rather than in terms of internal—affective or cognitive states. This
greater specificity should have increased validity since previous
questionnaire research indicates that parental behavior varies greatly
in response to child behavior (Green, 1973; Teyber, 1975). However,
only further study of CRCP and CBC questionnaires will yield more
definitive answers on their relation to actual parental behavior.

An additional constraint on the interpretation of results
involved the meaning of the CRCP dependent variables emerging from
factor analysis. Thus not only would it be valuable to know whether
the child-rearing dimensions reflect actual parental behavior, but it
would be useful to know whether certain scores or patterns of scores
on the CRCP predict to specific characteristics of the child. In the
absence of such information, the interpretations of results were
based on theory and on factors' similarity to dimensions utilized in
previous research.

The nature of deriving dependent variables for the CRCP

(i.e., factor analysis) provided a useful reduction of the data in

78

terms of relevant, overall child-rearing dimensions. The 104 items on
the CRCP were factor analyzed because there was not e_priori basis for
choosing which items and/or subgroups of items to investigate. It
would have been extremely impractical to conduct analyses of variance
on each of the 104 items separately. However, the reduction of data
also made it likely that some items were omitted from analyses that
would have yielded significant results. Item #4l--"Do Nothing" which

was added to the analyses on an eLpesteriori basis is a case in point.

 

Analyses of variance on all items separately probably would have
increased the number of significant results. Despite the loss of
potentially relevant data, the factor analytic method at least gave
some assurance that the major dimensions of the CRCP were accounted for
in the subsequent analyses of variance.

Other elements of the experimental design and the sample
limited both the conclusions that could be drawn from the findings as
well as the generalizability of results. As has been mentioned
previously, longitudinal, cross-sectional, or best of all, a convergent
or cross-sequential design is needed to answer the central question of
how experiences in subjects' families of origin influence their later
parental behavior with their own children (Bell, 1953; Burton, 1972;
Schaie and Strother, 1968). Obviously, a sample of middle-class
single college students and their parents is not fully representative
of the American population. Results therefore cannot confidently be
generalized to other groups (e.g., socio-economic classes, races,
ethnic groups) or situations (e.g., not in college, married, with

children).

79

A less homogeneous sample may also have yielded more or less
continuity in child—rearing attitudes across generations. For example,
clinical studies lead one to suspect that there may be more inter-
generational continuity of child-rearing practices in the families of
disturbed persons than in "normal" families (Fisher and Mendell, 1956;
Borszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973). Theoretically, the greater
transactional rigidity and isolation of disturbed families would
increase intergenerational continuities in parental behavior.

In view of the methodological pitfalls in the study, it is best

to view it as exploratory, only a beginning. The results and conclu-

 

sions herein must be seen in tentative terms, subject to verification

through future research incorporating the suggestions above.

Implications of the Stuey

 

The results reported here, if substantiated ey future research,

 

carry a number of implications for child-rearing and child mental
health. The suggestive associations of perceptual style with parental
behavior affecting the psychosocial development of children, argue for
"perceptual re-education" programs for negative and positive behavior
perceivers. Perceptual style is an easily measured variable and could
be incorporated in programs to detect parental "deficits” even before
the child is born. The results reported tentatively suggest that both
negative and positive behavior perceivers need to acquire attitudes
and techniques of discipline emphasizing use of reasoning and
acceptance of the child along with appropriate limit-setting.

The results regarding sex of subject indicate that increasing

attention must be paid to the role of the father in child—rearing.

80

The father has been neglected from the standpoints of research on child
development as well as parent education. Parent education programs for
fathers would seem to be needed. It is the present author's opinion
that father-education programs are more likely than mixed-group
programs to attract male participation.

Lastly, the overall intergenerational continuity of child-rearing
attitudes reported here gives hope that it someday may be possible to
predict maldevelopment in children in advance of their birth. Cer-
tainly such predictions are a very long way off. However, longitudinal
research (based on observational measures of parent-child interaction
across two generations) on "disturbed" versus "normal" samples is
needed. Such research is likely to yield substantial information
bearing on the "prediction of mental health" question as well as the
"prediction of parental behavior" question. Both kinds of data are
needed for the ultimate creation of early detection and prevention

programs on a large scale.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of this study were: (a) to explore the relation-
ship between adults' child-rearing practices and their styles of
perceiving the behavior of children, and (b) to examine the continuity
of child—rearing attitudes and perceptions of children's behavior in
two generations within families.

More than a thousand undergradaute subjects were recruited
through newspaper advertisements to participate in research for pay.
In groups of 20-30, these subjects were shown a videotape of a male
or female child in play with an adult. The child (an actor) demon-
strated on the tape approximately equal numbers of behaviors that had
differentiated clinic-referred ("disturbed") from non-clinic referred
("normal") children in previous research on parental perceptions.
After viewing the videotape, undergraduate subjects rated the child's
behavior on the "Children's Behavior Checklist--Form A" (CBC-A).

Each CBC-A protocol was scored for perceptual style by substracting
the number of "negative" (i.e., "disturbed") child behaviors checked
from the number of "positive" (i.e., "normal") behaviors checked.

Three groups of undergraduates were selected for further
study on the basis of their perceptual style scores: "Positive
Behavior Perceivers" (30 females and 33 males with the highest

perceptual style scores); "Negative Behavior Perceivers" (34 females

81

82

and 33 males with the lowest scores); and "Balanced Behavior Per-
ceivers" (32 females and 34 males with scores closest to zero). Each
of these selected subjects was administered a 104-item "Child-Rearing
Concerns and Practices Questionnaire" (CRCP) developed by the investi-
gator for the present study.

Mothers and fathers of 156 of these undergraduate subjects were
contacted by mail and asked to complete CRCP Questionnaires and the
Children's Behavior Checklist--Form Q (identical to CBC—A except that
the parents rated their own undergraduate child retrospectively).
Parents were paid $10.00 per couple for their participation. Usable
responses were received from 105 mother-father pairs (72%) distributed
quite evenly across the three perceptual style conditions. Only
parents for whom addresses were available and who were living
together in one household were contacted.

Analyses of variance were performed on the data using CRCP
and CBC dependent variables, some of which were derived from several
principal axis factor analyses. Independent variables included under-
graduate's perceptual style (positive, balanced, or negative), sex of
undergraduate (male, female), and family role (mother, father, or
undergraduate child).

Results were equivocal with regard to perceptual sEyle. In

 

the few instances where significant differences were obtained,
comparisons showed that in hypothetical parent-child conflict
situations: (1) negative behavior perceivers were more likely than
balanced or positive beahvior perceivers to endorse "criticizing" and
"shaming" techniques of parental discipline; and (2) positive behavior

perceivers were more likely than balanced or negative behavior

83

perceivers to "do nothing," i.e., to withdrawn from the situation and
comply with the child's wishes. These findings were in line with the
hypothesis that adults who show positive or negative biases (distor-
tions) in their perception of child behavior also employ more
"ineffective” child-rearing practices as compared to adults who are
accurate (balanced) perceivers.

Sex differences found in child-rearing attitudes indicated

 

that: (1) males were more likely than females to endorse authoritarian-
punitive practices; (2) females were more likely than males to show
"concern with prosocial child behavior," to "express pride" in their
child's behavior, and to "demand appropriate self-control"; and (3)
females were more likely than males to use indirect forms of punishment
(i.e., "non-verbal rejection" as opposed to verbal criticism). These
findings were consistent with previous research showing that fathers
used more "ineffective" authoritarian methods in child-rearing than
did mothers (who were more "loving" and "permissive”).

With regard to family role, children (undergraduates)

 

expressed attitudes that were similar to their parents' attitudes in
the majority of comparisons, although they differed from at least one
of their parents on several child-rearing dimensions. In all
instances of parent-child differences, the children advocated
practices in the more "desirable" direction (i.e., greater use of
reasoning, fewer threats, less use of criticism, and less use of
non-verbal rejection). These results supported previous findings of
a cultural trend toward more democratic-permissive child-rearing

practices over the last several decades in the United States.

84

Moreover, children may select from a variety of intrafamilial
and extrafamilial sources the child-rearing attitudes which have been
most helpful and least disturbing in their own experience. Child-
rearing attitudes would seem to be influenced by factors in the
individual's earlier deve10pment as well as current family and cultural
values. Methodological considerations in the interpretation of

results and some directions for future research were explored.

BI BLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aberle, D., and Naegle, K. Middle class fathers' occupational role
and attitudes toward children. American Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry, 1952, 22, 366-378.

 

 

Axline, V. A. Play Therapy. New York: Ballantine, 1947.

 

Barry, W. A. Marriage, research and conflict: An integrative review.
Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 23, 41-54.

 

Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of pre—
school behavior. Genetic Psycholegy Monographs, 1967, ZS:
43-88.

 

Baumrind, D. The development of instrumental competence through
socialization. From Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology,
Vol. 7. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press,
1973, 3-46.

 

Becker, W. C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline.
In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child
Development Research, Vol. I. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1964.

 

 

Bell, R. Q. Convergence: An accelerated longitudinal approach. Child
Develepment, 1953, 33, 142-145.

 

Bell, R. Q. Retrospective attitude studies of parent-child relations.
Child Development, 1958, 29_(3), 323-337.

 

Block, J. Generational continuity and discontinuity in the under-
standing of societal rejection. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 333-345.

 

 

Boszormenyi-Nagy, I., and Spark, G. M. Invisible Leyalties:
Reciprocity in Intergenerational Family Therepy. New York:
Harper and Row, 1973.

 

 

Bowen, M. A family concept of schizophrenia. In D. D. Jackson (Ed.),
The Etiology of Schizophrenia. New York: Basic Books, 1960,
346-372.

 

85

86

Bronfenbrenner, U. Socialization and social class through time and
space. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 1958, 400-425.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. The changing American child--A speculative analysis.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1961, 2, 73-84.

 

Burton, R. V. The interpretation of intergenerational attitudes.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972, l§_(1), 61-62.

 

Cohler, B. J. The role of retrospective accounts in the study of
intergenerational attitudes. Merrill-PalmereQuarterly, 1972,
l§_(l), 59-60.

 

Cohler, B. J., Grunebaum, H. U., Weiss, J. L., and Moran, D. L. The
child-care attitudes of two generations of mothers. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 1971, ll, 3-17.

 

Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman, 1967.

 

Ferguson, L. R., Partyka, L., and Lester, B. M. Patterns of parent
perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 169-181.

Ferguson, L. R., and Rowland, T. S. Maternal attitudes as predictors of
maternal behavior. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting,
Society for Research in Child Development, Santa Monica,
California, March, 1969.

Fisher, 8., and Mendell, D. The communication of neurotic patterns
over two and three generations. Psychiatry, 1956, l2, 41-46.

 

Green, R. J. The responses of "liberal" and "conservative" parents to
problem situations involving a young child. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1973.

Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., and Polefka, J. Person Perception.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

 

Hoffman, M. L. Parent discipline and the child's consideration for
others. Child Development, 1963, 23, 573-588.

 

Hoffman, M. L. Moral development. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Manual of
Child Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 1970.

 

Jackson, P. Verbal solutions to parent-child problems. Child
Developpent, 1956, 22, 334-349.

 

Johnson, A. M. Juvenile delinquency. In S. Arieti (Ed.), American
Handbook of Psychiatry, Vol. I. New York: Basic Books, 1959,
840-856.

87

Kell, L., and Aldous, J. Trends in childcare over three generations.
Journal of Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 22, 176-177.

 

Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In H. W. Stevenson
(Ed.), Child Psychology: 62nd Yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1963.

 

Laing, R. D. The Politics of the Family. New York: Vintage, 1971.

 

Lidz, T. The Origin and Treatment of Schizophrenic Disorders. New
York: Basic Books, 1973.

Messé, L. A., and Stollak, G. E. Adult perceptions and child behavior
dysfunctions. NIMH Grant #24250.

Mischel, W. Sex-typing and socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Manual of Child Psychology; Vol. II. 3rd edition. New York:
Wiley, 1970, 3-72.

 

Mussen, P. H. (Ed.). Manual of Child Peychology} Vol. II. 3rd
edition. New York: Wiley, 1970.

 

Olejnik, A. R., and McKinney, J. P. Parental value orientation and
generosity in children. Developmental Psychology, 1973, _8_
(2), 311.

 

Radke-Yarrow, M. Problems of method in parent-child research. Child
Development, 1963, 33, 215-226.

 

Reif, T., and Stollak, G. E. Sensitivity to Young Children: Training.
and Its Effects. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press, 1972.

 

 

Robins, L. N. Deviant Children Grown Up. Baltimore: Williams and
Wilkins, 1966.

 

Schaie, K. W., and Strother, C. R. A cross-sequential study of age
changes in cognitive behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 1968,
29, 671-680.

 

Shapiro, R. The origin of adolescent disturbances in the family. In
G. H. Zuk and I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.), Family Therapy and
Disturbed Families. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior
Books, 1967, 221-238.

 

 

Smith, H. A comparison of interview and observation measures of
mother behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1958, §Z, 278-282.

Staples, R., and Smith, J. Attitudes of grandmothers and mothers toward
child-rearing practices. Child Development, 1954, 2E, 91-97.

 

88

Stierlin H., Levi, L. D., and Savard, R. J. Parental perceptions of
separating children. Family Process, 1971, l9_(4), 411-427.

 

Teyber, E. C. Adult role-playing responses to varying child communi-
cations. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1975.

Van Der Veen, F., Huebner, B., Jorgans, B., and Neja, P. Relationship
between the parents' concept of the family and family adjustment.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 33, 45-54.

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Deslgp, 2nd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Wynne, L. C. Some guidelines for exploratory conjoint family therapy.
In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing Families. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1971, 96-115.

 

Yarrow, M., Campbell, J., and Burton, R. Recollections of childhood:
A study of the retrospective method. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 1970, 3§_(5).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST-~FORM A

APPENDIX A
CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST--FORM A
(Scoring Key)*

Name of Person (completing checklist)

 

Date:

 

Directions:

Below is a list of items describing many aspects of children's
behavior-things that children do sometimes, ways they act and feel.

Of course, not all of these items apply to the child in the playroom
that you first observed on the video-tape, but, quite a few of them do.
First, read Item 1 carefully and then make up your mind about

whether or not it describes the way he acted in the playroom. If so,
mark an "X" in column one; if not put a zero in the first column.

Then, go on to the second item and decide whether or not this behavior
applies to to child's behavior, marking it the same way. Do this for
all 64 items, putting an "X" in the first column of each item which you
feel is applicable to his playroom behavior and a "0" for each item you
feel is not applicable to the behavior you observed.

Once you have completed this task, go back to the first item, and
this time decide if the behavior described applies to the way that you
think that the child acts in general--that is, not just his behavior
in the playroom, which you saw, but behavior which you think occurs in
other situations such as at home, at school, on the playground, with
friends, etc., as well. If you do not think so, put a zero in the
second column. On the other hand, if you think this item applies to his
behavior in general, put an "X" in the second column (whether or not you
put one in the first column). Again, go through all 64 items deciding
for each whether or not each item applies to his behavior in general.

Column 1 Column 2
Applies to Applies
behavior in to his
playroom behavior
which I saw inpgeneral

Item

1. Is happy when he does a "good job."

 

*A=Positive Behavior
B=Negative Behavior

89

90

Item

Column 1
Applies to
behavior in
playroom
which I saw

991292.;
Applies

to his
behavior
in general

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

. Gets carried away by his feelings.

Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a
little bit fussy about it.

. Can't wait--wants to have thing

immediately.

Is concerned about the feelings of
adults.

. Gets irritated or angry easily.

. Feelings are apparent in his facial

expression.

. Plays with toys in a rough way.

. Handles small objects skillfully.

Doesn't pay attention to what
others say.

Activity is focused on a particular
purpose, seems to accomplish what
he sets out to do.

Looks awkward when he moves around.

Accepts new ideas without getting
upset.

Acts in ways that makes adults not
like him.

Shows pride in accomplishment.

Appears stiff in walking or moving about.

Seemed comfortable in the situation
that you observed.

Has trouble finding the right
words to say what he means.

Wants very much to be approved of.

91

 

Column 1 Column 2
Applies to Applies
Item behavior in to his
playroom behavior
which I saw in general
20. Seems to do things just to get adults
angry at him. B
21. Moves gracefully-~well coordinated. A
22. Has a characteristic mannerism or
nervous habit. B
23. Plays to win. A
24. Quickly loses interest in an activity. B
25. Does what persons ask him to. A
26. Never gets excited about anything, even
when you expected him to be pleased
with something.
27. Makes friends quickly and easily. A
28. Seems sad and unhappy. B
29. Self-confident. A
30. Tends to go too far unless reminded
of rules. B
31. Talks all the time. A
32. Often has to be reminded of what he
can and can't do. B
33. Affectionate--enjoys being
physically close to adults.
34. Threatens to hit or hurt others. B
35. Is able to stand up for himself. A
36. Seems out of touch with what is going
on around him--off in his own world. B
37. Is polite and cooperative.
38. Has uncontrollable outbursts of temper. B
39. Is easily embarrassed. A

92

Item

Column 1
Applies to
behavior in
playroom
which I saw

Column 2
Applies
to his
behavior
in general

 

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

SO.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

$8.

Often breaks the rules in games.
Is careful in explanation--precise.

When told to do something he doesn't
want to do, he becomes angry.

Is curious about things

Plays aimlessly, doesn't seem to make
or accomplish anything.

Prefers competitive games.

Seems selfish, always wants his
own way.

Showed appreciation when others
helped or did things for him.

Seldom laughs or smiles.
Energetic.

Doesn't seem to care about how he
looks--often looks sloppy.

Asks sensible questions.
Blows up very easily when bothered.

Shows pleasure and involvement in
most things he does.

Fidgety and restless.
Is competitive.
Acts as if adults are against him.

Pitches in when things have to
be done.

Often seems angry for no particular
reason, expresses it in many
different ways.

93

 

Column 1 Column 2
Applies to Applies
Item behavior in to his
playroom behavior
which I saw in general
59. Quick and clever. A
60. Aggressive and overpowering.
61. Learns quickly. A
62. Bossy.
63. Likes to do things well.
64. Tires easily in activities

APPENDIX B

THE CHILD-REARING CONCERNS AND PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B

THE CHILD-REARING CONCERNS AND PRACTICES QUESTIONNAIRE

Since we don't know for sure what are the best ways to raise
children, we are studying more about what parents and prospective
parents do (or might do) in different situations involving children.

In answering all of the questions, try to imagine that you are the
parent of the 4 to 10 year-old child whose behavior is described in the
item. We are interested in what you would actually feel or do in the
situations described, not what you think a person should ideally feel or
do. While different people give different reSponses to these questions,
{here are no "right" or "wrong" ansers. Every person has his or her
own individual way of responding to children. We want to learn what
your way is or would be in these situations.

 

Your responses will be kept strictly confidential. No one but the
researchers will ever see your answers. Read the directions carefully
and do not skip any items.

Your name:

 

Your address:

 

Your Age:

 

Your Sex:

 

Today's date:

 

Please list the names, ages and sex of your children in the
space below. Please put a checkmark in front of the name of
the child who took part in our study.

Your last grade completed in school:

 

Your occupation:

 

 

*For all CRCP items, the scale was transformed in the process
of key punching by the IBM Scanner at the MSU Scoring Office. The
scale was altered to range from 0 to 4, instead of l to 5 as it appears
on this questionnaire. All calculations and means for CRCP data reported
are based on the 0 to 4 scale.

94

95

Marital status: Single Married Divorced Separated

Widowed Remarried

Part I

Directions: Below is a list of items describing many aspects of
children's feelings and behaviors. Of course, not all of these items
apply to a particular child, but quite a few of them apply to most
children.

 

We are interested in how much parents and prospective parents focus
their attention on various behaviors that children engage in. We want
to know how much you would emphasize, place importance on, be concerned
about, care about, focus on, or give your attention to each behavior
described. We want to know how much it would matter to you if your
child acted in certain ways.

 

 

It makes no difference here whether you would encourage or dis-
courage the behavior in question. We only want to know how much it
would matter to you if your child engaged in the behavior, regardless
of how you might show it. For example, while all parents may agree
that a child should wear a hat in winter, some parents might focus
their attention on this behavior more than other parents would.

Read each item carefully and indicate the extent to which the
behavior described would matter to you in raising your own child.
Imagine you are the parent of a 4 to 10 year-old child who is engaging
in the described behavior. Then use the following scale to indicate
how much the behavior would matter to you--how muchyyou would focus
your attention on it:

 

 

 

= It would matter very little.

= It would matter somewhat.

It would matter to a moderate degree.
= It would matter qpite a bit.

= It would matter a great deal.

 

 

 

mvwai—t
II

Read each item carefully, then darken the number that best indicates
the extent to which you would focus your attention on the behavior

in question--the extent to which it would matter to you. Do not skip
any items. Use the purple answer sheet.

How much would it matter to you

 

if your child:

 

l.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

ll.

18.

19.

Ignores what adults tell
him/her to do?

. Shares toys?

. Gets irritated or

angry easily?

. Shows pride in an

accomplishment?

. Tells lies?

. Shows concern about the

feelings of others?

. Fights with friends or

with brothers and sisters?

. Shows self-confidence?

. Has to be reminded of what

he/she may or may not do?
Makes friends easily?

Plays with toys in a rough
way?

Does well at a new task?
Becomes angry when told to
do something he/she doesn't

want to do?

Is polite and cooperative
with others?

Does things just to get
others angry?

Plays to win?

Goes too far unless fre-
quently reminded of rules?

Pitches in when things
need to be done?

Blows up easily when
bothered by someone?

96

very moderate quite a great
little/somewhat/ extent /a bit/ deal

 

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 S
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
I 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 S
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

How much would it matter to you

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

Accomplished what he/she
sets out to do?

Cheats in school?
Helps around the house?

Threatens to hit or
hurt others?

97

very moderate quite a great
little/somewhat/ extent /a bit/ deal

 

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

98

Part 11

Directions: Four parent-child situations are described on the
following pages. Below each description, there is a list of things
that some parents (who were interviewed in the past) do in such
situations.

Read each description carefully, then check how often you honestly
believe you would do each of the things on the list of parental
responses. Use the following scale to indicate how often you feel you
would do each thing (or something like it) if you were the parent of a
4 to 10 year-old child at such times:

1. Never

2. Rarely

3. Sometimes

4. Frequently

5. Usually

Imagine you are the child's parent at such times as those described.
Then darken the appropriate number for how often you would do each
thing on the list in these kinds of situations. Read the items
carefully and please do not skip any items. Continue to use the purple
answer sheet.

*NOTE: The world "he" is to be read as "he or she."

99

SITUATION A

 

Sometimes it's hard for parents to get children to do things for them.
For example, imagine you have something that you want very much for
your child to do right away. You walk to the room he's in and tell

him what you want him to do, and ask him to do it right away. He says
he's busy watching a television program and can't do the thing you want
him to do now. Here is a list of things that some parents have done at
times like that. Circle how often yep_wou1d do each one or something
like it in such situations.

 

l = Never
2 = Rarely
3 = Sometimes

4 = Frequently

5 = Usually
Some-
Never times Usually

25. Hit or Spank him. 1 2 3 4 S
26. Tell him he ought to be ashamed

of himself. 1 2 3 4 S
27. Explain that if he would do it

now, then I would have a chance

to do some other things I need

to do. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Tell him he's being selfish. l 2 3 4 5
29. Give reasons why the thing has to

be done right away. 1 2 3 4 5
30. Tell his father (mother) and let

him (her) handle it. 1 2 3 4 5
31. Go over and turn off the television. 1 2 3 4 5
32. Tell him he can finish the program

as long as he does what I want as

soon as it's over. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Go and do it myself, but show him

that I'm hurt and disappointed

in him. 1 2 3 4 S

34. Tell him I'm sorry he'll miss the
program and explain why the thing
must be done now. 1 2 3 4 5

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

100

Situation A (Continued)

Give him an angry look and
walk away.

Tell him that if he doesn't do it
now, he won't be able to have
something he likes or do some-
thing he likes to do.

Tell him I'm disappointed in him.
Do it myself and show him I don't
like it by not talking to him for
awhile.

Tell him that we each have to
help each other out and that I
need for him to do the thing
right away.

Tell him I would like him to be
more considerable of my wishes.

Do nothing.

Tell him to do it now anyway.

Tell him he is just being stubborn

Never

1

and that he better stop it right now. 1

Tell him he'll be sorry if he
doesn't do it right away.

Situation B

 

Some-
times

Usually

5

There are times when every child shows self-confidence and performs

well at a new task in school.
do when this happens.
or something like it in such situations.

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Frequently

MhMNI—I
ll

Usually

Here is a list of things some parents
Please check how often you would do each thing

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

101

Situation B (continued)

Give him some extra spending money
or something else he wants.

Explain how good he must feel after
trying hard and succeeding.

Kiss him or bug him.

Show him that he could still do
even better.

Promise him something he wants.

Explain that he feels good because
he's working up to his potential.

Do nothing.
Show him how proud I am.
Tell him to keep up the good work.

Tell him that what he did makes
me happy.

Buy him something he wants.

Tell him how much it means to us
for him to do well.

Remind him that he shouldn't get
conceited or brag about his
accomplishments.

Explain to him that doing well will
help him feel good about himself and
get what he wants in life.

Tell him I know how proud and happy
he must be because he did so well.

Show him that these things are just
expected from him and that they are
no big deal.

Tell him he'll be rewarded for
doing so well.

Tell him what a talented person
he is.

Never

1

Some-
times

3

Usually

S

102

Situation B (continued)

Some-
Never times Usually
63. Tell him that a job well done is
rewarding for its own sake. I 2 3 4 5
64. Make arrangements for him to do
something he has wanted to do for
a long tim. l 2 3 4 5

Situation C

 

Every child when he can't have his own way will sometimes get angry at
his parents and talk back. Here is a list of things some parents do
when a child angrily talks back. Please circle how often you would do
each thing or something like it in such situations.

1 = Never

2 = Rarely

3 = Sometimes

4 = Frequently

5 = Usually

Some-
Never times Usually

65. Hit or spank him. 1 2 3 4 5
66. Tell him I don't like it when he

talks back angrily and that he can

discuss it more calmly. l 2 3 4 5
67. Tell him I don't like children who

don't show respect for their

parents. 1 2 3 4 5
68. Tell him I'll hit or spank him if

he ever talks like that again. 1 2 3 4 5
69. Explain that even though he's angry,

I would prefer that he express his

feelings in a regular tone of

voice. 1 2 3 4 5
70. Tell him I don't want to talk to him

or have anything to do with him unless

he says he's sorry. 1 2 3 4 5

71. Not let him have something he likes
or do something he likes to do. 1 2 3 4 5

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

103

Situation C (continued)

Tell him that what he said hurts my
feelings and that he can express his
anger without saying nasty things to
me.

Give him an angry look and walk away.

Tell his father (mother) and let him
(her) handle it.

Do nothing.

Tell him he is acting like a little
baby and that he better stop it
right now.

Tell him I'm angry at him for what
he said and explain why he can't
have his way.

Send him to his room until he's
ready to talk about it.

Tell him he'll be sorry if he
doesn't be quiet.

Tell him he ought to be ashamed of
himself for talking like that.

Give him reasons why he can't have
his way.

Give him an angry look and ignore
him for awhile.

Tell him I won't talk to him or have
anything to do with him if that's
the way he's going to act.

Tell him I know he's angry and
explain why he can't have his way.

Situation

Never

D

 

Some-
times

Usually

There are times when every child shows a great deal of concern for the
feelings of others, being kind or helpful and cooperative when it is

needed.

Here is a list of things some parents do when this happens.

Please circle how often you would do each thing or something like it in
such situations.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

104

Situation D (continued)

1 = Never

2 = Rarely

3 = Sometimes
4 = Frequently
5 = Usually

Let him do something special he
wants to do.

Not make anything of it even
though I might feel good inside.

Explain to him that doing good will
make him feel good about himself in
life.

Tell him that I love kind and
considerate peeple like him.

Tell him what a helpful and good
person he is.

Reward him for doing the good deed.

Ask why he isn't always so
cooperative and considerate.

Tell him that what he did makes me
happy-

Say it is good when you treat others
as you would like to be treated.

Explain how it makes him happy to
do kind and helpful things.

Show him that these things are just
expected and are no big deal.

Tell him I am very proud of the
way he acted.

Give him some extra spending money
or something else he wants.

Point out some other good things he
ought to do but hasn't been doing.

Some-

times

Usually

5

105

Situation D (continued)

Some-
Never times Usually

99. Explain that being considerate to

others makes a person feel

worthwhile. 1 2 3 4 5
100. Tell him that doing something kind

is very rewarding just in itself. 1 2 3 4 5
101. Promise him something he wants. 1 2 3 4 5
102. Tell him that "nice guys finish

last." 1 2 3 4 5
103. Kiss him or bug him. 1 2 3 4 5
104. Buy him something he has wanted for

a long time. 1 2 3 4 5

Before returning the questionnaire, please check to be sure that each
item has been completed. Thanks for your participation.

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO PARENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO PARENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

June 26, 1975
Dear Parents:

During Winter term, your son or daughter indicated an
interest in participating in a research pfoject at Michigan State Uni-
versity. Although only some of the college students interviewed were
chosen to participate during Spring term, your participation in this
research would be most helpful. In this study, we are exploring the
various things that college students and parents would do in raising a
young child. We hOpe you will find some satisfaction in knowing that,
by completing the enclosed questionnaires, you will be making a
significant contribution to our knowledge of children.

 

Only the parents of 150 students who indicated an interest in partici-
pating are now being asked to help us. Therefore, it is very important
that we obtain the help of eachyparent to whom we are writing, We also
believe that participants in research should be paid a reasonable amount
for their efforts. The enclosed questionnaries take about 1/2 hour to
complete. You will receive $10.00 per couple when the enclosed question-
naires are filled out and returned in the stamped envelope provided. In
order to be reimbursed, both parents must fill out and return the
enclosed materials.

 

 

Please be sure to read the Instructions sheet before starting. There
are four questionnaires enclosed, two for each parent to complete
independently. All four questionnaires and two answer sheets should be
returned. Your responses will remain strictly confidential. You will
be given the opportunity to receive a summary of the objectives and
results of the entire project when it is completed.

 

 

106

107

We would greatly appreciate receiving your completed questionnaires no
later than July 17 if possible. Thanks so much for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Green, M.A.
Doctoral Candidate

Lawrence A. Messé, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology

Gary E. Stollak, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology

108

INSTRUCTIONS

 

Each parent should take one CRCP Questionnaire, one Children's
Behavior Checklist Form Q, and one purple answer sheet. Make sure
that the code number matches for all three of each individual's
materials. The code number is printed at the top of the page and
will serve for identification purposes. The only place you should
print your name is on the first page of the CRCP Questionnaire.
This page will be removed and kept in a separate file before we
study your responses, so that confidentiality can be strictly
maintained. '

Fill out the CRCP Questionnaire first. Make sure that you have
printed your name and background information on the first page.
Responses to the items on the CRCP Questionnaire only are to be
made with a no. 2 pencil on the purple answer sheet. Please do not
skip any items.

 

 

In responding to the items on the Children's Behavior Checklist
Form 9, try to recall how your son or daughter (who is named in the
opening letter) acted when he or she was about 8 years old.
Remember as best you can what your child's characteristics and
actions were when the child was about age 8. Responses to the
Children's Behavior Checklist Form Q should be made directly on

the pages of the Questionnaire. --

 

 

When all four questionnaires have been completed by you and your
spouse, place them and the purple answer sheet in the stamped
envelope and mail the packet to us as soon as possible (before
July 17). You will receive your $10.00 reimbursement in the mail.

If you would like to know the objectives and results of this
research when they are available, please so indicate on the bottom
of page one of the CRCP Questionnaire.

APPENDIX D

THE CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST--FORM Q

APPENDIX D

THE CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST--FORM Q

Name of child: Age: Date:

 

 

Name of person filling out checklist:

 

Relationship to child who participated in study (mother, father):

There is a list of items describing many aspects of children's
behavior--things that children do or ways they have been described by
others. Not all of the items will apply to the particular child you
are describing, but quite a few of them will. First, go through the
list and put a checkmark (/) in the first column by each item which
applies to this child. If you feel that the item does not apply to the

 

 

child, put a zero (0) in the first column.

After you have gone through the list, please go back through those
items you have checked and put another checkmark (/) in the second
column opposite those that are now most characteristic of this child,
that describe how he (she) is most of the time.

Does this Is it char-
apply at all? acteristic?

1. Is happy when he/she does a "good job."
2. Gets carried away by his/her feelings.

3. Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a little
bit fussy about it.

4. Can't wait--wants to have things
immediately.

5. Is concerned about the feelings of
adults. '

6. Gets irritated or angry easily.

7. Feelings are apparent in his/her facial
expression.

109

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

110

. Plays with toys in a rough way.
. Handles small objects skillfully.

Doesn't pay attention to what others say.

Activity is focused on a particular
purpose, seems to accomplish what he/
she sets out to do.

Looks awkward when he/she moves around.

Accepts new ideas without getting upset.

Acts in ways that makes adults not like
him/her.

Shows pride in accomplishment.

Appears stiff in walking or moving about.

Seems comfortable in new situations.

Has trouble finding the right words to
say what he/she means.

Wants very much to be approved of.

Seems to do things just to get adults

angry at him/her.
Moves gracefully--well coordinated.

Has a characteristic mannerism or
nervous habit.

Plays to win.

Quickly loses interest in an activity.
Does what persons ask him/her to do.
Never gets excited about anything,
even when you expected him/her to

be pleased with something.

Makes friends quickly and easily.

Seems sad and unhappy.

Does

apply at

this
all?

Is it char-
acteristic?

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

111

Self-confident.

Tends to go too far unless reminded
of rules.

Talks all the time.

Often has to be reminded of what
he/she can and can't do.

Affectionte--enjoys being physically
close to adults.

Threatens to hit or hurt others.
Is able to stand up for himself/herself.

Seems out of touch with what is going on
around him/her--off in his/her own world.

Is polite and cooperate.

Has uncontrollable outburst of temper.
Is easily embarrassed.

Often breaks the rules in games.

Is careful in explanation--precise.
When told to do something he/she
doesn't want to do, he/she becomes
angry.

Is curious about things.

Plays aimlessly, doesn't seem to make
or accomplish anything.

Prefers competitive games.

Seems selfish, always wants his/her own
way.

Showed appreciation when others helped or
did things for him/her.

Seldom laughs or smiles.

Energetic.

Does this
apply at all?

Is it char-
acteristic?

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

112

Doesn't seem to care about how he/she
looks--often looks sloppy.

Asks sensible questions.
Blows up very easily when bothered.

Shows pleasure and involvement in
most things he/she does.

Fidgety and restless.

Is competitive.

Acts as if adults are against him/her.
Pitches in when things have to be done.
Often seems angry for no particular
reasons, expresses it in many different
ways.

Quick and clever.

Aggressive and overpowering.

Learns quickly.

Bossy.

Likes to do things well.

Tires easily in activities.

Does this
apply at all?

Is it char-
acteristic?

APPENDIX E

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES--

CRCP FACTORS I THROUGH IX

 

ANOVA FACTOR I--

Concern with Prosocial-Competent Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 58.65 2 29.33 2.37 .100
Sex Undergrad (B) 40.19 1 40.19 3.25 .100
A X B 9.85 2 4.93 .40 n.s.
Error b 1049.54 85 12.35
Within Families
Family Role (C) 87.25 2 43.63 5.64 .005
A X C 51.23 4 12.81 1.66 .200
B X C 94.11 2 47.06 6.08 .005
A X B X C 33.61 4 8.40 1.09 n.s.
Error w 1316.01 170 7.74
ANOVA FACTOR II--
Concern with Aggression-Hostility
Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 13.18 2 6.59 .69 n.s
Sex Undergrad (B) .01 l .01 .001 n.s
A X B 7.64 2 3.82 .40 n.s
Error b 812.39 85 9.56
Within Families
Family Role (C) 24.27 2 12.14 2.03 n.s.
A X C 39.38 4 9.84 1.64 n.s.
B X C 2.83 2 1.42 .24 n.s.
A X B X C 11.67 4 2.92 .49 n.s.
Error w 1017.93 170 5.99

 

113

114

 

Criticize-Threaten (Power Assertion)

ANOVA FACTOR III--

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F P
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 61.59 2 30.80 .347 n.s
Sex Undergrad (B) 79.78 1 79.78 .898 n.s
A X B 8.91 2 4.45 .050 n.s
Error b 7551.50 85 88.84
Within Families
Family Role (C) 817.02 2 408.51 9.01 .001
A X C 260.48 4 65.12 1.44 n.s
B X C 84.87 2 42.44 .94 n.s
A X B X C 123.47 2 30.87 .68 n.s
Error w 7708.89 170 45.35
ANOVA FACTOR IV--
Extrinsic Reward
Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 173.97 2 86.99 1.10 n.s
Sex Undergrad (B) 51.07 1 51.07 .65 n.s
A I B 198.29 2 99.15 1.25 n.s
Error b 6732.63 85 79.21
Within Families
Family Role (C) 140.82 2 70.41 1.83 .200
A X C 354.15 4 88.54 2.30 .100
B X C 39.82 2 19.91 .52 n.s.
A X B X C 23.23 4 5.81 .15 n.s.
Error w 6552.54 170 38.54

 

115

 

ANOVA FACTOR V--

Intrinsic Reward

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 159.61 2 79.81 1.48 n.s
Sex Undergrad (B) .29 1 .29 .005 n.s
A X B 18.31 2 9.15 .17 n.s
Error b 4581.63 85 53.90
Within Families
Family Role (C) 194.17 2 97.08 2.57 .100
A X C 45.76 4 11.44 .30 n.s
B X C 11.35 2 5.68 .15 n.s
A X B X C 164.84 4 41.21 1.09 n.s
Error w 6423.02 170 37.78
ANOVA FACTOR VI--
Non-Verbal Rejection
(Love-Withdrawal)
Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 13.67 2 6.84 .39 n.s.
Sex Undergrad (B) 30.33 1 30.33 1.71 .200
A X B 12.44 2 6.22 .35 n.s.
Error b 1508.78 85 17.75
Within Families
Family Role (C) 197.27 2 98.63 8.01 .001
A X C 10.70 4 2.67 .22 n.s
B X C 4.74 2 2.37 .19 n.s
A X B X C 46.74 4 11.68 .95 n.s
Error w 2093.25 170 12.31

 

116

 

ANOVA FACTOR VII--

Induction Discipline

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Reasoning)
Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 10.88 2 5.44 .40 n.s
Sex Undergrad (B) 10.70 1 10.70 .78 n.s
A X B 13.54 2 6.77 .49 n.s
Error b 1168.68 85 13.75
Within Families
Family Role (C) 191.13 2 95.57 12.13 .001
A X C 41.07 4 10.27 1.30 n.s.
B X C 21.35 2 10.68 1.36 n.s.
A X B X C 53.54 4 13.38 1.70 .200
Error w 1339.39 170 7.88
ANOVA FACTOR VIII--
Express Pride
Source SS df MS F p
Between Families
Perc. Style (A) 4.39 2 2.20 .35 n.s.
Sex Undergrad (B) ..96 1 .96 .15 n.s.
A X B 27.49 2 13.74 2.16 .200
Error 540.93 85 6.36
Within Families
Family Role (C) 50.64 2 25.32 3.70 .025
A X C 18.13 * 4 4.53 .66 n.s.
B X C 3.40 2 1.70 .25 n.s.
A X B X C 46.28 4 11.57 1.69 .200
Error w 1165.03 170 6.85

 

117

 

ANOVA FACTOR IX--

Demand Self-Control

 

Source 88 df MS F p

 

Between Families

Perc. Style (A) 21.58 2 10.79 1.37 n.s

Sex Undergrad (B) 3.76 1 3.76 .48 n.s

A X B 12.96 2 6.48 .82 n.s

Error b 671.16 85 7.90

Within Families

Family Role (C) 153.46 2 76.73 10.23 .001
A X C 57.69 4 14.42 1.92 .200
B X C 5.90 2 2.95 .39 n.s.
A X B X C 30.73 4 7.68 1.02 n.s.
Error w 1274.47 170 7.50

 

APPENDIX F

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES--

PARENTS' CBC

119

 

I

.i
I!
'9

ANOVA: COLUMN #1 NEGATIVE ITEMS THAT APPLY

 

Source SS df MS F p

 

Between Families

Perc. Style (A) .21 2 .11 .006 n.s.
Sex Undergrad (B) 21.35 1 21.35 1.160 n.s
A X B 12.50 2 6.25 .340 n.s
Error b 1811.45 98 18.48
Within Families

Family Role (C) .17 1 .17 .020 n.s
A X C 3.52 2 1.76 .200 n.s
B X C 1.86 1 1.86 .210 n.s
A X B X C 2.37 2 1.19 .140 n.s
Error w 866.03 98 8.84

 

 

ANOVA: COLUMN #2 NEGATIVE ITEMS THAT ARE CHARACTERISTIC

 

Source SS df MS F p

 

Between Families

Perc. Style (A) 4.33 2 2.17 .23 n.s.
Sex Undergrad (B) 29.01 1 29.01 - 3.13 .100
A X B 23.15 2 11.58 1.25 n.s.
Error b 909.61 98 9.28
Within Families

Family Role (C) 1.39 1 1.39 .38 n.s.
A X C .92 2 .46 .13 n.s.
B X C 22.64 1 22.64 6.25 .025
A X B X C 12.85 2. 6.43 1.78 .200
Error w 354.23 98 3.62

 

APPENDIX G

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES-—

CRCP UNDERGRADUATE FACTORS III AND VIII

 

ANOVA UNDERGRADUATE FACTOR III--

Extrinsic Reward

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Perceptual Style (A) 1.480 2 .899 .024 n.s.
Sex of Undergrad (B) 129.899 1 129.899 4.203 .05
A X B .464 2 .232 .008 n.s
Error 4358.166 141 30.909

ANOVA UNDERGRADUATE FACTOR VIII--
Take Desirable Behavior for Granted

Source SS df MS F p
Perceptual Style (A) 8.445 2 4.223 1.035 n.s.
Sex of Undergrad (B) 33.275 1 33.275 8.158 .005
A X B 4.785 2 2.393 .587 n.s.
Error 575.151 141 4.079

 

120

APPENDIX H

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLES--

CRCP NEW UNDERGRADUATE VARIALES 1 AND 2

 

ANOVA NEW UNDERGRADUATE VARIABLE 1--

Shaming-Criticizing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F p
Perc. Style (A) 205.921 2 102.961 3.867 .025
Sex of Undergrad (B) 53.454 1 53.454 2.008 .20
A X B 15.284 2 7.642 .287 n.s.
Error 3753.998 141 26.624

ANOVA NEW UNDERGRADUATE VARIABLE 2--
Do Nothing

Source 58 df MS F p
Perc. Style (A) 2.667 2 1.334 3.863 .025
Sex of Undergrad (B) .516 1 .516 1.495 n.s.
A X B .786 2 .393 1.138 n.s.
Error 48.681 141. .345

 

121

      

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIll IIJIIII IIII I IIIIjIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII

31