THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESCHOOL ' ' i
CHILDREN'S MOTIVATION - T0 - ACHIEVE AND

PARENTAL VALUE ORIENTATION IN CHILDREARING

Thesis for the Degree Of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MARY ANN BATCHELDER
1974

 

II III IIIIII III |lII III IIIIII IIII IIII IIII II IIIIII ||I IIIII IIII III II
3 1293 10153 4901

THESIS

{.4

r.
I

'i

. 7‘ e ' ‘ t" \ ~.-
Mia I

m Unvzgggxfig
" ‘\

’J “unra- ..

fia’m‘. JI-J“ ~. lmfilii’zyJ‘fjfikd' A; ' - I

‘ . , W ‘ ‘
" {THI *zkt-x‘rux-

if I.‘ I

 

 

 

PIMP FAL 7982

In”

   

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN'S
MOTIVATION-TO-ACHIEVE AND
PARENTAL VALUE ORIENTATION IN CHILDREARING
BY

Mary Ann Batchelder

Purpose

This study examines some ways in which parental values as practiced
in childrearing are related to the child's achievement motivation.
Specifically the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship
and predictive value of parental childrearing values as measured by
childrearing behaviors, on the child‘s motivation-to-achieve.

Design

Gumpgookies (Ballif 8 Adkins, 1968) was used as the measure of

 

motivation-to-achieve in a sample of thirty-five preschool children
attending three cooperative nursery schools in communities surrounding

a large mid-western university. A value orientation model based on the
work of McKinney (1971) was the basis for the twenty-eight item value
orientation questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed and used
with the parents of the children tested. The variables of Prescriptive,
Proscriptive, Encourage, Discourage, Direct, and Avoidance were the
values explored by the questionnaire and became the basis for the nine

hypotheses tested in this study.

Mary Ann Batchelder

Analysis of Data

 

A multivariate correlation and regression analysis was used to
determine the degree of relation and predictability of value orientation
on motivation-to-achieve. A univariate and multivariate analysis of
variance was used to determine whether differences in parental value
orientation existed between high and low achievement motivation scorers,
and whether differences existed for male and female children in parental
value orientation or achievement motivation. An a priori level of
significance was set at .10 due to the preliminary nature of the study.
Findings

The nine hypotheses were not rejected with the exception of one
prediction. The parents of children with high motivation-tc-achieve
scores used significantly less Direct ( P 4 .06), Discourage ( P < .12),
Proscriptive ( P < .08) and Cell A, Prcscriptive-Discourage, ( P < .03)
value orientation behaviors. The parental value orientation measure
correlates negatively and non-significantly with motivation-to-achieve.
In addition motivation-to-achieve scores do not predict the value
orientation of the parents. There were no significant sex differences
with children's motivation-to-achieve scores or the use of specific
parental value orientations.

Conclusions

Results of correlating parent-child data indicate the parent value
orientation questionnaire is not a usable instrument until revisions are
made in the format. The inconclusive results obtained from correlating
parent scores with children's achievement motivation raises a number of

questions which suggest that further research in this area is needed.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRESCHOOL CHILDREN'S
MOTIVATION-TO-ACHIEVE AND

PARENTAL VALUE ORIENTATION IN CHILDREARING

By

Mary Ann Batchelder

A Thesis

Submitted to Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Sciences

197“

(g ,7 O! 3.4
(‘5

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph H.
Batchelder, for without their encouragement and loving support this
study, as well as my total higher education endeavors, would not have

been nearly so successful.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express her most sincere appreciation to all
those who have aided in this study:

To Dr. Eileen Earhart, Chairperson of this thesis committee, for
her support, assistance, and patience throughout this study.

To Dr. Ellen Strommen, Dr. Don Melcer, and to Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald
for the suggestions and advice they offered as members of the committee.

To Mrs. Donna Rosie Howe, Mrs. Janet Ronk, Mrs. Barbara Rice, and
Ms. Margaret Browning, cooperating teachers, for their interest and
efforts in providing the time, space, and information necessary to
collect the data.

To Mrs. Mary Andrews and to Mrs. Judy Pfaff for their generous help
in the statistical analysis of the problem, an invaluable contribution.

To all the participating families for their cooperation which made
this study possible.

A special thanks is offered to my husband, Bill Larson, whose
extreme patience, endurance, and loving encouragement was willingly

given during this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM , , . , , . . , . , , .
Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Identification of the Sample . . . . . . . . . .
overVieW00000000000000.0000.

II. REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH AND RELATED LITERATURE . . .

Effects of Parents on a Child's Early Experience
Attachment Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . .
Internalization of Behavior . . . . . . . .
Parental Value Orientation . . . . . . . . .

Motivation-to-Achieve as an Aspect of Self Concept
Parental Influences on Achievement Motivation

Significant Other Influences on Achievement Motivation

Summary coco-00000006000000.
III. RBSEARCHPROCEDUESOOOOO0.00.0.0...

Identification of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . .
Survey Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.
Parent Value Orientation Measure . . . . . .
Motivation-to-Achieve Measure . . . . . . .
Procedure for Collection of Data . . . . . . . .
Procedure for Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . .

Iv. AAVALYSIS OF DATA 0 O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O 0
Presentation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
summary . O O O O O O I O O O I O O I O O O O O 0
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O

APPEA‘DICES O O O 0 O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O I O O 0

iv

035

035
036
.36
.39
.u2
.H3

.H5
.LIE)

0'49
055

.56
.57
.6“

.66

.78

Table

3.1.

“.1.

4.2.

u.3.

4.5.

“.6.

“.7.

”.8.

‘+09.

LIST OF TABLES

Sex-Classroom Distribution of Preschool Subjects . . . .
Correlation Matrix. Total Number of Variables . . . . .

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis. Dependent
Variable: Motivation-to-Achieve . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of Step-Wise Regression Analysis. Dependent
Variable: Gumpgookies 2 Score. Independent Variable:
Cell 1, 2, 3, u, Prescriptive, Proscriptive, Encourage
Discourage, Direct, and Avoidance Value Orientation . . .

 

Results of Regression Analysis. Dependent Variable:
Motivation-to-Achieve. Independent Variables:
Prescriptive and Proscriptive Parental Value Orientation.

Results of Regression Analysis. Dependent Variable:
Motivation-to-Achieve. Independent Variables:
Encourage and Discourage Parental Value Orientation . . .

Results of Regression Analysis. Dependent Variable:
Motivation-to-Achieve. Independent Variables: Direct
and Avoidance Parental Value Orientation . . . . . . . .

Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of
Variance on Parental Value Orientation and Motivation—
to-Achieve for Males Versus Females . . . . . . . . . . .

Average Parental Value Orientation Scores for Children
One Standard Deviation Above of Below Mean Gumpgookies
Z score 0 O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0

Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of
Variance Between High and Low Motivation-to-Achieve
Scorers on Parental Value Orientation . . . . . . . . . .

Page

Figure
3.1.

3.2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Parental Value Orientation Model . . .

Example of Item (50) on Gumpgookies Test

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Parent Value Orientation Directions and Questionnaire .
B. Gumpgookies Raw Score Transformation to Z Score . . . .
C. Parent Responses on Value Orientation Questionnaire . .
D. Averaged Value Orientation Cell Scores Used in Analysis

vii

Page

, 78

CHAPTER 1

DEVELOPMENT OF PROBLEM

Need for the Study

The relationship of the early family setting to the behavior and
development of the child has long been a concern of persons giving
thought to the question: What circumstances allow a child to grow into
a happy producing member of society? There has not been a consensus on
these circumstances.

While it is agreed that environment is a strong factor, the
controversy of the influence of heredity versus environment upon the
child's development is continuing as it has for some three generations.
The prevailing belief in the late 1800's that potential development of
individuals was primarily inherited, gave way to the opposite viewpoint:
that differences in rate and level of development were attributable to
differences in experiences. The research in conditioning and learning
experiments in psychology, and research in cultural anthropology gave
strength to this change of viewpoint. Margaret Mead's (19u9) work was
highly influential, suggesting that even such basic characteristics as
masculinity and femininity differ in different cultures, and their
expression was determined by childrearing practices. One characteristic
after another of the child was transferred from the arena of inheritance
to the domain of environment. This viewpoint reached an extreme in the
1920's and 1930's, and perhaps John B. Watson's quotation (1928) has

become the most famous expression of this movement:

"Give me a dozen healthy infants and my own world to
bring them up in and I'll guarantee to train any one
of them to become any kind of specialist I might
select-- doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, chief and
even beggarman or thief (P. 10n)."

A contrast to this extreme position has been in motion for several
years. Most recently, Arthur R. Jensen presented his highly controver-
sial position that environmental factors are not nearly as important in
determining development (specific IQ) as are genetic factors (1969).

Thus, over the past years, the concept of plastic and changeable
human nature has moved from one extreme to another. However, out of this
vacillating more has been learned about the variables which influence
the behavior and development of children.

The significance of the contributions the preschool years made to
the behavior and development of the child was effectively expressed by
Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner in a Congressional Hearing on the Economic
Opportunity Act of 196u. The original stature emphasized employment,
job training... vocational rehabilitation, and other problems of the
young adult in poverty. Dr. Bronfenbrenner testified this act placed
too much emphasis on the sixteen-to-twenty-year-olds and that a program
for preschoolers could accomplish much more with the same funds. He was,
no doubt, cognizant of the research relating to the preschool years.

It has been well established that the preschool years are critical
ones to the growing, developing child. Bloom's (196%) analysis of the
stability and variability in the development of certain characteristics
from infancy to maturity-- physical factors, intelligence, scholastic

achievement, interests, attitudes and personality-- underscored this

critical influence.

In order to identify and explain this stability and change, Bloom
carefully surveyed data from over one thousand longitudinal studies. In
addition to uncovering support for the idea of the effect of early
environment, he also reported evidence that indicates any given charac-
teristic has its greatest potential for change during the period of most
rapid growth. Since the early years are periods of most rapid growth in
the child's development, the home environment exerts tremendous
influence on this development.

The child's family structures his initial environment. Barring
congenital deficiencies, all babies come into this world with certain
positive physical, social, emotional and intellectual potentialities,
and as a product of the interaction of these potentialities with the
environment, the arena for the child's development is established.
Granting the major variable in the different rate of each child's
development is the environment, then research should concentrate on
locating the means for developing his potentialities as Murphy implies
in his book (1961).

According to Gordon's (1965) summary of research reports, depriv-
ation in early experiences of children resulted in the following: weak-
ness in auditory and visual discrimination; limited vocabulary range;
restricted language usage; lack of familiarity with speech used by
teachers; insufficient practice in attending to prolonged speech
sequences; defiencies in cognitive development; lower IQ score averages
including decreases after about age five; and depression of intellectual
functioning.

In the 1960's the initiation of compensatory education programs

for the preschool child, and writings of authorities and reports on

longitudinal studies indicate a strengthening of the environmental
position. In Two Worlds of Childhood, Dr. Bronfenbrenner's (1970) basic
precept was: prevailing conditions in the lives of children do effect
their behavior and development. Another postulation concerning a child's
"modeling process" was "the most contagious models for the child are
likely to be those who are the major sources of support and control in
his environment; namely his parents, playmates, and older children, and
adults who play a prominent role in his everyday life (p. 133)." He
observed further, "there is a substantial body of data demonstrating the
powerful effect of parents as models in shaping the behavior and devel-
opment of the child (p. 139)."

While a great body of literature points to infancy and early
childhood years as being the foundation for the development of the
child's basic attitudes, feelings, and cognitive style, "few authors
have troubled to prepare solid treatises on the nature and nurture of
self in the early childhood years, and most of the material that is
available is not specifically concerned with the development of self
concept in young children (Yamamoto, 1972, p. vii)."

Recent research indicates that no patterns of parental behavior or
attitudes are common to all parents of children with high self esteem.
After studying the antecedents of self esteem, Coopersmith (1967)
concluded that general conditions associated with producing high self
esteem have been established but not all of these conditions are
essential to development of self esteem in any given individual, nor is
any single condition sufficient to produce a favorable self concept.

While educators and psychologists have focused on the importance of

the self concept, the psychological construct remains elusive, resulting

in few studies drawing a direct relationship between parental behaviors
and the child's self esteem. Wylie (1961) concluded, after an extensive
review of the research in this area, that "there are no true antecedent-
consequent (stimulus-response) designs of study. Most studies emphasize
the correlational responses of parents and children (p. 135)." Without
experimentation no direct cause-effect inferences can be drawn, yet
moral considerations regarding the placement of children in adversive
situations necessarily limits research. As a result, theorists draw
upon collective experiences and observations from child development,
psychology, sociology, and anthropology for information.

Parents, as primary agents of socialization, play a large part in
shaping the behavior of each child. McNeil (1969) states this precisely
while demonstrating the complexity of interaction involved.

"The new born infant has stretching before him hundreds
or perhaps thousands of persons who will enter his life
and shape the course of his social and psychological
development. We might even be able to predict the
future form of the child solely by measuring this field
of human forces to which he will be exposed. These
'others' in the life of the child will reward and punish,
teach, act as models of behavior, fulfill the child's
needs or deprive him, make him secure or anxious, and
contribute significantly to the eventual sense of self
esteem he will possess (p. 63)."

It seems clear that the self emerges only in the presence of other
human beings for the comparison with others serves as a guide to
behavior.

Hoffman and Lippitt (1960) include as aspects of family life that
contribute to the psychological development of the child such elements as
parental background, current family setting, family composition, rela-

tionships between parents, personal characteristics of parents, parental

attitudes toward children, overt parental behavior patterns, child's

orientation toward parents and siblings, overt child behavior toward
other family members, personal characteristics of the child, and the
child away from the family. While this list represents only some of the
factors responsible for the child's development it does demonstrate the
difficulty in surveying the area. Not one of these factors alone can

be held responsible for the formation of a self concept, each does
contribute to the whole.

Unfortunately clear models are not readily available to guide
children in becoming a healthy being. While theory and research in
adult-child interaction focus' on specifying adult behaviors that should
maximize the development and maintenance of positive pro-social child
behaviors, including childrens feelings of esteem, self reliance, self
control, and interpersonal skills (see e.g. the research of Baumrind,
1967, 1971; and Coopersmith, 1967) the typical definition of a healthy
individual is more heavily dependent upon our knowledge of the sick than
upon our understanding of the well-functioning individual. By definition,
a person is healthy unless he is sick; "the whole arguement is sustained
by what is present when health is absent rather than by what is present

when health is present (Barron, 1962, p. 2)."

Purpose of the Study

Some behavior-contingent learning takes place when socializing
agents use their rewards and punishments with the intention of modifying
the child's behavior. Concrete rewards and punishments, praise and
blame, and various other elicit indicators of approval or disapproval
are the most obvious and direct channels of behavior-contingent social-

ization. Since more information is needed on the childrearing practices

which influence the development of children's self concept, the purpose

of the present study was to discover antecedent conditions of self

concept formation acquired through behavior-contingent learning, and to

determine the degree of this relationship. More specifically this

investigation was undertaken to determine the relationship and predict-

ive value of parental childrearing behaviors as measured by value orient-

ation on the child's motivation-to—achieve. This study was based on

the following assumptions listed below:

1.

Hypotheses

 

The parent or primary caregiver plays a significant
role in the determination of a child's early
experience.

The preschool years are critical to the child's
mental, physical, social, and emotional development.

The child's early experiences effect his feelings
about himself; his self concept.

The childrearing behavior of parents can be measured
as a manifestation of value orientation.

A partial description of childrens' self concept can
be attained by measuring their motivation-to-achieve.

The following hypotheses were formulated for testing:

H : There is no relationship between Prescriptive parental value

orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

Hl : Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not predict
Prescriptive value orientation of parents.

H2: There is no relationship between Proscriptive parental value
orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not predict

Proscriptive parental value orientation.

H : There is no relationship between Encouraging parental value

orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

:1:

3 Scores on a measure of motivation-to~achieve do not predict
a Encouraging parental value orientation.
H : There is no relationship between parental Discouraging value
orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

H : Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not predict
Discouraging parental value orientation.

H5: There is no relationship between parental reinforcement of
Direct behaviors and children's motivation-to-achieve.

H : Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not predict
Direct parental value orientation.

H ° There is no relationship between parental reinforcement of
Avoidance behaviors and children's motivation-to-achieve.

Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not predict
Avoidance parental value orientation.

H : There is no significant difference on scores of motivation-
to-achieve for male and female children.

H : There is no significant difference on parental value
orientation for male or female children.

H9: There is no significant difference between children with high
(Gumpgookies Z score 2'11».83) or low (Gumpgookies Z score
:587.85) motivation-to-achieve scores and parental value
orientation.

 

Identification of the Sample

The parents and children from five classrooms in three parent
cooperative nursery schools comprised the subjects of research. The
cooperative model nursery school was used because it was assumed the
parents commitment to participation and group involvement would assure
a more cooperative group of subjects. The families live in communities
surrounding a large mid-western university and generally reflect middle
to upper middle class values, if not economic level.

Gumpgookies (Ballif 8 Adkins, 1968) was used to collect achieve-

 

ment motivation measures on a total of thirty-five children (17 males

and 18 females) ranging in age from 3.1 to 5.“ years old. The parents
(in all cases the mother) of child comprised the sample for the value
orientation measure. Based on the work of McKinney (1971) a four cell
model of value orientation was developed along prescriptive and
prescriptive dimensions. A likert questionnaire was developed to

measure parental value orientation using the four cell model.

Overview

Four additional chapters are written to further develop and
conclude this study.

A survey of literature related to the preschool child's development
and behavior resulting from early experiences and the role of parents
or primary caregivers have in this development is given in Chapter Two.

In Chapter III the research procedures and methodology employed
are presented. This chapter is centered upon the identification of the
population under study, survey instruments used, procedures for
collection of data, and for the analysis of data.

The examination and analysis of the data are presented in Chapter
IV, including hypotheses testing.

Included in Chapter V are these sections: summary, conclusions,

and recommendations for future study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH AND RELATED LITERATURE

The literature and research related to early childhood growth and
development and parental influences on this process is extensive.

In order to select the literature most pertinent to this study the
following criteria were established: (a) only research conducted or
reviewed after 19uo; and (b) research concerned with growth and
development of motivation to achieve and parental disciplinary techniques
used with preschool or early elementary age children as influences on
growth and development of self concept was used.

These criteria were used in selecting the literature concerning the
following subjects: effects of parent on a child's early experience,
including attachment behavior, internalization of behavior, and parental
value orientation; and, motivation to achieve as an aspect of self
concept, including the influence of parents and significant others on

achievement motivation.

Effects of Parents on a Child's Early Experience

 

At birth the human infant emerges with a personality genotype
described by Levine (1971) as "a set of enduring individual behavior
dispositions that may or may not find socially acceptable expression in
the customary (or institutionalized) behavior of a population. Its

major characteristics are early acquisition (through the interaction of

10

11

constitution and early experience), resistance to elimination in
subsequent experience, and capacity for inhibition, generalization, and
other transformations under the impact of experiential pressures (p. 52)."
While it is often assumed that the deliberate socialization of infants
does not begin until some clear evidence of response begins-- usually
somewhere in the preschool years-- this is not the case. "The mother's
actions mold the infant's behavior, but the relationship between mother
and child is also affected by the infant. The mother is more likely to
attend a crying infant than a quiet one. The infant who smiles or coos
will elicit a similar response from his mother. From the early days of
life, some of the infant's behaviors will be selectively strengthened
and certain others will be selectively weakened. The foundation for
later interaction between the mother and child begins in these early
weeks, as the mother learns to recognize and adapt to her infant's
individual reaction patterns and requirements (Ferguson, 1970, p. 31)."

This reciprocity of parent-child behavior has been largely ignored
in the literature until recently. Caldwell (196u) indicates that few
attempts have been made to study the early response patterns between a
mother and her child although considerable attention has been given to
the general effects of weaning, toilet training, and similar body
functions. Ferguson (1970) says "information on the specific ways in
which the infant's temperament and idiosyncratic reaction patterns
modulate the effects of maternal care and reciprocally modify maternal
feelings and attitudes is derived more from common sense and sensitive
clinical observations than from research evidence. Current lively
interest in this area is likely to produce a good deal more research in

the near future (p. 3a)."

12

It becomes apparent that the primary caregiver is a stimuli in the
infants early environment as well as an agent of socialization. "It is
they who feed him, pick him up, hold and carry him, dry, clean, and warm
him, and provide him with fresh stimulation. As they provide stimuli to
which he responds, so he provides stimuli to which they respond. A
feedback loop with all its potential for reinforcing behavior is in
constant operation (Rheingold, 1971, p. 781)." As a result of this
reciprocal arrangement the infant becomes sensitive to the parent (or
primary caregiver) and they to him. In order for the parent to shape
the behavior of the child, which originally is not necessarily

consistent with the parents goals, an attachment bond must be formed.

Attachment Behavior. Various historical theories have been proposed to
describe the acquisition of this attachment relationship. It has been
suggested that the mother provides primary reinforcement through the
satisfaction of physiological needs. As a result of this drive
reduction the mother acquires secondary reinforcement qualities and the
infant develops attachment and dependency behaviors. While this theory
has surface merit it does present the infant as a passive organism to be
acted upon. Another side issue involved is that drive reduction suggests
a lowering of the arousal state of the infant which would not always be
adaptive for survival. It is apparent there is a lack of heuristic
value in this theory yet others (Primary Object Sucking Theory-- infant
recognizes the mother is attached to the breast and incorporates her
into its world) seem less reliable as comprehensive explainations of the
behavioral relationship. It is also interesting to note that histori-

cally the mother is defined as the sole agent in attachment behavior.

13

In light of studies on premature and institutionalized children it is
now apparent that attachments are formed with a primary caregiver
regardless of their biological relation to the child, but highly
dependent on behavioral characteristics of nurturance and warmth (often
wrongly assumed to be second nature or instinctual to mothers).

Skeels (1966) study dramatically illustrates this point. All
thirteen of his experimental group, which received a high level of
stimulation (between the ages of two and one half and four years) from
mother surrogates, were all self supporting thirty years later and their
personal development and adjustment were considered normal. Yet, of the
control group of twelve who remained in a sterile environment, only
three were contributing to their own support thirty years later and had
obtained any degree of normal personal adjustment and development.

Bowlby (1969) has proposed a theory of attachment, Component
Instinct Response Theory, which accounts for the infant as an active
agent in its own socialization and that of others. Basically the infant
possesses five behavioral systems-- sucking, clinging, following, crying,
and smiling-- in its repetoire. The first three are infant initiated
orienting responses which direct the infant toward the caregiver and
consequently the stimuli involved with contact. Crying and smiling
responses direct the caregiver to the infant and usually elicit care-
giving activities. The caregiver's response reinforces the infant
contingent on stimuli the infant is instrumental in presenting and
thereby strengthens the affectual bond as well as learning contingencies.
This reciprocity of interaction seems somewhat obvious as the caregivers
responses are at least partially a result of infant demand, yet the

literature does not reflect this relationship. The subject is usually

19

treated in terms of the caregivers effect on an empty human eager for
molding, or largely ignored. Surprisingly Kerckhoff (1972) states
"operant learning is the only form of parental influence available in
early infancy, both tuition and modeling become possible before the

child reaches school age. Thus, it is more reasonable to focus solely on
the mother's techniques during infancy than it is in early childhood.
Clearly, after infancy the mother and child interact, and potential
maternal influence is much more pervasive than any simple operant learn-
ing perspective might suggest (p. #3)." In these statements Kerckhoff
denies any early mutual socialization.

Several authors (Mowrer, 1960; Sears et. a1, 1957; Whitting and
Child, 1953) concur on a behavioristic model of learning which links the
presocial behavior of infancy to social behavior via an attachment bond.
Basically the infants experience of care, affection and approval from
mother and other socializing agents acquire a positive affective value
for the child. This positive valuing generalizes to other attributes of
the caregiver hence, the child is motivated to reproduce many of the
behaviors of the nurturant model. This occurs particularly when
affectual presence is absent or withdrawn, the child providing itself
with reinforcement. This model speaks to the reinforcing power of
caregivers once an attachment bond has been established, and hints at
the motivation to reproduce these feelings by internal control. It
would be simplistic to assume this model accounts for the shift from

external to internal control of behavior.

Internalization of Behavior. Internalization has been referred to

(Piaget, 1951; Vygotsky, 1962) as a process whereby behavior that was

15

once public and overt becomes represented with an internal cognative
model. Basically, external contingencies in the childs immediate social
environment excercise a profound control over the modification and
maintainence of its behavior. As behavior stabilizes the child becomes
increasingly independent of external controls, developing internal
structures. These function in a similar manner as those external
controls originally required to establish the behavior; descriptively
"they are affective and cognative mechanisms which carry motivation and
informational functions of the externally structured determinants of the
childs' social learning into its capacity for internalized control over
its behavior (Aronfreed, 1971, p. 263).

The two models, recurring throughout the literature, which account
for internalization are reinforcement theory and modeling or imitation.
Reinforcement principles suggest shaping the child's behavior through
positive or aversive responses contingent on the child's overt act.
Modeling takes into account the observation and behavioral imitation of
social models without direct reinforcement to the observer. Maccoby
(1968) states:

\

"...whether one emphasizes modeling or direct reinforcement
or both, the parent still plays a crucial role in the
socialization process..., for the parents serve as the most
consistently available and salient models as well as the
primary dispensers of reinforcement during the early part
of the child's life. Furthermore, although a child may
acquire elements of social behavior through observation or
a model with whom he is not directly interacting, the,
performance of the behavior tends to be controlled by the
immediate reinforcement contingencies, hence, the people
who are in a position to control these contingencies will
have the greatest effect upon what the child does, even if
they have less exclusive control over what he learns how

to do (p. 2N2)."

Aronfreed (1971) has pulled together a large body of literature on

l6

internalization drawing a tenuous connection between internalization and
specific childrearing practices, although many antecedents of the total
parent-child relationship have been ignored. Surprisingly there has
been little attention paid to studying internalization itself. This
points to the impossibility of separating out the socializing agent in

a discussion of internalization, yet much is lost in pursuing one track
of a whole process.

Aronfreed (1971) discusses nurturance as necessary for internaliz-
ation. This has already been discussed briefly as a consideration of
attachment behavior (which itself can be considered as an antecedent of
internalization). The rational for nurturance is that its lack would
interfer with the establishment of positive or negative value of social
stimuli and therefore have limited controlling power in terms cf
reinforcement or modeling behavior. In effect nurturance is necessary
for attachment and both are a prerequisite for internalization.

The literature* indicates "a minimum intensity of social attachment
to a nurturant figure is required to produce effective internalization
of the child's control over conduct. Beyond the requirements of this
minimal threshold, however, internalization cannot be regarded as a
generalized, continuous function of parental nurturance. Internalization
appears to be modulated by only a restricted range of variation in
nurturance, around the point at which a strong positive attachment is

formed between child and socializing agent (Aronfreed, p. 306)."

 

“Positive correlations have been established between internal-
ization and parental affection (Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Burton, 1961;
Sears, 1957), parental nurturance versus punitiveness (Bandura & Walters,
1959; Glueck 8 Glueck, 1950; McCord, McCord, 8 Howard, 1963), and punish-
ment by nurturant agents (Ausubel, 1955; Bowlby, 19u7; Bronfenbrenner,
1960; Sears, 1957, 1965; and Whiting 8 Child, 1953).

17

It is inconceivable that all of the internalized products of
socialization could be derived from a generalized disposition of the
child to reproduce the attributes of socializing agents, which in turn
is a singular function of the amount of nurturance the child has
experienced. A much more complete account of internalization can be
made under the assumption that the nurturance of parents conditions
their effectiveness as socializing agents only to the extent that it
determines the acquired affective value of many more specific aspects
of their behavior, which are crucial to the power of their control over
their child's behavior. Under such an assumption, discrete mechanisms
of internalization would be attributable to a variety of contingencies
and parameters of learning, into which nurturance would enter only as
one determinant of the resources of a socializing agent for inducing
changes of affective state in the child (Aronfreed, 1971).

At this point it seems necessary to consider some of the theoretical
criticisms of this construct. Internalized behavior implies the control
is initiated by the individual himself rather than an external agent.
This assumes that the original external control through rewards and
punishments becomes independent of these external sanctions and the
individual comes to administer its own rewards and punishments. A basic
issue here is that an individuals behavior is often performed in
anticipation of social reward or punishment. It is internal in that the
response represents control from within the person. Yet, "whenever
behavior is motivated by fear of external punishment or promise of
external reward it seems reasonable to regard the behavior as externally
controlled (Maccoby, 1968, p. 259)." Thus only certain self-controlling

acts would be evidence of internalization-- those motivated by the wish

18

to avoid self-condemnation or merit self-approval. In light of this it
is difficult to determine whether the findings on self critical response
(tending to be acquired when paired with the termination of external
punishment; Aronfreed, 1963, p. u37) are truely internally controlled.

Bandura (1963) believes that behavior is always under the control
of external, discriminative stimuli although he condedes sanctions can
be internalized. "It is very difficult to tell the difference between
sanctions that are internal, in the sense of punishment or reward by the
self, and actual or potential punishment from external agents; when an
individual appears to be maintaining a standard of behavior in the
absence of social support, or even in defiance of social standards, he
may actually be attempting to please a rather specialized external
person or group (p. 259)."

It would seem that the distinction between internal and external
control centers around the administration of sanctions. Whether the
rewards and punishments are self-administered or externally administered
seems almost impossible to determine and therefore only speculative.

The basic consideration is that they are applied toward an external
standard of behavior. Granted, the responsibility for control shifts
from the agent of socialization to the self, yet it is still the agent
who is instrumental in facilitation of the shift as well as the focal
content of the standard of behavior. This standard represents the
fusion of societal norms and expectations interpreted by parents, in

light of their own value orientation, into goal behavior for children.

19

Parental Value Orientation. In a discussion of the determinants of
parental attitudes Ausubel (1958) has identified two factors which
account for variability in attitudes. Psychosocial variability includes
inter- or sub-cultural determinants while idiosyncratic variability
includes personality structure, family and childhood experiences, and
situational variables. In effect these factors are the representational
variables which determine the agents value orientation. Direct teaching
of these values in infancy and early childhood is somewhat meaningless
due to the childs lack of language, symbolic representational skills, and
experience. "The indirect influence of cultural values in shaping
socialization practices is, however, enormous, and the child's
acquaintance with values implicit in various socialization practices may
be more important than the manifest content he learns from these
activities (Inkeles, 1971, p. 629).

The prevailing cultural ideology defines appropiate norms of
parent-child interaction; it contributes to the perpetuation of
cultural character by influencing parent attitudes which in turn is
established in the child. "These norms and values are products of
custom, tradition, ideological evolution and historical accident; of
economic, social, political and religious beliefs and institutions; of
institutionalized modes of timing and handling shifts in the biosocial
status of the child; and of different ways of ordering marital relation-
ships, family structure and intrafamilial roles (Murkock 6 Whiting, 1951,
p. 15)." It is easy to understand the diversity of population when one
looks at the complexities of interaction factors in the formation of a

value system, exclusive of individual idiosyncratic factors.

20

Even within a relatively homogeneous subculture variation does exist
because of individual perceptions and interpretive selection of the
norms. "The more heterogeneous the cultural norm is perceived to be,
the less coercive is its influence on individual attitudes. Hence, in
the absence of any clear cut normative standard of discipline, mothers
tend to rely more on their own experience and predilections than to
conform to the perceived modal view (Brodbeck, Nogee, 8 DeMascio, 1956,
p. u3)," thus increasing the heterogenity. The degree of diversity a
given culture will tolerate also varies. Ausubel (1958) states greater
"individual latitude is permitted in matters of method than in matters of
goal since it is often appreciated that different techniques may yield
the same end results (p. 353)." Ausubel also indicates that the future
distance of societal goals leads to greater acceptance of non-conformity
in early childhood. This appears possible to a limited extent. There
is a range of acceptance but certainly society is outraged at values on
either end of the continum. Perhaps this attitude of acceptance is
perpetuated by the lack of formal sanctions (legal structure) in the
period of early childhood. It is only recently that society has begun
formalizing the "rights of children" as opposed to other beings in a
meaningful and productive way. Another consideration is the fallacious
distinction between divergence of method versus goal. The goal (as a
value orientation as well as societal end product) determines the range
of possible methods. In studies of class differences (Duvall, 1996;
Kohn, 1969; Rosen, Crockett 8 Nunn, 1969) it appears that parental
values tend to be extensions of the modes of behavior that are functional
for the parent, specifically with respect to adult occupations. Working

class adults emphasize authority and external conformity while the

21

middle class emphasis is on self direction. Whether the mode of
behavior effects the value (as the authors suggest) or the behavior is
reflecting the values (also possible in light of social acquisition and
learning theory) is a moot question. It is most likely an interaction
exists. The class differences in behavior are probably representational
of differences in the values defining goals, as there seems to be some
methodological stability in reaching specific goals, when they are
recognized as different.

"The extent to which the individual parent is disposed to ignore
social guideposts and expert opinion and follow his own notions is
extremely variable, and depends on such traits as self-sufficiency, self
confidence, independence or thought, suggestibility, critical sense and
need for public approval (Merrill, 1996, p. 90)." In attempts to
account for this variability of attitude the solution to categorize
attitudes appeared in research. The oversimplification into unidimen-
sional (acceptance) or two dimensional (acceptance-dominance) scales did
not do much in terms of promoting a comprehensive understanding of
parental behavior; but, its simplicity probably had a cognative appeal
to the larger society and possibly encouraged a faddism of technique,
although values probably remained the same. The multiple scale approach
(Fels Parent Behavior Rating Scales), even when reduced to a managable
number of factors, was hardly useful in predicting behavior.

Other behavior constructs have been proposed in explaining the
effect of value orientation on behavior. Schaefer (1959, 1961) suggests
a two dimensional bi-polar model of control-autonomy and hostility-love
to account for behavioral variation. These dimensions correspond with

the general classification of love-oriented and power-assertive

22

techniques of discipline. The two dimensions suggest a rigidity of
behavior yet Schaefer has allowed for gradations between each area which
comes closer to reality. Becker (1969) added a third dimension by
dividing Schaefer's control-autonomy dimension into restrictive-permiss-
ive and anxious/emotional involvement-calm/detached involvement.

Clausen (1968) has developed a model identifying the variables
effecting the normative expectations for role performance and value
orientation between socialization agent and those being socialized, in
this case the child. He includes the factors of emotionality, warmth,
and control of Becker and Schaefer but organized them into a more complex
schema involving other factors. Punishment can be an effective means of
controlling children's behavior, but the process is complex. Parke
(1972) indicates the effectiveness of a punishment is dependent on the
timing, intensity, consistency, affectional and/or status relationship
between the agent and recipient of punishment, and the kind of cognative
structuring accompaning the punishing stimulus.

The effects of timing of punishment have been explored by a number
of authors. Bixenstine (1956), Davitz, Mason, Mowrer, 8 Vick (1957),
and Mowrer 8 Ullman (1945) found that delayed punishment is less
effective than immediate punishment in inhibiting responses. Mowrer
(1963) suggests "the punished agent learns not to commit a socially
deviant act because proprioceptive and other response-produced cues
acquire the capacity to arouse fear. Thus, in both active and passive
avoidance learning, formerly neutral cues become capable of eliciting a
conditioned emotional response, and the process differs primarily in the
nature of the stimuli that are conditioned (p. 207)." It appears that

the longer the delay between the initiation of an act and the onset of

23

punishment, the less effective the punishment is for producing response
inhibition (Walters, Parke, 8 Cane, 1965; Aronfreed 8 Reber, 1965; Cheyne
8 Walters, 1969; and Parke 8 Walters, 1967). While, the accompaniment

of reasoning or verbal rationale with punishment nulls the usual timing
of punishment effect: early and late timed punishments were equally
effective inhibitors of child behavior (Aronfreed, 1965; Cheyne 8
Walters, 1969; Parke, 1969; and Walters 8 Andres, 1967).

Similar findings have been demonstrated for consistency of punish-
ment. Glueck 8 Glueck (1950) and McCord, McCord, 8 Howard (1961) found
higher incidences of deliquency and criminality associated with incon-
sistent patterns of discipline while Deur 8 Park (1970) found inconsis-
tent punishment highly associated with aggression in children. They
have defined consistency as the extent to which a single agent treats
violations in the same manner each time a violation occurs, implying
the child builds up resistance to future attempts to either extinguish
deviant behavior or suppress it by the use of inconsistent punishments.

Kohn (1963) has suggested that it may be less important to ask
whether or not a parent uses corporal punishment than it is to ask when
he uses it or any other disciplinary techniques. Although the kind of
sanctions used may be significant it may be much more significant to
know what acts are being sanctioned. Maccoby (1961) has also argued
that a narrow focus on techniques used tends to obscure the meaning of
the technique and to ignore the fact that the same technique may have a
very different meaning in different situations or at different points in
the childs life.

It appears that past models, representing theoretical constructs,

have attempted to focus on parental value orientation through analysis

24

and classification of parent behaviors. The inference being, behavior
is an indication of value orientation. As a result the ambiguity and
conflicting data presented has made the integration of information into
a comprehensive schema of childrearing practices and consequences
virtually impossible. While parental behavior is usually consistent
with a goal, which is in turn, defined by a value, there can be numerous
behavioral methods used to achieve the same goal. The relationship
between method and goal appears to be inverted. Previously the value a
parent holds has been inferred from the goal they strive toward and
research has focused analysis on the means (parental behaviors) of
achieving that goal. Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to
define a value orientation initially and look at this dimension as it
influences child behavior.

McKinney (1971) has focused on value orientation as a consistent
behavioral attitude regardless of the method involved. "The development
of behavioral values has generally been conceptualized as a two-fold
process, one aspect dealing with pride for doing what is right and the
other dealing with guilt for doing wrong (p. 71)." He further states,
"in both psychoanalytic and learning theory there is the implication that
childrens values develop as children are punished for doing what is
wrong and rewarded for doing what is right. However, children might also
be punished for not doing what they ought (sin of ommission) or they
might be rewarded for not doing what they shouldn't (p. 72)."
Sociologists make this same distinction between the norms which guide
the behavior of individuals in any organization: "prescribed norms are
the 'thou shalts', they are the standards of behavior to which all of

the members of the organization must adhere... Proscribed norms are the

25

'thou shalt nots', they specify which activities are forbidden...(Mott,
1965, p. 29)."

McKinney's research indicated that individual values do develop on
a prescriptive—proscriptive dimension, and that college students with a
prescriptive value orientation perceived their parents as being more
rewarding and less punitive, while proscriptively oriented subjects
perceived the Opposite. Olejnik (1971) found that preschool children
with a prescriptive value orientation were more generous than children
with a proscriptive value orientation, and mothers and fathers with a
prescriptive value orientation had children who were more generous.

It is apparent that some behavior-contingent learning takes place
when socializing agents use their rewards and punishments with the
intention of modifying the childs behavior. Since more information is
needed on childrearing practices which influence the development of
children's self concept, the purpose of the present study was to dis-
cover the relationship between parental value orientation and preschool
children's motivation-to-achieve, as an aspect of self concept, acquired

through behavior contingent learning.

Motivation to Achieve as an Agpect of Self Concept

In recent years studies of body image, identification, motivation,
self control, self actualization, selfhood, and similar concepts have
occupied the attention of many researchers and theorists. Jahoda (1958)
categorized the self concept as 1) accessibility to consciousness or the
ability to achieve self awareness; 2) correctness or objectivity in
being able to assess one's true characteristics; 3) feelings about the

self or acceptance including imperfections and faults; and u) a sense of

26
identity or clarity of self image (p. 13). Lowe (1961) points out there
are at least six notions of what the self is:
"1) the self that knows-- the 'I' or Freud's ego; 2) the
motivating self: 'I must do well because it is important
to me.‘ 3) the 'humanistic' semireligious conception of
the self as that which experiences itself; A) the
organizer; 5) the self can also be a pacifier: 'an
adjustment mechanism which seems to maintain congruence
between the self and nonself'; and finally 6) the 'self
as the subjective voice of the culture, being purely a
social agent (p. 339)."

The importance of the need for the development of self concept is
also seen in the literature. McNeil (1969) says "a principal task
confronting the child is to learn who and what he is-- to gain a sense
of self (p. 68)." Developmental theory suggests that on an almost
instinctual basis we have some sort of need for self discovery or self
actualization. Fromm (1997) emphasized this thought when he hints man's
main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become what he
potentially is. This drive to make "actual" what one senses in himself
as potential has been described (Prescott, 1957; Cantril, 1950) as the
urge to become or as a sense of purpose in life.

Although self esteem is generally assumed to be a major factor in
determining behavior, there has been relatively little research towards
clarifying its significance and dynamics. Studies in such diverse areas
as recall of completed and incompleted tasks (Rosenzweig, 1938), levels
of aspiration (Sears, 1953), responses to conformity pressures (Asch,
1998), reaction to threat (Lazarus and Longo, 1953), and body acceptance
(Johnson, 1956; Secord 8 Jourard, 1953), have concluded that self esteem
is a significant contributing variable.

Studies of self esteem are difficult to evaluate, since the term

itself is vague and subject to many interpretations. Underlying the

27

variety of terminology-- pride (Baldwin 8 Levine, 1957), ego (Freud,
1927; Gough, 1959), dominance (Gough, 1954; Maslow, 1939), self assert-
ion (Gough, 1958), self cathexis (Jourard, 1957)-- is a distinction
between self evaluation and the manner in which the self evaluation is
expressed in behavior.

For the purposes of this study, Rogers' definition (1951) of self
concept provides a comprehensive statement:

"The self concept is an organized configuration of perceptions
of the self which are admissable to awareness. It is composed
of such elements as the perceptions of one's characteristics
and abilities; the precepts and concepts of self in relation
to others and to the environment; the value qualities which
are perceived as associated with experiences and objects; and
the goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive

or negative valence. It is the organized picture existing in
awareness either as a figure or ground, or the self and the
self-in-relationship, together with the positive or negative
values which are associated with those qualities and relation-
ships, as they are perceived as existing in the past, present,
or future (p. 501)."

The inclusion of a measurement of motivation-to-achieve as an
aspect of self concept was based upon the assumption that a knowledge of
an individual's self concept is necessary before it is possible to
understand completely his social behavior or attitudes. An individual's
perceptions of self have been shown to determine, to a considerable
extent, what he does and what he believes. His behavior is determined
by the concept he has of himself and his abilities (Snygg 8 Combs, 1999,
p. 78).

Smith (1966) demonstrated the connection between motivation-to-
achieve and self concept when he says "the infant must acquire three
things to develop a motivation-to-achieve: 1) physical and conceptual

skills, 2) a sense of self in order to appreciate that an accomplishment

is his 'own', and 3) the capacity to conceive that an activity (e.g.,

28

working a puzzel) is directed toward the attainment of a goal
(completing the puzzel correctly) (p. 30)." Allport (1961) says "the
child of two is not yet competitive. Only by the age of three can he be
taught to 'get ahead'. Between three and four, about half acquire the
sense of 'I beat you'. By the age of six or seven in our culture we can
safely say that self esteem acquires a competitive flavor (p. 119)."
"Individual differences in achievement motivation are discernible
in young children as they emerge from infancy. During the early develop-
ment of prehension and locomotion, for example, many children are
observed constantly to strive and persist in their attempts to develop

these skills while the efforts of other children are sporadic and

delsultory. By nursery school age, differences in childrens achievement
motivation and behavior are evident in a variety of areas (Crandall,

Preston, 8 Rabson, 1960, p. 2H3)."

Parental Influences on Achievement Motivation. Presumedly, the achieve-
ment need, like other need systems, is a product of social learning
situations and reinforcements which children experience in their daily
lives. Direct social reinforcement of the child's accomplishments is
necessary if the child is to learn to value achievement activities as
potential sources of satisfaction and security.

McClelland (1953) has defined achievement motivation as that time
when "the child begins to perceive performance in terms of standards of
excellence and to experience pleasant or unpleasant feelings about
meeting or failing to meet these standards (p. 165)." While, achieve-
ment behavior is that behavior "directed toward the attainment of

approval or the avoidance of disapproval (from oneself or from others)

29

for competence of performance in situations where standards of excell-
ence are applicable (Crandall, Katkovsky, 8 Preston, 1960, p. 788)."

In effect, even after a child has attained basic skills, independence,
goal direction, and a sense of self, he still has to learn the standards
for good performance and to discover that successful performance can be
satisfying. "The child must be able to note a discrepancy between his
present level of competence and a higher level of skill and to predict
that more proficiency will produce greater pleasure, pride, or approval
from others than his present skill will now permit (Crandall 8 Rabson,
1960, p. 165)."

Smith (1966) suggests "parental influence is felt in the form of
the standards which parents set (e. g., to perform with fewer mistakes),
the amount of interest they display in the child's activities, the
extent to which they praise his success or belittle his failure, and the
extent to which they set high standards for themselves and attempt to
live up to them (p. 31)." Many researchers have found parental expecta-
tions for their children (Argyle 8 Robinson, 1962; Callard, 196u;
Katkovsky, Preston, 8 Crandall, 1964; Mote, 1967; Rosen 8 D'Andrade,
1959; and Winterbottom, 1958), parental affection or nurturance
(McClelland, 1958; Rosen 8 D'Andrade, 1959) to be highly correlated with
achievement motivation. Several studies have attempted to relate
specific parental childrearing practices or attitudes to the development
of either achievement behavior or achievement motives in the child.

Rearing of high achievers has been found to be restrictive-
authoritarian by Drews 8 Teaham (1957) or dominant-ignoring (Hurley,
1959). However, conflicting data has been presented suggesting high

achievers have come from acceptant-indulgent or permissive homes

3O

(Baldwin, Kalhorn, 8 Breese, 1995; and Watson, 1957) or parents have
been encouraging and approving (Mannino, 1962; Morrow 8 Wilson, 1961).
It seems apparent that resolution of these discrepancy will come with a
greater understanding of the relationship between those childrearing
variables that underlie the authoritarian-democratic, independence-
dependence, permissive-restrictive dimensions. Certainly greater
precision of behavioral definitions and closure among the different
criterion used to measure achievement (academic performance, need
achievement, measured intelligence) is needed. Evidence does indicate
that children with strong achievement motivation are independent
(Winterbottom, 1958—- not ask for help), concerned with mastery
(Coopersmith, l960-- repeat failed task; Rosen 8 D'Andrade, 1959--
build higher towers; Kagan 8 Moss, 1962-- persist at challenging tasks;
and Crandall 8 Rabson, 1960-- repeat previously failed tasks), and are
able to postpone gratification (Mischel, 1961).

Child, Frank, and Storm's research (1956) support the theory that
the self concept is learned and as such, develops without anxiety about
those traits that had been valued and rewarded by parents and other
important persons during childhood; but a poor self concept, and some
marked anxiety develop about those traits that have been punished, or
had failed to receive reward. Ausubel, et al.,(195u) include, in a
study of the effects of parental attitude on children's self concept,
some findings supporting the hypothesis that children's self concept
develop according to the pattern of parent's rewards and punishments.
When the pattern stresses objective success rather than the need of the
developing child, unfortunate personality characteristics may develop.

Finally, a review of parental practices (Hoffman, 1963) and their

31

pertinence to child behavior reaches a common core of agreement: The
type of discipline which tries to use the child's internal forces to
induce his compliance seems to foster understanding and adoption of
appropiate behavior. By using the child's internal forces it is meant
appealing to his need for affection, his self esteem, and his concern
for others. Hoffman also concludes that the use of physical coercion
and other forms of direct power assertion of parents over children
promotes a moral orientation based on fear of external detection and
punishment.

Empirical and experimental data clearly indicate a direct relation-
ship between the child's self concept and his manifest behavior, percep-
tions, and academic performance. Lecky (19u5) was one of the first
investigators to demonstrate that low academic achievement was often due
to a child's definition of himself as a non-learner. Walsh (1956) found
that "high-ability, low-achievers" had a negative self regard when
matched with "high-ability, high-achievers". Benjamins (1950), Buckley
8 Scanlan (1956), Reeder (1955), and Stevens (1956) presented additional
data to show how a person's self concept has a direct bearing on his

intellectual efficiency.

Sigpificant Other Influences on Achievement Motivation. Brookover,

 

Thomas, 8 Paterson (1968) found a statistically significant positive
correlation between self concept and perceived evaluation of significant
others, general performance in academics, and Specific subject matter
performance. Studies by Brookover, Paterson, and Thomas (1962),

La Benne (1968) and Rosenthal 8 Jacobson (1968) also demonstrated a

positive relationship between self concept and academic achievement.

32

Brookover and associates demonstrated with Junior High School
students that:

1. Self concept of ability is positively related to
school achievement.

2. A student's self concept of ability in a specific

school subject may differ from his general self

concept of ability (also supported by the research

of Crandall, 1967, p. 167).

3. A student's self concept of ability is positively

related to the image he perceives that significant

others hold of him, when parents, teachers, and

peers are identified as significant others.
Brookover reported that parents were perceived to be the most important
significant others, even in adolescence, peers ranking second. Self
concept theory, according to Wylie (1961), is based upon two supposi-
tions; first, the self concept is a product of social reaction. More
specifically, it is usually assumed that development and change in self
concept are direct functions of response to significant others, and
second, self concept has a predictable effect on behavior generally.
Theory also suggests that self concept is directly related to certain
behavioral consequences. Schmuck's (1963) results showing that
perceived low status of self was related to underutilization of intell-
ectual abilities and to having negative attitudes toward school seems
to support this position. In addition Schmuck found that students who
believe that they are liked, in spite of low liking status, make better
use of their abilities than those who have a more realistic perception
of their status in the group.

Davidson and Lang (1960) studied fourth, fifth, and sixth graders

in the New York school system. They reported that the children's self

concepts, achievement and desirable classroom behaviors were directly

related to their perceptions of how teachers felt about them.

33

Similarly, Flanders and Havumaki (1960) discovered that the effects of
pupil-teacher interactions on the sociometric choices of the children
were significantly correlated with teacher praise. When contacts
involving praise increased, the pupil's acceptance by his peers
increased as well. Finally, Perkins (1958) found that teachers who had
taken certain courses in mental hygiene and child development were able
to promote healthier personality growth in children, defined in terms of
self and ideal self congruency.

Evidence suggests that a student's self concept directly effects
his performance in task-oriented situations. Coopersmith (1959), further
supported by Roth (1954), reported a correlation of .36 between positive
self concept and school achievement in a group of 102 fifth and sixth
grade children. Roth (l95u) concluded, "...in terms of their conception
of self, individuals have a definite investment to perform as they do.
With all things being equal, those who do not achieve choose not to do
so, while those who do achieve, choose to do so (p. 280)."

The prOposition that self conceptions are learned and that the
evaluative reactions of others play a significant part in the learning
process is supported in an experiment by Videbeck (1960). Participants
significantly changed their self-ratings in the hypothesized direction
after one critique by an evaluator. These findings are related to those
of Brookover and colleagues (1962), who found that "a student's self
concept of ability is positively related to the image he perceives
significant others hold of him when parents, teachers, and peers are
identified as significant others (p. 73)." Both Campbell (1965) and
Caplin (1969) reported that there is a direct, linear relationship

between self concept and school achievement for children in the fourth,

3H

fifth, and sixth grades and (Miller, 1963) in Junior High grades. These
findings are largely supported, demonstrating teachers' expectations of
children's successes had significant effects on self concept and

achievement in school.

Summagy

The review of literature and related research presented in this
chapter was divided into two sections which constitute the theoretical
framework of this study. The first section was a review of the
literature concerning the effects of parents on a child's early
experiences. The second section has attempted to draw a connection
between motivation-to-achieve as an aspect of self concept and link
this with parental behaviors, as well as behaviors of significant

others.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

In this chapter the procedures used in conducting the research are
presented. This will include an identification of the sample and a
description of the survey instruments used for measurement of motivation-
to-achieve in children and parental value orientation. In addition

the procedures for the collection and analysis of the data are outlined.

Identification of Sample

 

The parents and children from five classrooms in three parent
cooperative nursery schools comprised the subjects of research.
Achievement motivation measures were collected on a total of thirty-
five Caucasian children (17 males, 18 females) ranging in age from
3.1 to 5.u years old, Table 3.1. The parents, in all cases the mother,
of each child comprised the sample for the value orientation measure.
The families live in communities surrounding a large mid-western
university and generally reflect middle to upper-middle class values, if
not economic level.

Table 3.1-~Sex-Classroom Distribution of Preschool Subjects.

 

 

 

 

Classroom 1 2 3 u 5 Total
Males 2 5 u H 2 17
Females 4 5 3 u 2 18

 

 

35

 

36

Survey Instruments

Parental Value Orientation Measure. Parental values are assumed to be
stable at any given point in time however, a value may be expressed by
a variety of techniques. While parental values seem to be a consistent
overriding factor in making meaningful statements about parent behavior,
there are few instruments which measure this dimension, especially at
the preschool level by infering values from concrete behavioral
situations. As a result, a questionnaire was developed to measure
parental value orientation using a four cell model (Figure 3.1.)
developed by McKinney (1971). This model was based on the assumption
that parents do not only reward the "good" and punish the "bad"; they

may also reward the "not bad" and punish the "not good" behaviors of

 

 

 

 

children.
Parental Value Orientation
Encourage Discourage

Prescriptive: Cell One: Pre-Enc Cell Two: Pre-Disc
Focus on what child
does or does not do Child encouraged for Child discouraged for
that is RIGHT. doing right; a direct not doing what ought

behavior. to do; an avoidance

behavior.

Proscriptive: Cell Three: Pro-Enc Cell Four: Pro-Disc
Focus on what child
does or does not do Child encouraged for Child discouraged for
that is WRONG. not doing what should doing wrong; a direct

not do; an avoidance behavior.

behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3.1.--Parenta1 Value Orientation Model.

37

Prescriptively, a parent focuses on positive behaviors of the
child--what the child does or does not do that is "right". Cell one,
Prescriptive-Encourage, represents those parent values that reward or
encourage the child for doing "right": following the prescribed norm.
An example of this (Item 7) is the encouraging of "sharing toys with
brother or sister." In addition, Items 10, l2, 17, 23, 26, and 28 are
included in this cell. Cell Two, Prescriptive-Discourage, represents a
prescriptive value of discouraging the child for not doing "right"--not
doing what they ought to do. Discouraging a child for "not keeping room
clean" (Item 16) is an example of this behavior as well as Items 3, 15,
19, 2a, and 27.

Proscriptively, a parent focuses on childrens' negative behaviors—-
what the child does or does not do that is "wrong". In Cell Three a
child would be encouraged for "not wetting bed at night" (Item 18) as
well as items a, ll, 13, 20, 21, 22, and 25. In this case children
are encouraged for not doing the "wrong" thing. In Cell Four,
Proscriptive-Discourage, the parent discourages the child for doing
"wrong"--discouraging "spitting food at table" (Item 2) as well as
items 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and la.

Originally a fifty item pilot questionnaire was developed and
responded to by a group of fifteen cooperative nursery school parents
not included in the sample, but representing the same population. On
the basis of these results a revised battery of thirty-eight items was
selected and presented to five specialists* who rated the items in

terms of value orientation and subject content. In an effort to

 

*
Dr. Eileen Earhart, Dr. Ellen Strommen, Dr. Don Melcer,
Mrs. Alice Whiren, and Dr. and Mrs. Dennis Keefe.

38

establish some degree of reliability items that appeared to be ambiguous
repetitious, or about which there was disagreement were eliminated.
Face validity was established by raters responding to seven subject
content areas suggested by Clifford (1959) as familiar family situations.
The final questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of twenty-eight
randomized items representing the four cell model of value orientation
and seven content areas.

The content areas and operational definitions are:

l. Achievement behavior: child's behavior in approaching a
new or difficult task, (Items 1, u, 19, and 23).

2. Play behavior: Child's behavior at play, in or outside
home, excluding interactions with persons, (Items 5,
12, 21, 22).

3. homelife: Child's non-play behavior in home environment
excluding interactions with persons in the home, (Items
9, 16, 20, 26).

H. Social Situations: Child's interaction with persons
outside home, (Items 8, l2, 17, 27).

S. Family relationship: Interaction with immediate family
members (parents, sibling, or others) inside home,
(Items 7, 1a, 2a, 25).

6. Routines of sleep and Health: Child behavior toward or
with it's body, and/or at routine sleeptime, (Items 6,
15, 18, 28).

7. Routines of Dressing and Eating: Child's behavior during
the mealtime or regarding selection and wearing of cloths
(Items 2, 3, 10, 11).

Each of the twenty—eight items represents typical child behaviors
that would either be encouraged or discouraged to a greater or lesser
degree. Encourage was defined as "any parent behavior that will increase
the likelihood of a similar child response" and discourage, as "any

parent behavior that would decrease the likelihood of a similar

response". Parents were asked to indicate whether they would encourage

39

or discourage each item and to what degree (1 through 5)--from very
little to very much. In addition, information on the agent and timing
of reinforcement was collected, although not analyzed in this study.
Parental value orientation was determined by combining similar
cells within the suggested model. Not only were the values of Prescrip-
tive and Proscriptive defined (as combinations of Cells 1 8 2, 3 6 u
respectively), but two other orientations were also explored. By
combining Cells One and Three, and Cells Two and Four the Encourage-
Discourage dimension was isolated. It was assumed that parents may only
respond by typically discouraging (or encouraging) all behaviors rather
than encouraging some behaviors and discouraging others. If the major-
ity of parent responses fell in Cells 2 8 u (or in Cells 3 6 l in the
case of the encouraging parent) they could neither be classified as
prescriptive nor proscripitve because their behavior would overlap both
categories. Similarly, an orientation of Direct-Avoidance was
established. Cells one and Four represent the valuing of direct child
behaviors, focusing on what the child does, whether right or wrong.
Cells Two and Three reflect what the child does not do right or does not
do wrong--his avoidance behaviors. Thus three dichotomous parental
value orientations, Prescriptive-Proscriptive, Encourage-Discourage, and

Direct-Avoidance, have been used to define six possible parent values.

Motivation-to-Achieve Measure. Children's motivation-to-achieve was

 

measured using Gumpgookies (Ballif 8 Adkins, 1968). At the time of

 

testing there were few measures of self concept suitable for the pre-
school years. Ballif and Adkins (1971) have defined motivation-to-

achieve as: "...the result of the dynamic interaction of five specific

wpa,,

#0

ways of thinking about the self and achievement. Specifically, if a
child is to be motivated to achieve he must: (1) expect pleasure from
achieving, (2) see himself as an achiever, (3) be able to set up purposes
appropiate for achievement, (u) know and be able to perform the instru-
mental steps that will be effective in obtaining his goal, and (5) be
able to evaluate his own performance. These ways of thinking about the
self--attitudes, expectations, understanding, and process--are concept-
ualized as covert responses not unlike overt responses in that they can
be evoked by a variety of stimulus patterns as a result of previous
learning (p. 2)." This definition emphasizes the "self" to a large
degree. Motivation-to-achieve will, therefore, be defined for the
purpose of this study in the same limited and specific sense.

Gumpgookies is a seventy-five item dichotomous projective technique

 

in storybook format, individually administered for children three to
five years of age. Each item consists of two "gumpgookies" (amorphous
figures) pictured at an activity, one displaying a higher degree of
achievement motivation. The pictures are large, with little color and
the position of the gumpgookie figures is randomized (up-down, left-
right, primacy-latency) on each page. There are four sample items to
check the child's understanding of the self-projection technique.
Item 50 is presented in Figure 3.2 as a typical example of test
questions. Children re eve one point for each high achievement answer,
raw scores ranging from O to 75. Raw scores are converted to age normed
Z scores.

Adkins, Payne, and Ballif (1972) report original face validity was
established when responses were keyed as correct by agreement of judges

as to which alternative represented greater motivation-to-achieve.

I+1

Item 50 caption reads:
Here are two Gumpgookies
getting up in the morning.
(Right) This one thinks

it will be a good day.
This one thinks it will be
a bad day.

Which is yours?

Figure 3.2.--Example of Item (50) on Gumpgookies Test.

 

 

 

 

 

Scores of 129 Head Start children within a one year age range
correlated .2u for the Stanford-Binet I. Q., .31 with Caldwell's (1968)
Preschool Inventory, and .23 with the Psycholinguistic Age score of the
I.T.P.A. (1968), suggesting Gumpgookies measures something other then
general intelligence, achievement, or linguistic ability. Throughout
development factor analytic techniques and also randomization of correct
answer position, were emphasized providing a type of construct validity.

For children within a one year age span and from fairly homogenous
socioeconomic groups the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 reliability
estimates for total raw scores are between .85 and .93. The test-retest
correlation was .60 using a group of 220 Head Start children at two to
three week intervals. The rank-difference correlation coefficient of
total score on the test with a teacner's rating of children on the sum

of twelve items of Zigler's Behavior Inventory was .MB ( P 41.05, n = 15).

 

Based on a regular rating scale the test correlated .58 ( PI<..01) with
regular teacher's ranking and .72 with the language teacher's ranking

of motivation.

142

Procedure for Collection of Data

 

After contacting individual schools and proposing the study to
staff members, the researcher met with the parent governing board of
each nursery school to secure approval. Parent permission forms briefly
describing the study and indicating that participation included a follow-
up questionnaire, were sent home with each child, and were returned with
parent signatures. During this time the experimenter spent approxi-
mately one week in the classroom becoming familiar with the children.
Testing was done on an individual basis, the tester suggesting they
"play a game" or "read a story" together in another room.' In two cases
the rooms were empty infant units and in the last school testing was
done in a central reception area; since testing was done during school
hours there was little 'traffic' and distractions were kept to a minimum.

The subject sat at a child-sized table on the left of the tester,

facing the Gumpgookies book. There were four introductory items to

 

check the child's ability at responding to a self-projection technique.
If the child understood what was being asked of him (by picking one of
two amorphous figures that "likes what he likes" and "does what he does")
then the child proceds through the next 75 items. An identification
number was assigned to all completed tests and, corresponding to the
number on the parenthuestionnaire form.

All parents of those children tested received the 28 item likert
value orientation questionnaire, directions (Appendix A), and self-
addressed stamped envelope. A two week deadline was arbitrarily set for
the return of the questionnaire. Those persons whose questionnaire had
not been received within this time were telephoned to discover the reason

for delay. Additional questionnaires were remailed or hand delivered to

#3

those who had lost or misplaced them. If the parent did not understand
the questionnaire the researcher spoke with them at length over the
telephone or during a home visit until the parent was confident they

could give the information correctly. All information was returned
through the mail to assure the individual's privacy and each questionnaire
was matched with the appropiate child information by an identification

number. All information was coded and transfered to computer cards.

Procedure for Analysis of Data

 

Children's total raw scores on the Gumpgookies measure were
transformed to age-normed Z scores based on tables standardized on a
sample of 1513 children (Adkins 6 Payne, 1971) representative of ten
ethnic and cultural groups from urban and rural settings, and three
geographic regions of the United States. Children from the standardized
sample ranged from thirty-nine to seventy-two months in age, mixed for
sex and socioeconomic class, and attending private, state, and federally
funded preschool and day care programs. At least twenty subjects per
month reported are represented in the table. See Appendix B for the
2 score transformations for the present subjects of study.

Parents responses (Appendix C) for items included in each of the
four value orientation cells were developed into cell scores (Appendix
D). Cell scores were obtained by totaling the amount of the appropiate
responses for items in that cell and dividing by the number of appropiate
responses to obtain an average score for each individual. Inappropiate
responses, i.e. a response of "discourage" on items determined by judges
as appropiately being "encourage", were eliminated from the individuals

raw score before averaging. In addition, items number one and four were

nu

eliminated from analysis for all subjects due to a high degree of unpre-
dicted variability of response on these items. These responses may have
reflected ambigous interpretation of the items. Individual cell scores
were used to form parental value orientation scores.

A correlation matrix was computed to determine the degree of
relationship between the ten value orientation items (Cells 1, 2, 3, u,
Prescriptive, Proscriptive, Encourage, Discourage, Direct, Avoidance),

child's sex, and the child's Gumpgookies Z score. Due to the exploratory

 

nature of this study an a priori alpha level of .10 was established to
determine statistical significance. At this level, a correlation
coefficient of at least .296 (30 degrees freedom) was required to reject
the null hypothesis. A regression analysis was used to determine the
predictability of motivation-to-achieve from parental value orientation
scores. In addition, an analysis of variance was used to determine
whether high motivation-to-achieve children (1 standard deviation above

mean Gumpgookies Z score) and low motivation-to-achieve children (1

 

standard deviation below mean Gumpgookies Z score) were significantly
different from each other in terms of the sex of the child or value

orientation of the parents.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

In this chapter the examination and analysis of the data are
presented. The hypotheses are examined in the same order as they

were tested.

Presentation of Data

The main strategy used for data analysis was a regression model.
This design was used to predict the dependent variable, in this case
children's motivation-to-achieve, from the independent variables, the
specific parental value orientations. In addition, a correlation matrix,
Table n.1, was developed to determine the degree of relationship between
all the variables. An analysis of variance was used to determine
whether there were any significant differences between high and low
motivation-to-achieve children in terms of parental value orientation.

The correlations between Cell 1 and Cells 2, 3, and H are all
significant--.658, .507, and .ues respectively. The correlations
between Cells 2 and Cells 3 and u are .528 and .618, significant at the
.10 level. The correlation between Cells 3 and u is not significant,
.256. The value orientation scores have been developed by combining cell
scores. Only those correlations between value orientations that are

mutually exclusive (independent of each other) are pertinent to examine.

1+5

.mmm. mo powwowmooo coflpmaonpoo meoemoaw momawoo om .Ho>ma 00. um uanMM0cw0ma

 

930m 00929 039 mac
02:0 00o>< 000 0000 000 000 090 0000 0000 0000 0000 x00 000 000000005

 

#6

000.0 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 050.- 000.- 5:0. 000.- 000. 000.- 00000000200

000.0 000. 005. 000. 500. 000. 000. 000. 000. 050. 000. 0:0. 000000o><
000.0 000. 005. 000. 000. 000. 00:. ::5. 0:0.. 000.- 0:0. 000000

000.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 5::. :00. 000. 500. 000. 0000000000

000.0 000. 000. 00:. 000. 050. 0:0. 000.- 000. 0000:0000

000.0 0:5. :05. 005. 005. 000. 5:0.- 000.- 0>0000000000

000.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 050. 0>0000000000

000.0 000. 000. 00:. 050.- 000. : 0000
000.0 000. 500. 000. 000.- 0 0000

000.0 000. 000. 000. 0 0000

000.0 000.- 000. 0 0000

000.0 000. x00

000.0 000

 

.mmanmwum> mo honesz deuce .xwpum: cowumamhhoonl.a.: magma

47

The prescriptive value orientation is developed by combining the
averaged scores from Cell 1 and Cell 2. The proscriptive value
orientation is formed by combining scores from Cell 3 and Cell 9. In
that the Prescriptive and Proscriptive dimensions are mutually exclu-
sive, the correlation between these two dimensions represents two
independent factors and therefore is of note. The correlation for
Prescriptive and Proscriptive value orientation is .790, for Encourage
and Discourage value orientations is .615, and for Direct and Avoidance
value orientations is .686. All are significant at the .10 level. None
of the parental value orientation scores correlates significantly with
the Gumpgookies Z score. These correlations range from -.182 to .007.

A preliminary multiple regression analysis was used to establish
the nature of the basic relation between the independent variables
(Cell 1, 2, 3, u, Prescriptive-Proscriptive, Encourage-Discourage, and
Direct-Avoidance) and the dependent variable for motivation-to-achieve,
the Gumpgookies Z score.

The results of the multiple regression analysis are reported in
Table 4.2. None of the independent variable combinations was significant
in predicting the dependent variable, the Gumpgookies Z score.

Table u.2.-—Results of Multiple Regression Analysis.
Dependent Variable: Motivation-to-Achieve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . Level of
Independent Variable Variance Correlat1on F Ratio Probability
Cells 1, 2, 3, n .1206 .3037 1.029 .9085
Prescrfptfve' .0613 .2876 1.090 .3635
Proscriptive
E?C°urage' .0172 .1313 .280 .7275
Discourage
D1r3Ct' .0823 .2057 .706 .5009
Av01dance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

The level of probability exceeded the .10 alpha level needed to reject

the null hypothesis.

A step-wise regression analysis has been used to determine the

individual contributions of each independent variable.

reported in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3.--Results of Step-Wise Regression Analysis.
Gumpgookies Z Score.

Dependent Variabl

Independent Variables:

e:

 

The results are

Cells 1, 2, 3, 9, Prescriptive,

Proscriptive, Encourage, Discourage, Direct, and

Avoidance Value Orientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variables F Statistic Probability Azcozzziznfzr
a.===0=========================0, ===========--d

Cell One .9059 .5288 1.2136

Cell Two .8972 .3693 2.5979

Cell Three .9725 .9970 1.9999

Cell Four 2.3399 .1366 6.8586

Prescriptive 2.0718 .1598 6.0775

Proscriptive .0175 .8957 .0529

Encourage .5629 .9589 1.6773

Discourage .0152 .9027 .0967

Direct .9739 .3311 2.8651

Avoidance .9660 .5099 1.3698

 

 

 

Of all the above cells. the only measures approaching significance were

Cell Four which represents the Proscriptive-Discourage factor with a

probability level of .13 and Proscriptive value orientation with a .15

level of probability. Each variable accounts for 6.8 and 6.0 percent

of the variance.

99
Hypotheses Testing

The data from Table 9.1 were used to test H and H .

1 2

H1 There is no relationship between prescriptive parental
value orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

H2 There is no relationship between proscriptive parental
value orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

Using the variables Prescriptive value orientation and Gumpgookies
Z score the correlation coefficient for H1, -.022, is not significant.
The relationship between Proscriptive value orientation and motivation-

to-achieve is -.182. Therefore H1 and H2 are not rejected.

The data from Table 9.9 were used for testing Hla and H2a°

Hl Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not
a predict Prescriptive value orientation of parents.

Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not
predict Proscriptive parental value orientation.

H2a

Table 9.9.--Resu1ts of Regression Analysis.
Dependent Variables: Motivation-to-Achieve
Independent Variables: Prescriptive and Proscriptive
Parental Value Orientation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variables F Statistic Probability Variance
Prescriptive-Proscriptive 1.029 .9085 .1206
Proscriptive .017 .8957 .0529
Prescriptive 2.071 .1598 6.0775

 

 

 

 

 

 

The probability of being able to predict motivation-to-achieve from
a Prescriptive or Proscriptive parental value orientation is .90 and

d H are not rejected.

therefore, Hla an 2a

 

 

50

The data from Table 9.1 were used to test H3 and H“.

H3 There is no relationship between Encouraging parental
value orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

H“ There is no relationship between Discouraging parental
value orientation and children's motivation-to-achieve.

The correlation coefficient between Gumpgookies Z score, the measure of
motivation-to-achieve, and Encouraging or Discouraging value orientation

are -.l29 and -.062 respectively. Neither H3 nor H“ are significant

at the .10 level and the hypotheses are not rejected.

The data from Table 9.5 were used for testing H3a and H9a°
H3a Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not

predict Encouraging parental value orientation.

H9a Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not
predict Discouraging parental value orientation.

Table 9.S.--Resu1ts of Regression Analysis.
Dependent Variable: Motivation-to-Achieve
Independent Variables: Encourage and Discourage
Parental Value Orientation.

 

Independent Variables F Statistic Probability Variance

 
   

 

w

 

 

 

Encourage-Discourage .7572 .0172
Encourage .5629 .9589 1.6773
Discourage .0152 .9027 .0967

 

 

 

 

 

 

The probability of being able to predict motivation-to-achieve from
parental patterns of Encouraging of Discouraging behavior is .75 and

therefore H and H are not rejected.
3a 9a

51

The data from Table 9.1 were used to test H and H .

5 6
HS There is no relationship between parental reinforcement
of Direct behaviors and children's motivation-to-achieve.
H6 There is no relationship between parental reinforcement
of Avoidance behaviors and children's motivation-to-
achieve.

The correlation coefficient between Gumpgookies Z score and Direct
value orientation is -.16, and -.03 for Avoidance value orientation.

Neither are significant at the .10 level and H and H are not rejected.

5 6
The data from Table 9.6 were used for testing H5a and H6a°
Hsa Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not
predict Direct parental value orientation.
H6a Scores on a measure of motivation-to-achieve do not

predict Avoidance parental value orientation.

Table 9.6.--Results of Regression Analysis.
Dependent Variable: Motivation-to-Achieve.
Independent Variables: Direct and Avoidance Parental
Value Orientation.

 

Independent Variables F Statistic Probability Variance

 

 

 

 

Direct-Avoidance .7067 .5009 .0923
Direct .973». .3311 , 2.8651
Avoidance .9660 .5099 1.3698

 

 

 

 

 

 

The probability of being able to predict motivation-to-achieve from
parental reinforcement of Direct or Avoidance value orientations is

.50 and therefore H53 and H6a are not rejected.

52

A multivariate and univariate analysis of variance was used to

test for sex differences. The data from Table 9.7 were used to test

H7 and H8.
H7 There is no significant differences on scores of
motivation-to-achieve for male and female children.
H8 There is no significant difference on parental value

orientation for male or female children.

Table 9.7.--Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance
on Parental Value Orientation and Motivation-to-Achieve for
Males Versus Females.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent Variables Multivariate Analysis Univariate Analysis
of Variance of Variance

F d.f. P< F d.f. P<
Cells 1, 2, 3, 9 .9922 30 .9532
Cell One .0929 33 .8381
Cell Two .8957 33 .3509
Cell Three .0009 33 .9836
Cell Four .1925 33 .6637
Prescriptive-Prosc. .5922 32 .5868
Prescriptive .2268 33 .6371
Proscriptive .0733 33 .7889
Encourage-Discourage .7311 32 .8817
Encourage .0109 33 .9179
Discourage .1078 33 .7998
Direct-Avoidance .7311 32 .9893
Direct .1993 33 .7065
Avoidance .3269 33 .5717
Gumpgookies#~» .0009 33 .9838

 

 

 

53

There are no differences between male and female children on scores
of motivation-to-achieve nor on their parent value orientation.
H7.and.H8 are not rejected.

Table 9.8 represents the average parental value orientation
scores for those children one standard deviation above ( n=6 ) and
below ( n=5 ) the mean Z score of 101.39 on Gumpgookies for this sample.

Table 9.8.--Average Parental Value Orientation Scores for Children
One Standard Deviation Above or Below Mean Gumpgookies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z Score.

1 s.d. 1 s.d. #T'Fotal _
Value Orientation Below Above Sample X
Cell One 3.99 3.73 9.08
Cell Two 3.86 3.58 3.90
Cell Three 3.99 3.61 9.11
Cell Four 9.59 9.10 9.27
Prescriptive 3.92 3.65 3.99
Proscriptive 9.26 3.85 9.19
Encourage 3.96 3.67 9.09
Discourage 9.22 3.89 9.08
Direct 9.29 3.91 9.17
Avoidance 3.89 3.59 9.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

To determine whether there were differences in parental value
orientation in those children scoring at least one standard deviation
above or below the mean on motivation measure, a multivariate and
univariate analysis of variance was used to test H9. The results are

reported in Table 9.9.

59

H9 There is no significant difference between children

with high (Gumpgookies Z score 2 119.83) or low

 

(Gumpgookies Z score 5 87.85) motivation-to-achieve

 

scores and parental value orientation.

Table 9.9.--Results of Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of Variance

Between High and Low Motivation-to-Achieve Scorers on
Parental Value Orientation.

 

Independent Variables

Multivariate Analysis

of Variance

Univariate Analysis

of Variance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F d.f. P c F d.f. P<
Cells 1, 2, 3, 9 1.191 6 .9206
Cell One 1.368 9 .2722
Cell Two 0.797 9 .9097
Cell Three 1.291 9 .2991
Cell Four 6.998 9 .0318
Prescriptive-Pro. 1.723 8 .2386
Prescriptive 1.353 9 .2796
Proscriptive 3.875 9 .0806
Encourage-Discourage 1.359 8 .3109
Encourage 2.128 9 .1786
Discourage 2.885 9 .1237
Direct-Avoidance 2.010 8 .1962
Direct 9.529 9 .0629
Avoidance 1.232 9 .2957

 

 

 

 

The results of the multivariate analysis of variance show parent
value orientation to be non-significant in distinguishing between high

and low motivation-to-achieve scorers. However, the univariate analysis

55

of variance shows some significance for Cell 9 (Proscriptive-Discourage)
P <..03, and for those value orientations which combine another cell
with Cell 9 to form scores. Proscriptive value orientation, a combin-
ation of Cells 3 and 9, is significant (P 4..08); Discourage value
orientation, a combination of Cells 2 and 9, is marginally significant
(P'<~.l2); and Direct value orientation is significant (P-‘ .06). The
reader is cautioned in interpreting these results as the multivariate
analysis of variance shows no significance. The marginally significant
results of the univariate analysis of variance reflect inflated alpha
levels for the individual variables. As a result of the univariate

analysis of variance, H9 is marginally rejected.

Summa

None of the parental value orientation measures predict motivation-
to achieve for children with the exception of the univariate analysis of
variance of the Gumpgookies Z score distribution for high and low scoring
children. In this analysis, those variables which form a score by
combining Cell 9 (Proscriptive-Discourage) indicate an inverse relation-
ship between parental value orientation and children's motivation-to-
achieve. Those children in the high motivation-to-achieve group had
parents with lower value orientation scores for values which are formed
by combinations of cell 9 as compared to those children in the low
motivation-to-achieve group. The first through eight hypotheses are

not rejected, and H9 is marginally rejected.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the study, the conclusions, and

recommendations for possible action and future study.

Summagy

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship and
predictive value of parental childrearing behaviors, as measured by
parent value orientation,§6h the child's motivation-to-achieve. The
literature and research in the social sciences points out the importance
of the child's self concept, of which motivation-to-achieve is but one
factor. Taking an interactive approach, the combination of hereditary
and environmental factors were seen as effecting the child's achievement
motivation. Specifically, the child's total personality is a result of
an interaction of physical-biological traits and the socialization
methods of those agents within the child's environmrnt. By isolating
variables in parental value orientation based on the work of McKinney
(1971), this investigator attempted to make available more information
concerning childrearing patterns and their general effect on the child's
achievement motivation.

03§§§30fiiggitsa11if 6 Adkins, 1968) was used as the measure of

motivation-to-achieve in a sample of thirty-five preschool children.

A value orientation questionnaire was developed and used with the

56

57

parents of the children tested. A multivariate correlation and regress-
ion analysis was used to determine the degree of relation and predict-
ability of value orientation on motivation-to-achieve. A univariate and
multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether differ-
ences in parental value orientation existed between high and low
achievement motivation scorers. Due to the exploratory nature of this
study, the level of significance was set at .10.

The multivariate regresSion and step-wise regression analysis\50
, i -\
. . . /
revealed that for all parent value orientation variables, none could J,/

predict children's motivation-to-achieve. A multivariate correlation

,—

revESIEHmsigfiifiEEnf'ESrrelations between value orientation variables,
with the exception of a non-significant correlation between Cells 3 and

9 (Proscriptive value orientation). There were only non-significant
positive and negative correlations between parental value orientation and
motivation-to-achieve. A multivariate analysis of variance between high
and low achievement motivation scorers indicated parental value orienta-
tion is not significant in distinguishing children from these two groups.
The univariate analysis of variance does distinguish between high and

low motivation-to-achieve scorers for those parental values comprised of
Cell 9 data, i.e., Cell 9, P < .03; Proscriptive, P 4 .08; Discourage,

P <-.l2; and Direct, P <-.06.

Conclusions

In this section, an interpretation of the results and general
conclusions will be treated in the same order as the hypotheses were
tested. To expedite the discussion this investigator will concentrate

on three areas: the relationship between parental value orientation and

58

motivation-to-achieve, the predictability of motivation-to-achieve from
parental value orientations, and the differences between high and low
motivation-to-achieve scorers in parental value orientation.

The relationship between each specific parental value orientation
and children's motivation-to-achieve was of concern in H1, H2, H3, H“,
HS, and H6. None of these relationships was significant by a Pearson
Product Moment Correlation test. Generally, the Gumpgookies measure of
motivation-to-achieve was negatively correlated to parental value
orientation at a non-significant level. The negative correlation indi-
cates that as one variable increases (children's motivation-to-achieve)
the other variable (parental use of specific value orientations)
decreases. This data is difficult to interpret without first establish-
ing some significant relationship between the two measures. The
literature indicates that achievement motivation is that behavior
"directed toward the attainment of approval or the avoidance of disap-
proval (from oneself or from others) for competence of performance in
situations where standards of excellence are applicable (Crandall,
Katkovsky, and Preston, 1960, p. 788)." This implies a positive linear
relationship between children's achievement motivation and the use of
parental childrearing techniques. An assumption made in this study based
on findings of other researchers is that while parental childrearing
techniques vary between individuals, the basis for these techniques are
the parental values which could be categorized into specific areas.
Becker (1969) and Schaefer (1959, 1961) and others have categorized these
areas using bi-polar dimensions of emotionality, warmth, and control.
These factors appear to be defined by the specific personality phenotype
of the parent and are not specifically contingent on the child's perfor-

mance or behavior. The investigator felt that a more behavior

59

contingent classification of factors would reveal a stronger relation-
ship. Another reason for using behavior-contingent factors was that the
results of research conflict in their description of what constitutes

the parental techniques used to produce high achievers. Drews and
Teaham (1957) and Hurley (1959) found highly restrictive, dominant, and
authoritarian parents as having the highest achieving children. Baldwin,
Kalhorn, and Breese (1995), Watson (1957), Mannino (1962), and Morrow
and Wilson (1961) suggest high achievers are reared by acceptant, indul-
gent, encouraging parents. These differences could not be explained by a
trend over time reflecting a shift in parental values as, the studies on
both sides have generally been undertaken within the same five year

time span. Other variables as social class, economic level, and
communication patterns may possibly be used to determine the reason for
these differences. It seems apparent that resolution of these discrep-
ancies will come with a greater precision of behavioral definitions and
closure among the different criterion used to measure both achievement
and parental values.

A surprising result of the initial correlation, not concerned with
the value orientation measure's relation to the Gumpgookies measure, was
that all cells of the four fold model used to form the questionnaire
highly intracorrelate with the exception of Cells 3 and 9, the Proscrip-
tive dimension. These data reporting the intracorrelation between cell
scores raises a question about the validity of the value orientation
measure, possibly reflecting a methodological problem of instrument
construction. Previous research with Prescriptive and Proscriptive
values suggested that, as a theoretical construct, this dimension does

exist and is a functional distinction for adults through recall of

60

parent behaviors. McKinney (1971) found college students, themselves
proscriptively oriented, remembering their parents as being less reward-
ing and more punitive than prescriptively oriented students. Based on
this work, the Prescriptive-Proscriptive dimension seemed a reasonable
approach to value orientation. However, it may be that the validity of
information collected through "second party" recall is weak. The
problems of using a retrospective technique (i.e. selective recall, the
memory reflecting current societal or personal norms and values, and
inaccuracy or reversals of information) are inherent in this type of
measurement. In addition, collecting information from a secondary
source confounds the results by using information based on the percep-
tions of the person reporting their own reality. It may be, if a person
perceives a situation to be punitive, regardless of the actions or
intent of the parents, the situation is then punitive for that individ—
ual. McKinney's findings that proscriptive students have (recalled)
proscriptive parents indicate a positive linear relationship between
value transferal from parent to child. While this transfer may not

have been contingent on parent behaviors, the adult reporting the
child's concept of the situation makes the situation seem so. It would
appear that by the lack of correlational significance between the cells
(3 6 9) that form Proscriptive value orientation, parents display more
variability in the use of this dimension than any of the other value
orientations. The combined analyses show Proscriptive value orientation
was the best distinction in a comparison of high and low achievement
motivation scorers and that it also indicated directionality; low
achievement motivation was most highly correlated with Proscriptive

value orientation.

61

While the results of this study support the data of Drews and
Teaman and Hurley, in that the highest negative correlation was (-.182)
for achievement motivation and Proscriptive value orientation, the
investigator cannot ignore the conflicting research. It must be assumed
that the validity of the data on the parent questionnaire is directly
related to the skill, knowledge, and technique of the investigator in
stating the directions, in selecting the content, and in phrasing the
statements concisely. While the development procedure included both an
expert rating and pilot administration of the questionnaire, there still
appears to be what must be assumed as confusion on the part of parents
in responding to certain items. For example, Item 22, "not playing
with matches", was highly discouraged by two parents. This investigator
can hardly believe that two children would be highly encouraged to play
with matches. It would seem that the parents did not read the entire
statement before responding. For this reason conflicting responses
were dropped before averaging and cell score formation. While the
number of opposite responses was low, their presence seems to warrant
the questioning of the validity of the questionnaire itself. As an
exploratory study the level of validity seemed sufficient to measure
parental value orientation. However revisions in the wording and format
of the questionnaire would be necessary if further study were to be
repeated in the future.

3 9

Hypotheses la, 2 Sa, and 6a deal with the predictability

a, a. a,

of specific value orientations from children's motivation-to-achieve
scores. Predictability in this sense does not imply causality, but
rather further explicates the relationship between the dependent and

independent variables. Had there been a significant relationship

62

between the Gumpgookies measure and parental value orientation measure

 

one would be able to predict the likelihood of a specific parental value
orientation given a specific level of achievement motivation. The
results of the multivariate and univariate regression analysis indicate
a high probability of error in predicting motivation-to-achieve, as
would be expected considering the low correlation between this variable
and parent values.

A univariate and multivariate analysis of variance was used to test

the hypothesized differences (H and H8) on scores of motivation-to-

7
achieve or parental value orientation for male and female children.

This analysis was also used to differentiate between high and low
achievement motivation scorers on parental value orientation, H9.

The results of the analysis revealed no significant differences between
parental value orientation or motivation-to-achieve for male or female
children. Unlike the predictability in the regression analysis, these
results are not contingent on the lack of relationship between the two
major variables. Regardless of the degree of relationship it is assumed
that there is some variability in responding for the normal population
that is shaped in a normal bell curve. The fact that there was an
extremely limited range in responses indicates a very homogeneous
population. Two items (1 8 9) had to be eliminated due to the high
degree of unpredicted variability. These responses were assumed to
reflect an ambigous interpretation of the items rather than a true
variability of response. The population under study represented a group
of highly educated, Caucasian, middle to upper-middle class subjects

from those communities surrounding a large mid-Western university.

Further, all the children were attending an area cooperative nursery

63

school. Kohn (1969) states "our findings about parental responses to
children's misbehavior are especially pertinent in illustrating how
class differences in definitions of reality affect behavior...class
differences in responses to children's misbehavior can best be under-
stood when one realizes how class differences in parental values and
orientation affects parents' perceptions and evaluations of children's
actions (p. 197)." Class is one variable describing a given population
and yet its representative range largely effects the magnitude of values
it reflects. The fact that all parents had children in a nursery school
setting suggests they were concerned with their child's development; the
cooperative nursery model implies an even larger commitment in that each
family was physically and temporally involved in the mechanics of the
school itself as well as the program presented to their children. It is
then not surprising to find no differences in parental value orientation
considering the population under study. One might assume that differ-
ences in treatment of children by sex would show some significance even
within this population. The very fact that the subjects represented a
highly educated group of adults possibly indicates this group as being
the most aware of current sex-role socialization trends considering the
recent popularity of this movement.

Unlike the multivariate analysis of variance, the univariate
(looking at specific value orientations rather than bi—polar dimensions)
shows parent value orientation to be significant in distinguishing
between high and low motivation-to-achieve scorers. Significance is
reached for all those parental values which are developed from combin-
ations including Cell 9 (Proscriptive—Discourage) scores, i.e. Cell 9

(P-<_.03), Proscriptive value orientation (P 4..08), Discourage value

69

orientation (marginally significant at P < .12) and Direct value orient-
ation (P < .06). These results support the previously reported trend
that the parents of children who are high in achievement motivation use
these Cell 9 value orientations to a lesser degree. The non-significant
negative linear relationship found in the correlation analysis also
demonstrated this relationship-~as motivation-to-achieve scores rise,
the parental use of Cell 9 combination value orientations decreases.

The most highly (although negatively) correlated parent scores with the
motivation-to—achieve measure were Cell 9, Proscriptive, and Direct
value orientations. In the face of so many non-significant results the
reader is cautioned in interpreting these results as significant. The
analysis of individual variables reflects an inflated alpha level,
increasing the probability of error. Since the total sample size was
small (n=35), the number of subjects forming the high and low groups
(n=6, n=5 respectively) also increases the probability of error. It is
suggested the reader look critically at the data. The evidence for
significance may be an artifact of the small sample size, or it may

truely reflect significance despite the small sample size.

Recommendations

 

The conclusions of the study indicate revisions in the size and
composition of the sample as well as the wording and format of the
questionnaire are necessary before further research is done in this area.
The following recommendations are intended to stimulate action and fur-
ther studies which will generally improve this area of research and will
increase the understanding of the relationship between the childrearing

variables that underlie parent value orientation.

65

Further research in the area of parental value orientation and
specifically an extension of this study should include revisions of the
value orientation questionnaire. The major variable of study is value
orientation and while information on the timing and agent of punishment
would be helpful, it is not absolutely necessary and its inclusion
contributes little to the understanding of directions. In addition a
forced choice item might be more valid in measuring value orientation,
and eliminate the scoring problems involved with the potential choice of
an incorrect response. If the subject were forced to choose between
two content-similar but opposing value items--"I would be more likely
to: (a) discourage my child for playing in the street, versus (b)
encourage my child for playing in the yard,"-- the value orientation
would be clearer. In addition this would eliminate the parent having to
consciously choose between "discourage" and "encourage" for each item.
Although the original wording in the pilot form of the questionnaire
("punish and reward") was changed, this investigator feels the same
<xnnotations were ascribed to the encourage-discourage word choices.
Despite the provision of a clear definition of each behavior and allow-
ing for variability of responses by degree, very few parents responded
at a minimal level (i.e., choices of l--very little, or 2--litt1e),
whether encouraging or discouraging behaviors. This reflects a misuse or
non-use of this lower end of the continuum. During development of the
questionnaire items, efforts were made to avoid extreme-reaction
situations and the focus of items was on typical child behaviors. This
investigator feels many of the questionnaire behaviors would be virtually
ignored by parents in actual practice, although this does not appear in

the data. An "ignore" response was not included in the set of response

66
choices because it has been shown (Crandall, 1963) that "an adults
ignoring a child's error is perceived by the child differently depending
on his previous history of reinforcement with that adult (p. 35)." The
implication here is that non-reaction also has reinforcing power and
therefore would affect the child. While the parents might choose an
"ignore" response, the child is still getting a message which either
encourages or discourages their behavior. Unlike the child, the tester
cannot determine the direction of this supposedly neutral response.
.For these reasons, an "ignore" response was not included in the question-
naire. The lack of the use of minimal responses does make this likert
type of item construction suspect.

The reliability of the present data might have been increased by
securing the same information from several sources. While one question-
naire was distributed to each family (all were completed by the mother)
the addition of a second questionnaire to each family would increase
the reliability of the data and more than likely secure much needed data
about father's reSponses with children. Ideally, an observation as
well as interview method referring to the same sample of behaviors
would verify questionnaire response items. With the use of an observa-
tional method additional variables could be studied which would not be
included in the questionnaire interview--the timing and agent of
response, differences in the treatment of siblings, and the efforts of
the parent in structuring the environment to foster or prevent certain
situations.

In addition the increase in the sample size and its' greater
heterogenity would assure greater measurable variability in response,

both from the child and the parent. This would allow the investigator

67

to gain statistical power and reach higher levels of significance.

Finally, the review of the literature could be revised to include
the specific methods by which data has been obtained in the past. The
definitions of the variables under study often times appear similar
between studies but the lack of concisely reported descriptions makes
much of the past research appear contradictory and limits its' use in
a supportive role for future research. It is also extremely difficult
to evaluate the results of research when much of the procedure is
ambiguously reported.

The many examples in professional literature and the opinions of
educators testify to the importance of research on all levels. When
one considers the discrepancy between the SOphistication of theory and
the sophistication of methodology in the social sciences it is apparent
that the descriptive and exploratory studies lay the foundation for
future experimental designs. In that this was a preliminary study, the
findings can be used as a powerful asset in supporting the research on

the growth and development of the child.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adkins, Dorothy C., 6 Payne, F. Age Normed Z Scores for the 75-Item
Randomized Individual Form of Gumpgookies. U.S. Office of
Economic Opportunity (Number CG-9929)] Honolulu: University
of Hawaii, Education Research and Development Center, 1971.

Allport, G. W. Patterns of Growth in Personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, 6 Winston, 1962.

 

Argyle, M., 6 Robinson, P. The Origins of Achievement Motivation.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychologyj 1962,
1, 107-120.

Aronfreed, Justin. The Concept of Internalization. Handbook of
Socialization Theory and Research. Edited by D. Goslin.
New York: Rand McNally, 1971.

 

 

Aronfreed, Justin. The Effects of Experimental Socialization Paradigms
Upon Two Moral Responses to Transgression. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 937-998.

Aronfreed, J., 6 Reber, A. Internalized Behavior Suppression and the
Timing of Social Punishment, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 3-16.

Asch, S. The Doctrine of Suggestion, Prestige, and Imitation in Social
Psychology. Psychological Review, 1998, 55, 250-285.

Ausubel, D. P. Relationships Between Shame and Guilt in the Socializing
Process. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 378-390.

Ausubel, D. P. Theory_and Problems of Child Development. New York:
Grune 6 Stratton, 1958. '

Ausubel, D. P., et al. Perceived Parent Attitudes as Determinants of
Children's Ego Structure. Child Development, 1959, 25,
173-183.

Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., 6 Breese, Fay H. Patterns of Parent
Behavior. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,
1995, 58, (3, Whole No. 268).

Baldwin, A. L., 6 Levin, H. Effects of Public or Private Success or

Failure on Children's Repetitive Motor Behavior. Unpublished
manuscript, Cornell University, 1957.

68

69

Ballif, B. L., 6 Adkins, Dorothy C. Teaching Motivation to Achieve.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, February, 1971.

Ballif, B. L., 6 Adkins, Dorothy C. Gumpgookies: A Test ofIMotivation
to Achieve. Honolulu: Head Start Evaluation and Research
Center, University of Hawaii, 1968.

Bandura, A., 6 Walters, R. H. Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald
Press, 1959.

 

Bandura, A., 6 Walters, R. H. Social Learning and Personality
Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 6 Winston, 1963.

 

 

Barron, F. Creativity and Personal Freedom. Princeton, New Jersey:
Van Nostrand, 1962.

 

Baumrind, D. Child Care Practices Anteceding Three Patterns of Preschool
Behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 93-88.

Baumrind, D. Current Patterns of Parental Authority. Developmental
ngcholognyonograph, 1971, 9(1, Pt. 2).

Becker, W. C. Consequences of Different Kinds of Parental Discipline.
Review of Child Development Research. Vol. I. Edited by
M. H. Hoffman 6 L. W. Hoffman. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1969.

Benjamins, J. Changes in Performance in Relation to Influences Upon
Self-Conceptualization. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1950, 95, 973-980.

Bixenstine, V. E. Secondary Drive as a Neutralizer of Time in Integrative
Problem Solving. Journal of Comparative Physiological
ngchology, 1956, 99, 161-166.

Bloom, Benjamin. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969.

 

Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books, 1969.

Bowlby, J. Forty-four Juvenile Thieves: Their Characters and Home Life.
London: Baldier, Tindall, 6 Cox, 1997.

 

Brim, O. G., Jr. Socialization Through the Life Cycle. Socialization
After Childhood. Edited by O. G. Brim, Jr. 6 S. Wheeler.
New York: Wiley, 1966.

 

Brodbeck, A. J., Nogee, P., 6 De Mascio, A. Two Kinds of Conformity:
A Study of the Riesman Typology Applied to Standards of
Parental Discipline. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 91, 23-95.

7O

Bronfenbrenner, U. Freudian Theories of Identification and Their
Derivates. Child Development, 1960, 31, 15-90.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. Some Familial Antecedents of Responsibility and
Leadership in Adolescents. Leadership and Interpersonal
Behavior. Edited by L. Petrullo 6 B. M. Bass. (New York:
Holt, Rinehart, 6 Winston, 1961.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. Two Worlds of Childhood: 0.8. and U. S. S. R.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., et a1. Self-Concept of Ability and Achievement,
Final Report on Cooperative Research Project No. 1636 entitled
Improving Academic Achievement Through Student's Self-Concept
Enhancement. East Lansing: Bureau of Educational Research
Services, Michigan State University, 1965.

Brookover, Wilbur B., Paterson, A., 6 Thomas, S. The Relationship of
Self-Image to Achievement in Junior High School Subjects.
Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,

(Project No. 895), 1962.

 

Brookover, Wilbur 8., Paterson, A., 6 Thomas, S. Self-Concept of
Ability and School Achievement. East LanSing: Office of
Publications, Michigan State University, 1962.

 

 

Buckley, H. 6 Scanlan, K. Faith Enough for Both. Childhood Education,
1956, 32, 230-232.

Burton, R. V., Maccoby, E., 6 Allinsmith, W. Antecedents of Resistance
to Temptation in Four-year-old Children. Child Development,
1961, 32, 689-710.

 

Caldwell, Bettye M. Preschool Inventory. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing ServiCe, 1968.

 

Callard, Esther. Achievement Motive in the Four-year-old Child and its
Relationship to Achievement Expectancies of the Mother.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
1969.

Campbell, Paul B. Self-Concept and Academic Achievement in Middle Grade
Public School Children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Wayne State University, 1965.

Cantril, H. The Why of Man's Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

 

Caplin, Morris D. The Relationship Between Self-Concept and Academic
Achievement. Journal of Experimental Education, 1969, 37,
13- 16 o

 

 

cl ill' I't 'I'-Ill

71

Cheyne, J. A., 6 Walters, R. H. Intensity of Punishment, Timing of
Punishment, and Cognative Structure as Determinants of Response
Inhibition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969,

7, 231-299.

Child, I. L., Frank, Kitty F., 6 Storm, T. Self-rating and TAT: Their
Relation to Eachother and to Childhood Background. Journal
of Personality, 1956, 25, 96-119.

Clausen, John A. Perspectives on Childhood Socialization. Socialization
and Socieyy. Edited by J. Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown,
6 Co., 1968.

 

Clifford, E. Discipline in the Home: A Controlled Observational Study
of Parental Practices. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1959,
95, “5'82.

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

 

Coopersmith, S. A Method for Determining Types of Self-Esteem. Journal
of Educational Research, 1959, 87-99. '

Coopersmith, S. Self-Esteem and Need Achievement as Determinants of
Selective Recall and Repetition. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1960, 60(3), 310-317.

Crandall, Virginia C. Reinforcement Effects of Adult Reactions and Non-
Reactions on Children's Achievement Expectations. Child
Development, 1963, 39, 335-359.

 

Crandall, V., Katkovsky, W., 6 Preston, Anne. A Conceptual Formulation
of Some Research on Children's Achievement Development. Child
Development, 1960, 31, 787-797.

Crandall, V., Preston, A., 6 Rabson, A. Maternal Reactions and the
Development of Independence and Achievement Behavior in Young
Children. Child Development, 1960, 31, 293-251.

Crandall, V., 6 Rabson, A. Children's Repetition Choices in an Intellec-
tual Achievement Situation Following Success and Failure.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1960, 97- 161-168.

 

Davidson, H. H., 6 Lang, P. Children's Perception of Their Teachers'
Thinking Toward Them Rklated to Self-Perception, School
Achievement, and Behavior. Journal of Experimental Education,
1960, 29, 107-118.

Davitz, J. R., et a1. Conditioning of Fear: A Function of Delay of
Reinforcement. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 69-79.

 

Deur, J. L., 6 Parke, R. D. The Effects of Inconsistent Punishment on
Aggression in Children. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2,
303-317.

 

1". "I I'll

72

Drews, Elizabeth M., 6 Teaham, J. E. Parental Attitudes and Academic
Achievement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1957, 13, 328-
332.

 

Duvall, E. M. Conceptions of Parenthood. American Journal of Sociology,
1996, 52, 193-203.

Ferguson, Lucy R. Personality Development. Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole, 1970.

 

Flanders, N. A., 6 Havumaki, S. The Effects of Teacher-Pupil Contacts
Involving Praises on the Sociometric Choices of Students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1960, 51, 65-68.

Freud, S. The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth, 1927.

 

Fromm, E. Man for Himself. New York: Holt, 1997.

Glueck, S., 6 Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile Deliquen_y, Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1950.

Gordon, Edmund W. Characteristics of Socially Disadvantaged Children.
Review of Educational Research, 1965, 35, 337-388.

Gough, H. G. A Preliminary Guide for the Use and Interpretation of the
California Psychological Inventory. Berkeley: Res. Bulletin,
Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, 1959.

Hoffman, L. W., 6 Lippitt, R. The Measurement of Family Life Variables.
Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. Edited by
P. H. Mussen. New York: Wiley, 1960.

Hoffman, M. L. Childrearing Practices and Moral Development:
Generalizations from Empirical Research. Child Development,
1963, 39, 295-318.

Hurley, J. R. Maternal Attitudes and Children's Intelligence. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 1959, 15, 291-292.

Inkeles, A. Social Structure and Socialization. Handbook of Social-
ization Theory and Research. Edited by D. Goslin.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.

Jahoda, M. Current Concepts of Positive Mental Health. New York:
Basic Books, 1958.

 

Jensen, Arthur R. How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
Harvard Educational Review, 1969, 39, 1-123.

 

Johnson, Laverne C. Body Cathexis as a Factor in Somatic Complaints.
Journal of ConsultingyPsychology, 1956, 20, 195-199.

 

I. III- Il'il lel.

- . fill-WP IE. . l ail. I.
I

73

Jourard, S. M. Identification, Parent Cathexis, and Self-Esteem.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 375-380.

Kagan, J., 6 Moss, H. A. Birth to Maturiyy, New York: Wiley, 1962.

Katkovsky, W., Preston, A., 6 Crandall, V. Parent's Attitudes Toward
Their Personal Achievement and Towards the Achievement
Behaviors of Their Children. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1969, 109, 67-82.

 

Kerckhoff, Alan C. Socialization and Sogial Class. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Preniice-Hall, 1972.

Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., 6 Kirk, W. D. Illinois Test of Psycho-
linguistic Abilities. Urbana, Illinois: Universiiy of
Illinois Press, 1968.

Kohn, M. L. Class and Conformity. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press,
1969.

 

Kohn, M. L. Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpret-
ation. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 68, 971-980.

 

Kohn, M. L. Social Class and Parent Values. American Journal of
Sociology, 1959, 69, 337-351.

La Benne, Wallace. A Theoretical Framework for Behavior Analysis and
Intervention. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior,
1968, 5(2), 19-19.

 

Lazarus, R. 8., 6 Longo, H. The Consistency of Psychological Defense
Against Threat. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1953, 98, 995-999.

 

Lecky, P. Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personaligy. New York: Island
Press, 1995.

Lowe, C. M. The Self-Concept: Fact or Artifact? Psychological
Bulletin, 1961, 58, 325-336.

LeVine, Robert A. Culture, Personality and Socialization: An Evolution-
ary View. Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research.
Edited by D. Goslin. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.

Maccoby, E. E. The Choice of Variables in the Study of Socialization.
Sociometry, 1961, 29, 357-371.

Maccoby, E. E. The Development of Moral Values and Behavior in Child-
hood. Socialization and Society. Edited by J. Clausen.
Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1968.

Mannino, R. V. Family Factors Related to School Persistence. Journal of
Educational Sociology, 1962, 35, 193-202.

 

 

79

Maslow, A. H. Dominance, Personality and Social Behavior in Women.
Journal of Social Psychology, 1939, 10, 3-39.

McClelland, D. C., et al. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1953. Cited by W. W. Hartup 6 N. L.
Smothergill, The Young Child. Washington D. C.: National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 1967.

 

 

McClelland, D. C. The Importance of Early Learning in the Formation of
Motives. Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society. Edited by
J. Atkinson. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1958.

McCord, W., McCord, J., 6 Howard, A. Familial Correlates of Aggression
in Non-Delinquent Male Children. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 1961, 62, 79-93,

 

McKinney, John P. Development of Values--Prescriptive or Proscriptive?
Human Development, 1971, 19, 71-80.

 

McNeil, Elton B. The Concept of Human Development. Belmont, California:
Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1969.

 

Mead, Margaret. Coming of Age in Samoa, A Study of Adolescence and Sex
in PrimitiVe Society. New York: Mentor Books, 1999.

 

 

Merrill, 8. A Measurement of Mother-Child Interaction. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1996, 91, 37-99.

 

 

Miller, Clifford D. An Exploratory Investigation of Self-Concepts of
High Achieving Groups of Junior High Pupils and Perceived by
Pupils and Their Teachers. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Colorado, 1963.

Mischel, W. Delay of Gratification, Need for Achievement, and
Acquiescence in Another Culture. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 593-555.

 

Morrow, W. R., 6 Wilson, R. R. Family Relations of Bright High-Achieving
and Under-Achieving High School Boys. Child Development, 1961,
32, 501-510.

Mote, Florence B. The Relationship Between Self-Concept in School and
Parental Attitude in Child Rearing. Dissertation Abstracts,
1967, 27, 33l9n.

Mott, P. C. The Organization of Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1965.

 

Mowrer, O. H. Learning Theory and the Symbolic Process. New York:
Wiley, 1960.

 

Mowrer, O. H. Timing of Punishment as a Determinant of Response
Inhibition. Child Development. Edited by Richard H. Walters,
and Lillian Demkow. 1963, 39, 207-219.

 

75

Mowrer, O. H., and Ullman, A. D. Time as a Determinant of Integrative
Learning. Psychological Review, 1995, 52, 61-90.

 

Murdock, G. P., 6 Whiting, J. W. M. Cultural Determination of Parental
Attitudes: The Relationship Between Social Structure,
Particularly Family Structure and Parental Behavior. Problem
of Infancy and Childhood. Transactions of the Fourth Confer-
ence. Edited by M. J. E. Senn. New York: Joshiah Macy, Jr.
Foundation, 1951.

 

Murphy, Garden. Freeing Intelligence Through Teaching. New York:
Harper and Bros., 1961.

Olenjnik, A. B. Antecedents of Generosity in Nursery School Children:
Prescriptive Value Orientation in the Family. Unpublished
masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1971.

Parke, R. D. Effectiveness of Punishment as an Interaction of Intensity,
Timing, Agent Nurturance and Cognitive Structuring.
Child Development, 1969, 90, 213-236.

 

Parke, R. D. Some Effects of Punishment on Children's Behavior.
The Young Child. Edited by W. W. Hartup. Washington, D. C.:
National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1972.

Parke, R. D. 6 Walters, R. H. Some Factors Determining the Efficacy of
Punishment for Inducing Response Inhibition. Monograph of
Social Research in Child Development, 1967, 32, (560151 No. 109).

 

 

Perkins, H. V. Factors Influencing Change in Children's Self-Concepts.
Child Development, 1958, 29, 221-230.

 

Piaget, J. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Early Childhood. New York:
Norton Press, 1951.

Prescott, P. A. The Child in the Educative Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1957.

 

Reeder, T. A. A Study of Some Relationships Between Level of Self-Concept
Academic Achievement, and Classroom Adjustment. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1955, 15, 2972.

Rheingold, H. L. The Social and Socializing Infant. Handbook of
Socialization Theory_and Research. Edited by D. Goslin.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1971.

 

Rosen, B. C., Crockett, H.,J., 6 Nunn, C. Z. Achievement in American
Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing, 1969.

Rosen, B., 6 D'Andrade, R. The Psychosocial Origins of Achievement
Motivation. Sociometry, 1959, 22, 185-218.

 

76
Rogers, Carl. Client-Centered Therapy. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1951.

Rosenthal, Robert, 6 Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom, Teachers
Espectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968.

Rosenzweig, S. The Experimental Study of Repression. Explorations in
Personality. Edited by H. A. Murray. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1938.

 

Roth, Robert, M. Role of Self-Concept in Achievement. Journal of
Experimental Education, 1959, 27, 265-281.

 

 

Schaefer, E. S. A Circumplex Model for Maternal Behavior. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 226-235.

 

 

Schaefer, E. S. Converging Conceptual Models for Maternal Behavior and
for Child Behavior. Parental Attitudes and Child Behavior.
Edited by J. C. Glidewell. Springfield, Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas, 1961.

Sears, Pauline 8. Levels of Aspiration in Academically Successful and
Unsuccessful Children. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1953, 98, 285-289.

 

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., 6 Levin, H. Patterns of Child Rearipg,
Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957.

 

Sears, R. R., Rau, L., 6 Alpert, R. Identification and Child Training.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1965.

 

Secord, P. F., 6 Jourard, S. M. The Appraisal of Body Cathexis: Body
Cathexis and the Self. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1953, 17, 393-397.

Schmuck, Richard. Some Relationships of Peer Liking Patterns in the
Classroom to Pupil Attitudes and Achievement. School Review,
1963, 71, 337-359.

Skeels, Harold M. Adult Status of Children with Contrasting Early Life
Experiences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 1966, 31.

 

Smith, Charles P. Child Development. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown,
Co., 1966.

 

Snygg, Donald, 6 Combs, A. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1999.

 

Stevens, P. H. An Investigation of the Relationship Between Certain
Aspects of Self-Concept, Behavior, and Student's Academic
Achievement. Dissertation Abstracts, 1956, 16, 2531-2532.

 

77

Videbeck, R. Self-Conception and the Reaction of Others. Sociometry,
1960, 23, 351-359.

 

Vygotsky, L. 8. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.
Press, 1962.

Walker, Deborah K. Socioemotional Measures for Presghool and Kindergarten
Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.

Walsh, A. M. Self-Concepts of Bright Boys wish Learning_Difficulties.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1956.

Walters, R. H. 6 Andres, D. Punishment Procedures and Self-Control.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, D. C., September,
1967. Cited by W. W. Hartup, The Young Child. Vol II.
Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education
of Young Children, 1972.

 

Walters, R. H., Parke, R. D., 6 Cane, V. A. Timing of Punishment and
the Observation of Consequences to Others as Determinants of
Response Inhibition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
1965, 2, 10-30.

Watson, G. Some Personality Differences in Children Related to Strick
or Permissive Parental Discipline. Journal of Psychology,
1957, 99, 227-299.

Watson, John B. Behaviorism. New York: W. W. Norton, 1928.

 

Whiting, J. W. M., 6 Child, I. L. Chiid Training_and Personality.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.

Winterbottom, Marian R. The Relation of Need for Achievement to Learning
Experiences in Independence and Mastery. Motives in Fantasy,
Action and Society. Edited by J. Atkinson. Princeton:
D. Van Nostrand, 1958.

Wylie, R. The Self-Concept: A Critical Survey of Pertipent Research
Literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

 

Yamamoto, Kaoru (Ed.) The Child and His Image. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1972.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PARENT VALUE ORIENTATION DIRECTIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions for Parent Value Orientation Questionnaire
April 8, 1979
Dear

Last year your child participated in a study conducted through the
Department of Family and Child Sciences, Michigan State University, and
sponsored by your nursery school. As a follow-up study, we are interest-
ed in learning how parents teach their children at home by encouraging
or discouraging certain activities.

We would like to know how much you feel you would either encourage or

discourage each of the following behaviors by marking each item:

(E) Encourage -- any parent behavior that will INCREASE the likelihood

. of a similar child response.

(D) Discourage -- any parent behavior that will DECREASE the likelihood '
of a similar child response.

(1 2 3 9 5) -- circle any number from (1) very little to (5) very
much, the amount you feel you would either encourage
or discourage a behavior.

 

Indicate WHO would act (encouraging or discouraging) the child.

 

(W) Witness -- the witness to the child's action, either parent or
any other persons present.

(0) Other -- any other person not present during the child's act.

(B) Both -- both the person witnessing the act and another person

not present during the child's act. Indicate on the
following item when each person would act.

Indicate WHEN the person would respond to the child's behavior.

(P) In Process -- as the child begins to initiate the response and
during the act, but before completion of the act.

(I) Immediately after -- during those moments after the act occurs, but
béfore the situation has changed.

(L) Later -- any time after the act has been completed and the
situation has changed.

 

 

 

Please answer all the questions as completely as possible, when finished
detach this introductory letter and return the questionnaire in the
self-addressed stamped envelope. The questionnaire is numbered to
correspond to your child's Gumpgookies responses. No attempt will be
made to associate your name with the information returned on the
questionnaire. If you have any questions please feel free to call me

at: 371-1167 (home) or 355-0336 (Spartan Nursery School). Please return
the questionnaire no later than Friday, April 19th, 1979 to:

 

Mary Batchelder Thank you for your time and help,
Spartan Nursery School

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 98829 Mary Batchelder

78

 

l.
2.
3.
9.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

19.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
29.
25.
'26.
27.
28.

79

Parent Value Orientation Questionnaire

Giving up when frustrated at a task
Spitting food at the table

Not dressing self after toileting
Not saying "I can't do it"

Purposely breaking toys

Pretending to be sick

Sharing toys with brother or sister
Having a temper tantrum in the store
Tracking dirt into the house

Tasting new foods

Not refusing to wear new outfit
Taking care of new toys

Not crying or fussing in

doctors office

"Talking back" to parent

Not going to bed when told to

Not keeping room clean

Behaving well when out shopping

Not wetting bed during night

Not Pursuing a new or difficult

task

Not leaving sink water running

Not playing in street when forbidden
Not playing with matches

Doing well at a new task

Not listening to parent when spoken to
Not teasing brother or sister
Cleaning up own room

Not behaving when visiting relatives
Brushing own teeth

'2 Encourage
U Discourage

 

|||||||||| |||||| llllllllllll

F‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘k‘h‘h‘h‘h‘h‘
NMNMMMNNNMMM

h‘h‘k‘k‘h‘h‘

F‘F‘F‘F‘F‘P‘F‘P‘F'F'
03030303530303030303

'“ Very little

M Little
‘” Medium
f Much

01

MMNNMM
wwwwww
333333
010101010101

wwwwwwwwwwww

wwwwwwwwww
3333333333

010101001010-

333333333333

mmmmwwmwmwmm

01:11:11

Very Much
Witness

0 Other
m Both

S

 

$4
0)
3.:
LL.
I13
053:
88
on:
CW!
88::
80
GEM
HH-J
P I L

 

APPENDIX B

GUMPGOOKIES RAW SCORE TRANSFORMATION TO Z SCORE

 

Gumpgookie Raw Score Transformation to Z Score

 

 

 

 

Age Gumpgookies Gumpgookies
Raw Score Z Score
59 53 100
69 52 89
56 61 122
62 56 98
99 59 115
51 95 9O
51 63 119
97 59 109
37 9O 96
93 93 95
90 96 103
59 S6 105
60 57 101
58 59 98
53 36 79
53' 59 111
62 97 83
6O 67 117
73 70 109
60 58 103
59 56 100
96 99 99
52 72 133
59 55 109
55 53 99
60 60 106
53 59 103
58 59 109
95 93 93
56 38 75
56 95 86
53 56 98
55 61 112
50 66 125
56 90 78
77:59 $101.39

 

80

 

 

APPENDIX C

PARENT RESPONSES ON VALUE ORIENTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

.soss huo> nn0 “cuss n30 nomauo>e um0 000uu00.u~0 “000000 Auo> I00 "wmeusoocm

.suse nuor «no “nose "3o “ownuo>e nmo "m0uu00 nuo "o0uu00 num> 90o newousoom0o
30 3o <0 M0 mo 30 m— 30 m0 No 30 30 no no no 30 30 30 m0 3o 3o «0 no no no no no co nm
30 3o 30 n0 no 30 n0 n0 n0 co #0 n0 «o no no no 30 an m0 0o no n0 no no 30 no no «0 3m
30 no 30 M0 no 30 n0 n0 N0 no N0 m0 No No No 30 30 N0 M0 No qo M0 no no 30 No no mo mm
n0 no «0 n0 3o 30 n0 n0 n0 no n0 n0 no no no 30 M0 m0 m0 no no 30 no no no no mo «o «m
«0 3o n0 n0 no M0 n0 n0 M0 «o m0 m0 no no no n0 n0 m0 n0 no no 30 3o mo M0 us no 3o 0m
mu «o 30 n0 3o 00 n0 n0 n0 0o mu «0 no no no M0 M0 an n0 mo 0o M0 No no «0 no no 00 on
e— no n0 n0 no 30 n0 n0 3— No n0 n0 «o no no 30 n0 n0 m0 «o no n0 no no nu no no 0o on
n0 no nu ma no 30 n0 n0 n0 no 00 30 no no no M0 m0 n0 «0 no no 30 0o no no no no no mm
n0 no 30 mg no n0 n0 n0 n0 no n0 n0 no no no 00 n0 mo n0 no no 30 no no no no «o «o 5N
n0 no n0 n0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 3o n0 n0 no no no n0 n0 00 n0 no no n0 no no no no no m0 om
mu no M0 30 3o 00 n0 n0 m0 no n0 n0 «o no no m0 n0 30 n0 no no 30 no no n0 n0 no m0 nu
mg no ma M0 no mu n0 n0 M0 mo 30 n0 no no no m0 «0 00 m0 no no M0 no no n0 no no m0 em
n0 no mu M0 3o M0 n0 n0 n0 3o m0 M0 no no no 00 30 no n0 no mo n0 «o no m0 no no mo mm
n0 no n0 n0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 no n0 n0 no no no n0 n0 n0 n0 no no n0 no no no co no no Na
Mg 3o 30 n0 no «0 n0 n0 00 mo 00 n0 no no no M0 30 m0 30 no no n0 no no n0 no no no 00
n0 co 30 30 3o ma n0 n0 n0 3o M0 n0 co no no 30 n0 n0 «0 no mo n0 no no n0 no mo n0 on
n0 mo M0 M0 3o n0 n0 n0 30 no M0 n0 «o no No 00 M0 m0 N0 00 no 00 «o no 0o no no mo 00
n0 3o M0 30 no n0 n0 n0 M0 no 00 30 no no no 00 n0 m0 30 no no n0 no no no no no mo w0
n0 no n0 n0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 mo n0 n0 no no no n0 n0 m0 n0 no no M0 no no mo no no mo 50
n0 3o n0 an 3o «0 n0 n0 m0 3o 30 30 no no no 30 n0 M0 m0 no no 30 no no n0 no no no 00
n0 no n0 n0 no n0 n0 n0 «0 mo n0 n0 no no no n0 n0 n0 30 no no n0 no no no no no no n0
n0 no n0 30 3o n0 n0 n0 3— 3o n0 30 no no no m— n0 no 30 no no n0 no no no no no no 30
n0 3o n0 n0 3o n0 n0 n0 n0 no n0 M0 no 3o 00 30 n0 m0 «0 0o no 30 00 no 00 No no mo m0
n0 «o n— 30 30 30 n0 30 30 no 30 n0 30 30 n0 M0 30 30 M0 no no 30 no no 30 no no no N0
n0 no n0 no no n0 no no n0 n0 n0 n0 n0 no no n0 n0 n0 n0 no no 00 no no no n0 M0 n0 00
«0 no «0 30 no M0 n0 n0 n0 no 3o 30 no no 3o 30 n0 30 N0 no no 30 No no 3o No no no o0
mu 3o n0 n— no M0 n0 n0 30 No n0 n0 no no no n0 30 N0 30 No no n0 no no 30 No no mo o
30 3o ma no no M0 n0 n0 30 mo 30 n0 no 3o 3o 30 30 no m0 co mo m0 no no no no no 3o w
n0 no 30 30 no 30 n0 n0 n0 no 30 30 3o eo no n0 n0 M0 n0 no no 30 co no no m0 3o n0 5
n0 no 30 30 no 30 n0 n0 m0 mo 30 30 co no no n0 n0 M0 n0 no no 30 no «o co nu co n0 0
n0 no 30 30 no n0 n0 n0 M0 mo M0 n0 «0 mo no 00 m0 00 00 no no m0 3o no n0 no no 30 n
nu no 30 «0 no 30 n0 n0 n0 mo N0 n0 3o 3o no N0 n0 M0 30 no no 00 no no 30 no no n0 3
an no mu «0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 m0 n0 n0 do no no 30 30 m— mu 3o no n0 mo «o no no no co m
n— no nu n0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 no n0 30 no «o no n0 n0 m0 «0 ~o no n0 no no no No no n0 m
n0 no n0 n0 no n— no no no no no no no n0 no n0 n0 n0 n0 no no n0 no no no no no no 0
ma 5N on nu «a nm «N 0N oN m0 m0 50 o0 n0 «0 M0 N0 00 cu o n. 5 n n c m N 0 "mEMuH

 

 

mud-accuuaoso saga-unowuo us~a> no nonsense“ acouom

81

APPENDIX D

AVERAGED VALUE ORIENTATION CELL SCORES USED IN ANALYSIS

 

AVERACED VALUE ORIENTATION CELL SCORES USED IN ANALYSIS

 

 

ENC DIS DIR AVO

PRE- PRO- PRO- PRE PRO
ENC DIS

DIS

PRE-

ENC

 

4.6 5.0 4.8

5.0

85998808161113775429293736592591862
3432334344444434333343344434334243

2150.3380.836
4..4.4u4.luu4.343l.m4u

54.5].w.0.nu.98nu.26
314.434.4.3344u4

[Mn/”94.11918J1
54.3.3Im4.3.l.m34.4

33360.0.23Am55
4..4.4u3l.ml4.l4.l4.4u4.4.

72131165533
000

.0000...

03013313310
0 O

. ........
44544444445

—/./.w.718814.4...50.0.
4.L~.33334.4.I4.5/.~.

0.5187.7.Aw38.33
34.1%23.33334.4.

IMO.1844.5Rw24.2
4/.m/%34.4.3334.

56818240297830445
34444434443345434

34.8160.I.Hr0.0.8.5170~564

314.4.I.w.l.w.4.3.3l.w.4.3l4.l.m4.434

1,001.9.
. . C .
1.4.6.1.

0.927“

334.61“

357776224054973748024
Audu3m33/h35333dq41hhm

4.

7

a)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

4.92.8.7.5.9.8.9585.7.0.55.
4.4.4.4.33334.31-.4.4.434.

(N66591AN695J198J2
44343340540534.4434

5nU.6nU..{H66rO.8830.0.13/0

AmSAmS/M33/4.l-m31%<n$4.34

38.8.7.14.10.0.34.14.0.onw4
I.~./.m3/.~...)3.4.35.5«Jinn/nuke)!»H

3661;.Rwl6583nNSRNO.O.1
4./-w.34.nh1)334.3luu/uu4.5/4.4.

7.57.7.114.oo.0.7.470.754
Ian/4.34.

I...

lime-053335434

22
23

24
25
26
27
28
29
30

LL41)

8171

too

O 9 7 O
o o o
.1) 3 3 3

3180
.0.
3443

3152
o.
4441)

8865

a...
2332

.17
..
43

34
O.
43

44
43

46
.
43

3 3

. o
4 3
18

143

74
4..)

 

 

PRE ' Prescriptive
PRO ' Proscriptive

ENC ‘ Encourage

PRE-ENC = Cell One, Prescriptive Encourage
PRE-DIS = Cell Two, Prescriptive Discourage

PRO-ENC . Cell Three, Proscriptive Encourage
PRO-DIS B Cell Four, Proscriptive Discourage

DIS ' Discourage
DIR ' Direct

AVO - Avoidance

82

HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
"WWW”WWII“WWW“WWI
31293101534901