«70" W“ ’ ’j." 3' SN"; LIWR' in. l 51:30:: Wang“ U” Vuuq u mi OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: PIace in book return to remove charge from circulation records ‘\AJ(1.;'!"“\\‘ A 5“!”- CHILDREN'S FEARS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MATERNAL CHILD-REARING ATTITUDES AND MATERNAL PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR BY Micheline Alys Beam A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology' 1980 ABSTRACT CHILDREN'S FEARS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO MATERNAL CHILD-REARING ATTITUDES AND MATERNAL PERCEPTIONS OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR By Micheline Alys Beam Fear is one of man's most misunderstood and least tole- rated emotions. Ethological theories suggest that primitive man had need of an emotion such as fear to make him alert to the dangers of a harsh environment. In modern times fear has been used to motivate learning and to shape behavior, particularly of children. If we assume that there are many elements besides those of survival which give rise to fear- ful behavior, then the child-rearing attitudes and emotional reactions of the parents may also contribute to children's fears. The purpose of this study is to investigate the intensity and types of children's fears and how these fears may be influenced by maternal child-rearing attitudes and by the mother's perception of her child's behavior. Five hypotheses were tested: I. There should be a positive correlation between the total number of fears reported by the child and the total number of fears attributed to the child by the mother. II. There will be qualitative differences between the Micheline Alys Beam fears reported by children in different age groups. III. Sex differences should emerge in children's reported fears. IV. A positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Stanford Parent Questionnaire (SPQ) scales: Rejection, punitiveness and physical punish- ment, and restrictiveness. V. A positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory (CBPI)scales: Dependence in doing, demanding attention, and conscience. Subjects were 130 mother/child pair volunteers recruit- ed from day care centers/nursery schools in Manhattan. Subjects were administered fear survey instruments and mothers also completed demographic and parental attitude questionnaire forms. Hypotheses II, III, IV and V received partial support, while hypothesis I was not supported. Younger children reported being very afraid of the dark and areas of their apartment building. Few sex differences were found in this study among the children's reported fears, though mothers of boys tended to report their children as having more fears. Low, although significant, correlations were obtained between parental attitude' instruments and the mothers' reports of children's fears. Micheline Alys Beam Mothers of more fearful children tended to describe them- selves as rejecting, punitive and often resorting to physical punishment; these mothers viewed their fearful child as being dependent and as having a highly develOped conscience. No relationship existed between what the children in this study stated they feared and what the mothers reported as their children's fears. Mothers reported their children as having few fears. Their children, however, reported more intense and more frequent instances of fear. Additional findings revealed differences between racial groups and paternal occupational categories in mothers' reports of their children's fears. These findings are interpreted as reflecting the special experiences of mothers and young children from different ethnic groups in Manhattan. This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Josephine Beam, who died on April 26, 1980; but who shall live forever in the memories and hearts of those who loved her. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation for the years of guidance provided by Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson, who has been my advisor and committee chairperson over the years. I also wish to thank Dr. Martha Karson, Dr. Ellen Strommen and Dr. Charles Hanley for their assistance in completing this dissertation. I particularly want to express my thanks to the parents and children of Manhattan who volunteered their time and made the collection of data and the completion of this dissertation possible. A special thank you goes to Dr. Peter Strear, who provided a computer and invaluable assistance at a time of need. Finally, I would like to say thanks to the members of my family who have supported me throughout the years. A special thank you is due my father, Adolphus Beam, for his love and encouragement. To my husband, Malik, who has seen me start and finish this dissertation goes all my love and appreciation for the patience, faith, confidence and love he has given me. iii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... INTRODUCTION................................. REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................... Children's Fears......................... Etiology of Children's Fears............. Behavioral Manifestations of Fear........ Child-rearing Attitudes.................. Hypotheses............................... METHOD....................................... Subjects................................. Instruments.............................. Experimental Task........................ Training Items........................... Behavioral Ratings....................... Setting.................................. Procedure................................ Scoring.................................. RESULTS...................................... Additional Findings...................... DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS................... APPENDICES................................... A. Children's Fear Survey................ Mothers' Fear Survey.................. B. General Information Form.............. iv Page vi 12 13 19 21 21 21 25 26 27 28 30 33 41 47 59 59 60 61 APPENDICES Page continued C. Stanford Parent Questionnaire......... 63 D. Child Behavior Toward The Parent Inven- tory.................................. 70 E. Letters to Day Care Centers/Nursery Schools............................... 73 F. Parental Permission Form.............. 77 G. Children's Fear Survey Frequency Table 78 H. Mothers' Fear Survey Frequency Table.. 79 I. Stanford Parent Questionnaire Scale Scores................................ 80 J. Child Behavior Toward The Parent Inven- tory Scale Scores..................... 81 REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 82 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Children's Fear Survey Item #2 (Being in the Dark).............................. 34 2. Children's Fear Survey Item #8 (Certain Parts of the Apartment or Building...... 35 3. Children's Fear Survey Item #3 (LoudNOiseS)OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 36 4. Mothers' Fear Survey Item #8 (Certain Parts of the Apartment or Building)..... 37 5. Mothers' Fear Survey Item #15 (Frogs and Lizards).............................. 38 6. Mothers' Fear Survey Item #17 (Being Away fromParentS)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 39 7. Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by Race......... 43 8. Mothers' Fear Survey Means fOr Racial Groups..... 43 9. Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by Fathers' Occu- pationOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.6.I...OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO. 44 10. Mothers' Fear Survey Means According to Maternal Designation of Fathers' Occupation............... 45 vi In all ages, everything changes. Manners, customs, speech, views on life, even morals - all change. But fear is the same. Only fear is the same. Carter Dickson, 1956. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Of all the conditions to plague mankind, fear is perhaps the most pervasive. Fear is one of the greatest equalizers known, in that it cuts across all racial, sexual, economic and cultural boundaries. Even age does not seem to be a defense against the infiltration of fear, in that fear of strangers is seen early in life and the fear of death haunts us as we grow older. Fear is one of man's most misunderstood and least tolerated emotions. Fear is a normal reaction to a genuine threat and it involves outer behavioral expressions, inner subjective feelings and accompanying physiological changes (Marks, 1969). Primitive humans had need of an emotion such as fear to make them alert to the dangers of a harsh environment. Consequently, the prOper elicitation of fear enhanced primitive man's survival. Fear proved to be a useful emotion since in the event of danger or threat, fear leads to fight or flight. But as society, technology and man have advanced, fear has remained the same. In modern times fear has been used to motivate learning and to shape behavior, particularly of children. But chil- dren are most susceptible to fear because of their limited understanding of the environment and their difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. Children fear what they have been told to fear with as much intensity as what they have learned to fear. Marks (1969) stated that, "Fears are much commoner in childhood than in adult life, starting often with no apparent cause, and subside again with as little reason. They are more volatile and more intense than in adults...Maturation plays a clearer role in young children, and the home environment is more influen- tial" (p. 167). Fears may best be understood by the study of children, who experience fear in its purest forms and conquer these fears through learning and maturation. The purpose of this study is to investigate what children fear and how parental attitudes and perceptions may influence fearful behavior in children. Review of Literature Children's Fears One of the first studies to explore what children fear was conducted by Jersild and Holmes in 1935. In a study of 136 children ranging in age from three to ninety-seven months who were above average in intelligence and cultural background, Jersild and Holmes delved further into the specific fears of childhood than any other researchers at that time. The parents and nursery school teachers of these children were asked to keep records of the children's fear responses for twenty-one days. After 710 separate instances of fear were reported and tabulated, these children averaged 4.64 fears per child. The most frequent tabulated fears were: noise, animals, strange and unfamiliar persons, pain, fear of falling and loss of support, fear of strange objects or situations, sudden or unexpected movements, sudden or rapid visual stimulation (i.e., flashes, shadows). Maurer (1965) in studying the etiology of fear in 112 elementary school children found that when these children were asked what they feared over 50% named animals: snakes, lions, tigers and bears. They also named fear of the dark and fears of monsters, boogiemen, ghosts, witches and skeletons. Maurer stated that children are born with the capacity to fear and the intensity and direction of these fears are influenced by maturation, learning and familial relationships. Poznanski (1973) in studying an outpatient psychiatric pOpulation of children with excessive fears and a control group drawn from the same outpatient psychiatric pOpulation, found that both pOpulations were similar in their reported fears. Younger children were shown to fear noise, lightning, strangers, unfamiliar objects or a specific animal, while older children were afraid of the dark, death, being ridiculed, examinations, imaginary creatures and robbers. The sample pOpulation averaged 4.0 fears as compared to an average of 3.7 fears for the control group. In an attempt to study the stability of children's fears, Eme and Schmidt (1978) interviewed twenty-seven children who were nine years of age, then re-interviewed them one year later. The most common fears were of bodily harm, threat of injury or a pain event, robbers, kidnappers, death and animals. The children averaged 4.8 fears each in the first interview and 4.5 in the second interview. There was an average change of 1.6 fears for each child during the year and an 83% agreement between fears reported in both interviews. Although the sample was small, Eme and Schmidt concluded that the stability of children's fears was demon- strated. In the previous studies cited several characteristics of children's fears became apparent. Most children have several fears, the most common of which are: animals, strangers, the dark and monsters. However, in an experi- mental study of the fears of 105 children aged twenty-four to seventy-one months, Holmes (1935) found that emotional factors play a part in children's fearfulness. Holmes found that the children who were most fearful in her experiment were described by their teachers as being dependent upon adults for help, easily upset emotionally, timid, shy, insecure and least able to protect their rights on the play- ground. The children who were least fearful in the experi- ment were described as being independent of adult aid, having good muscular coordination, generally secure and able to protect their own rights. Mussen, Conger and Kagan (1969) were of the Opinion that young children do not differentiate between inner and outer, real or imagined dangers. The more intelligent the child, the better able the child was to recognize potentially dangerous situations. These children had livelier imaginations and thought and reflected more about dangers. Jersild (1960) agreed that a child who is bright or advanced developmentally would be afraid of events that would not bother other children until they were older. As the child's imagination increases his fears beCome more concerned with imaginary dangers. Jersild also stated that fears are learned through painful experience, such as being startled or over-whelmed. He listed the following factors as contributing to a child being susceptible to fear; the child's weakness or physical disability, disparagement (anything that tends to lower the child's confidence in himself), vicarious dangers and influence by example (adults' reactions to a fearful event or situation). An important factor in children's fears is the age at which they appear. Jersild and Holmes (1935) found that those fears which decrease with age are: fear of noise, strange objects, situations and persons, loss of support, animals and pain. Fears that tend to increase with age are: fear of the dark, being alone and most imaginary fears. They found that most fears occurred between twenty-four and thirty-five months of age and declined after three years of age. Although children's fears can develop at any age and be caused by an endless number of objects or situations, certain fears are typical of different age levels. Fears that might be evident for particular age levels are summarized by Miller, Barrett and Hampe (1974): 9.92:. w 0 - 6 months Loud noises, loss of support 6 - 9 months Strangers lst year Separation, injury, toilet 2nd year Imaginary creatures, death, robbers 3rd year Dogs, being alone 4th year Dark 6 - 12 years School, injury, natural events, social 13 - 18 years Injury, social 19 + years Injury, natural events, sexual (p. 104) In a study of the develOpmental changes in children's fears Bauer (1976) found that children between the ages of four and six years were afraid of ghosts and monsters, whereas ten to twelve year old children feared physical danger and bodily injury. Bauer stated that older children are better equipped to understand reality and identify sources of fear, due to an elaborate system of verbal symbols which are not yet available to younger children. He further elaborated on this theory by stating: More precisely, the observation that growth proceeds from a global state, with lack of differentiation, to one of increased differentiation of internal representations from objec- tive reality, might explain the re— placement of global fear of ghosts and monsters described by kinder- garteners and second graders by more realistic and specific fears involv- ing bodily injury and physical danger in sixth graders (p. 71). The conclusion of the literature indicates that children's fears appear and dissipate as the child matures and vary with age and experience. Socioeconomic status had also been found to influence children's fears. Although children from all economic levels experience fears, the types of fears reported vary with socioeconomic level. Angelino, Dollins and Mech (1956) studied 1100 school children between the ages of nine and eighteen years of age in Oklahoma City and found many differences in the fears of lower and upper SES children. Although the children averaged the same number of fears, the types of fears varied. Lower SES boys and girls either feared or worried about acts of violence, animals, money, jobs and the dark; while upper SES boys and girls feared or worried about car accidents, kidnappers, grades, world conditions, national affairs and pOpularity. The authors concluded that school children have about the same number of fears and worries regardless of socioeconomic status. However, there was a relationship between socioeconomic background and the kinds of fears and worries reported. Croake (1969) in studying third and sixth grade pupils of low and high socioeconomic levels found that girls and lower SES children had more fears than upper SES children. Poznanski (1973) found poor children feared the supernatural, mysterious events, parental quarrels, exams, noise and punishment. While high SES children had nebulous fears and worries, fears of car and school accidents, and juvenile delinquency. She did find that both SES groups seemed equally to fear the dark. The literature seems to conclude that there is a difference in the types of fears of lower and upper SES children, but no significant differences in quantity of fears reported. The sex of the child does not appear to be a factor in the amount and types of fears children report. Studies conducted to date have found no significant sex differences in children's fears (Angelino, et al., 1956; Jersild and Holmes, 1935; and Poznanski, 1973). Etiology of Children's Fears The survival of any species hinges upon its ability to protect its members and to adapt to the surrounding environ- ment. Those behaviors which promote survival are passed on to the next generation. Fear is a survival mechanism which causes an individual to act rapidly in the face of a threat or danger by either fleeing or taking defensive action. Species survival depends partly upon the ability to assess dangerous, life-threatening situations and to respond effectively. Fear, in this respect, is a basic and vital behavior which enhances survival (Bowlby, 1973b). Man has inherited the potential to develOp behavioral systems which vary depending upon the environment in which they develop. These behavioral systems give rise to many reactions, among these being fearful behavior. Fear is a natural disposition of man and can be seen across many cultures because of its proven advantage to survival. These survival behaviors are passed on from generation to genera- tion until they become part of the characteristics of the species. Bowlby's (1969) term for this end result is "biological function", which is the result of evolution causing the behavior in question to become incorporated into the species' biological equipment. Lewis and Rosenblum (1974) in analyzing the origins of fear stated: In infancy the possibility exists that there are a series of events having the innate biological capacity to elicit fearful behaviors. We need to consider events having intense, sudden and unexpected qualities (a loud sound) as well as more complex stimulus arrangements such as the departure of a familiar object (mother). The under- lying mechanism may be related to some innate releasing mechanism built into the organism and designed for survival value. (p. 9) 10 Fear has adaptive qualities, which when aroused stimu- late the individual to search for ways of c0ping with the situation. A moderate amount of fear is needed for the deveIOpment of effective inner defenses which are necessary to c0pe with danger or threat. Excessive fear impairs psychological functioning and results in psychomotor and intellectual errors. While at the other extreme, absence of apprOpriate fear leads to careless, dangerous behavior (Rachman, 1974). Cognitive theorists speculate that the reasons for the emergence of fearful behavior can be traced to the burgeoning ability of the infant to discriminate between the familiar and unfamiliar. Previous experiences have left the infant with internal representations of significant individuals. When confronted with a situation or person, the infant retrieves previously stored information through recall and then responds accordingly. Incongruity results when the infant perceives the person to be unfamiliar and fear may be the behavior exhibited to the unfamiliar person or situation (Lewis and Brooks, 1974; Schaffer, 1974). Marks (1969) attributes the development of fear to the interaction of three kinds of phenomena: innate, maturation, and learning from individual and social experience. His definitions of the preceding are: Innate elements are those which appear early in life before there has been significant experience; matura- tional phenomena are those innate elements which require growth of the animal to a particular stage of deve- ll 10pment before they are finally expressed; elements due to learning appear mainly as a function of par- ticular experiences, although matu- ration is necessary before learning can begin. (p. 14) Bowlby (1973b) theorized that fearful behavior is elicited by environmental clues derived from three sources: natural clues and their derivatives; cultural clues learned by observation; and clues that are learned and used in more or less sephisticated ways in order to assess danger and avoid it. Bowlby asserts that natural clues are considered to be "childish and irrational". Cultural clues, on the other hand, are considered to be "mature and realistic" depending upon the onlooker's frame of reference and cultu- ral norms. Learned clues are also considered mature and realistic. Bowlby (1973b) lists: (1) noise, (2) strange- ness, (3) rapid approach, (4) isolation and (5) darkness, as the naturally occurring clues in man's environment. These clues are associated, from an evolutionary perspective, with an increased risk of danger and represent, either singly or together, most of the situations that are likely to arouse fearful responses. He elaborated that each of these conditions act as a naturally occurring clue to the likeli- hood of danger threatening and as such can be utilized by animals. Sensitivity to these clues promote survival and breeding success since when these clues occur, the young of most Species take avoiding action. 12 As man evolved and deve10ped above other species in terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, the capacity for fear has proven to be more of a hindrance than a survival mechanism. A certain number of fears should be expected, since lesser amounts of fear can be useful. Pathology results when there is an absence of fear or an unusual readiness coupled with intensity of reaction to fear-arousing stimuli (Bowlby, 1973b; and Levitt, 1967). Behavioral Manifestations of Fear Fear is considered to be a normal physiological reaction to a genuine threat and is a reasonable response to a frightening stimulus. When individuals display fear we see those behavioral characteristics that lead us to assume a fearful reaction is taking place. Certain behaviors have come to be recognized as the outward signs which are labelled as fear. Rachman (1968) divides fearful reactions into subjective, autonomic, and motoric components. He described them as: l. Subjective - experienced as an alarming feeling of intense fear, tension or full panic and is express- ed in a variety of ways. 2. Autonomic - rapid respiration, sweating, trembling, palpitations, muscu1ar tension, and/or weakness, involuntary excretion, breathless- ness, nausea, dryness of the mouth. 3. Motoric - one of flight; feeling too weak to move. (p. 3) Marks (1969) lists a tendency to remain motionless and mute; patterns of startle, withdrawal, running and vocaliza- tion as behavioral effects of fear. Marks also lists three 13 other components of fear, "... (l) subjective inner state felt by patients, (2) outer aspects visible to observers and (3) physiological changes so far known to accompany these. Thus, the subjective, behavioral and physiolOgical ingredi- ents of fear together form a complex but not necessarily unitary response."(p. 5) Rachman (1974) in his book on the meanings of fear brings up the interesting point that some fearful expressions are universal, while others are culture-bound. A diSplay of emotion may occur universally, but not be recognized universally. The human emotions of fear and surprise are among the latter category and are difficult to judge separately and often prove to be indistinguishable to the observer. It seems that the nonverbal expression of fear is determined by both innate and acquired factors, but the recognition of fear is learned and culturally controlled. Child-rearing Attitudes Through the analysis of children's fears several theories were advanced concerning their origins. If we assume that there are other elements besides those of survival which give rise to fearful behavior, another contributing factor to children's fears may involve the child-rearing attitudes of the parents. The environment in which the child is reared is just as important as the innate characteristics with which the child is born. For this reason an analysis of child-rearing attitudes may give some insight into children's fears. l4 Maternal child-rearing attitudes may be considered a good indicator of the approach the mother will take with her child. If the mother accepts and enjoys her role and looks upon child-rearing as a rewarding aspect of her life, the child may develop in an accepting atmosphere that allows the child to grow and learn from the environment. However, if the mother's attitude toward child-rearing is ambivalent or negative, she may become hostile, rejecting or punitive toward the child. Also, the parental behavior can be either too lenient and vacillating or over-controlling. As a result, the child deve10ps in an atmosphere of unpredictabil- ity and uncertainty. Often this ambivalence or rejection so permeates the mother-child relationship that the child may use a fear or phobia as a symbolic substitute for the anxiety in the home. Many childhood fears subside as the child matures and gains a better understanding of the world. If this interaction with the environment is stifled or delayed, the child does not learn to cope adequately and certain deVeIOpmental fears may persist past their normal decay point (Becker, 1964; Colm, 1959; McBride, 1973; Rheingold & Eckerman, 1970). Many researchers have studied maternal child-rearing attitudes and their effects upon the develOping child. Baldwin, Kalhorn & Breese (1945) in their longitudinal study at the Fels Research Institute found several parental behavior types. They found the homes could be divided into democratic, autocratic, dictatorial, rejecting and accepting 15 parental behavior categories. Each type of home produced children with divergent personalities. Some of these children were sociable and friendly while others were emotionally insecure and shy, depending upon the home atmosphere. The authors felt that the characteristics of the individual child and the value which the mother placed upon motherhood were important elements in the overall assessment of different types of parental behavior. Zuckerman and Oltean (1959) in a study comparing results on the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI), taken by 172 women, with three other personality measures found mothers who scored high on the PARI factor of hostility-rejection tended to be hostile and rejecting in their parental attitudes and have a high need for achieve- ment, a low need for nurturance and high need for aggression. They also found that: "...a woman whose significant rewards tend to lie in achievements outside the nurturing, maternal role is one who is likely to be irritable with her children and her husband because she is functioning in a role which does not fit her needs." (p. 31). The authors interpreted the results as indicating some relationship between personality variables and attitudes toward child-rearing. In a study of alternative lifestyles and child-rearing, Eiduson, Cohen and Alexander (1973) examined the child- rearing styles of three groups: couples living together, "unmarried marrieds"; single mothers; and those living in communes. The study included a comparison group of conven- 16 tional two-parent families. Commonly found among the counter-culture families was an intense mother-child relationship from birth to age 2 1/2 years, with a break in this pattern toward independence and self-reliance after 2 1/2. The children deveIOped trust toward other care- 'takers and the expressions of affectional needs were highly valued. These parents were ambivalent about serving as models for identification by their children and encouraged peer-relationships and early decision-making. Barton, Dielman and Cattel (1977) studied the responses of 644 parents of high school students to determine whether or not the Child Rearing Practice Questionnaire (CRPQ) was a useful predictor of personality factors in the parents' children. The children completed the High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ). A few of the results using mothers' scores on CRPQ found outgoing children's behavior in homes that were warm and permissive. Low maternal control was significantly related to the degree of excitability of the child. The authors felt that this child personality trait is a response to a child-rearing practice which did not control the child's behavior at an earlier age. The child who was dependent and overprotected was found to come from a home where the mother exhibited a lack of strict discipline (preferring to reason) and high warmth, but an absence of adequate behavioral control. Several researchers have attempted to find a relation- ship between parental attitudes and observable child l7 behavior. In a study of parental attitudes associated with social deviance in preadolescent boys, Winder & Rau (1962) found several attitudes contributing to the son's behavior. The p0pulation consisted of 108 fathers and 118 mothers of fourth, fifth and sixth grade boys in Palo Alto, California. Children were administered a Peer Nomination Inventory to determine the child's relative standing in the class on the inventory's five variables of social deviance. The parents of these children were given the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire, develOped by the authors, with separate forms for the mother and father. The mean reliability of the summary scales for the questionnaire was .71 for the mothers and .74 for the fathers. Results indicated that many parental attitudes were associated with several of the deviancy variables. Statistics performed on the parent attitude scales were significant at the .05 level or better for thirty-five comparisons on the mother's scale and for twenty-two of the father's. For example, high maternal reStrictiveness, deprivation of privileges, punitiveness, and punishment were associated with aggression and dependen- cy. A general picture of ambivalence and punitiveness on the part of both parents was associated with the social deviance of their sons. Becker (1964) in his review of varieties of parental discipline, found that certain behaviors in children could be linked with the type of parental discipline they had experienced. He found, from most of the studies cited, that 18 a restrictive discipline fosters inhibited behavior and restrictiveness combined with hostility may lead to fearful, dependent and submissive behaviors. In an investigation of child-rearing practices associ- ated with different patterns of preschool behavior, Baumrind (1967) studied the parents of children designated as self-reliant, withdrawn and dependent by using observa- tions in the home and in an experimental situation, rating scales and parental interviews. She found that parents of the self-reliant children were firm, loving, understanding and used reason to explain demands upon the child. Parents of the withdrawn children were punitive, unaffectionate and less nurturant. The parents of the dependent children were ineffective in managing their households, demanded little of the child and used withdrawal of love and ridicule as incentives. Baumrind stated that parents create their children, not only physically, but psychologically as well. Socioeconomic status has been influential when determining types of child-rearing attitudes. Becker (1964), in a study of the consequences of different kinds of parental discipline, found socioeconomic status had an influence upon the types of disciplinary techniques used: Research shows that middle-class parents provide more warmth and are more likely to use reasoning, isolation, show of disappointment, or guilt- arousing appeals in disciplining the child. They are also likely to be more permissive about demands for attention from the child, sex behavior, aggression to parent, table manners, neatness and orderliness, noise, bedtime rules and 19 general obedience. Working class parents are more likely to use ridicule, shouting or physical punishment in disciplining the child, and to be gene- rally more restrictive. (p. 171) As part of an on-going infant research project designed to prevent cultural-social retardation, Ramey and Campbell (1976) compared a group of lower class black mothers to a group of predominantly white mothers. They found that: The group of lower class black mothers described themselves as being much less in control of environmental reinforcements than did the comparison group....Lower class mothers described themselves as more authoritarian, less democratic, and less hostile and re- jecting than did mothers in the compar- ison group. (p. 5) As indicated in the literature, parental attitudes about child-rearing and parental behavior have great influence when assessing children's behavior. However, the direct relationship between children's fears and parental attitudes has not been experimentally studied. The purpose of this study is to investigate the intensity and types of children's fears and how these fears may be influenced by maternal child-rearing attitudes and by the mother's perception of her child's behavior. Hypotheses I. There should be a positive correlation between the total number of fears reported by the child and the total number of fears attributed to the child by the mother. II. There will be qualitative differences between the III. IV. 20 fears reported by children in different age groups. Sex differences should emerge in children's reported fears. A positive relationship should exist between the chil- dren's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Stanford Parent Question- naire (SPQ) scales: Rejection, punitiveness and physical punishment; and restrictiveness. A positive relationship should exist between the chil- dren's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory (CBPI) scales: Dependence in doing; demanding attention, and conscience. 21 CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects Subjects were 130 mother/child pairs, 64 of the children were males and 66 were females. The children ranged from 36 months to 71 months of age. The racial composition of the sample included 86 Whites, l7 Hispanics, 14 Blacks, 9 inter- racial children and 4 Orientals. All mother/child pairs were volunteers recruited from day care centers, nursery schools and kindergartens from the borough of Manhattan in New York City. The average number of children per family was one, with six being the largest number of siblings per family. The children averaged 31.2 hours weekly in day care and averaged 21.7 months in current day care/nursery school experience. The mean age of mothers in the study was 32.6 years, with the mothers' ages ranging from 21 years to 44 years. Forty- seven percent of the mothers had completed college. Seventy- three percent of the mothers were currently married; 72% of the mothers reported the husband residing in the home. The average of the 1978 income was reported by the mothers as between $10,000 and $16,000. Seventy percent of the fathers and 67% of the mothers were employed in skilled or semi- skilled jobs, as rated by the Hollingshead and Redlich (1958) occupational scale. Instruments I. Children's Fear Survey: This instrument was verbal- 22 1y administered to the child by the examiner. Mothers' Fear Survey: This comparable form was complet- ed by the mother giving her estimation of the type and intensity of her child's fears. Both fear surveys contained additional questions assessing: other children's fears that were not previously listed and the incidence of these other fears; the amount of television children viewed and the types of programs watched; and any fear-producing items the children watched on television. (Appendix A). The need to compare children's fear reports with the mothers' reports of their children's fears, necessitated the development of an instrument with parallel forms for child and adult. The Louisville Fear Survey for Children (LFSC) Forms A and B developed by Miller, et al., (1972) was chosen as the standardized instrument upon which the new instrument was based. The LFSC can be self-administered and had previously been used on pOpulations older than that used in this study. Because the reading level of this study's children precluded a written self-report, a verbally administered instrument was devised. Although a more simplistic approach was taken with the children's form, using synonyms or more detailed descriptions to facilitate the child's understanding, the adult and child forms of the fear survey are otherwise comparable. An additional factor which determined which items from the LFSC were chosen arose from the desire to select those 23 items which most closely corresponded to some of Bowlby's (1973b) naturally occurring environmental clues. Among these were: darkness, strangers or strangeness, restricted move- ments, loud or sudden noises, being alone or in isolation and rapid approach - animals. In all, seventeen items were chosen to correspond to these categories of fear-producing environmental clues. Although the instruments were based on the LFSC, the parallel forms represent an essentially new instrument in terms of the items chosen and the deve10pment of the verbally administered instrument. A pilot study was conducted to determine the reliability of the fear surveys. The subjects were 15 mother/child pairs. Eleven of the children were male and four were female. The children ranged in age from 4 years 0 months to 5 years 9 months. The mean age of the mothers was 28 years. Eighty percent of the children had experienced some form of day care. Subjects were recruited through a day care center on the campus of Michigan State University and through adver- tisements in campus and local newspapers. Mothers were paid $4 for their participation in the study. Statistical analysis of the pilot data indicated that both forms of the scale were internally consistent. The children's form of the fear survey received a Kuder-Richardson internal consis- tency coefficient reliability of .89 and the mother's form received a Kuder-Richardson internal consistency coefficient reliability of .80. II. General demographic information form to be complet- 24 ed by the mothers. (Appendix B) III. Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire (Form M.S.U.) - Selected scales. (Appendix C) In exploring the possible factors contributing to fear- ful behavior in children, the mother's attitudes toward child-rearing would seem to play an important part. For this reason an instrument was chosen that would assess maternal attitudes. The SPQ is an instrument that has successfully related parental attitudes to child behavior. Although the total instrument contains sixteen scales, only six were used. These six scales - rejection, restrictiveness, democracy, punitiveness and physical punishment, rewarding independence and reasoning, were chosen to assess those attitudes which might contribute to fearful behavior in children. The reliabilities of the six scales range from .68 to .79. A total of 74 items from the SPQ were used. Two versions of the SPQ were used: masculine worded questionnaires for the mothers of boys and feminine worded questionnaires for the mothers of girls. IV. Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory (CBPI) - Selected scales. (Appendix D) The CBPI, (Schaefer and Finkelstein, 1972), was chosen as another instrument because of its high reliabilities in assessing how the child behaves toward the parent. By the addition of the CBPI not only were maternal attitudes assessed by way of the SPQ, but the child's behavior to the mother, as viewed by the mother, was also measured. The 25 scales were selected to tap various areas of the mother/ child relationship that might be disturbed if the child were particularly fearful. The nine scales selected were: communication, independence in doing things, affection, obedience, demanding attention, dependence in doing, avoid— ance of affection, conscience and inconsideration. Each scale contained five items each, for a total of 45 items. The reliabilities for these nine scales were reported as ranging from .69 to .93. Two versions of the CBPI were used: masculine worded questionnaires for the mothers of boys and feminine worded questionnaires for the mothers of girls. Experimental Task The apparatus consisted of 1 small cylindrical block, 3 large wax numbers (1-2-3) and crayons and drawing paper. In order to administer the child fear survey verbally and to sustain the child's attention, an experimental task was devised which incorporated instructions and procedures which the child was to follow in answering the fear survey items. The instructions given to the child by the experi- menter on the use and meaning of the apparatus are given below: "I am going to ask you some questions about things you see every- day and I want you to tell me how you feel about them. I have here three numbers: 1 - 2 - 3 and a small block. If I ask you a question and you like it or it doesn't bother you, put the block in front of #1, if I ask you a question about something and it bothers you a little bit or kind of 26 scares you, put the block in front of #2; if I ask you a question about something and it scares you, put the block in front of #3." The child was then asked to repeat the use of the numbers and what they represented. After demonstration of a knowledge of the task and use of the apparatus, the child was administered the ten training items prior to being administered the fear survey. Training Items Some of the following items were based on the LFSC (Forms A and B) and are items which were not chosen for the fear survey. The training items, as were those on the child's form of the fear survey, were simplified to facili- tate the child's understanding. The training items were: 1. Going to the store 6. Monsters 2. Fire 7. Trees 3. Playing outside 8. Getting shots from the doctor 4. Cartoons 9. Toys 5. Listening to the radio 10. Getting into a fight with another child. These items were used as a form of practice for the child, in preparation for the actual fear survey. If the child communicated an understanding of the task by giving answers, either verbally or through placement of the block in front of the number of their chosen answer, they were continued in the study and administered the fear survey by the experimenter. If the child did not understand the task and was unable to communicate an answer, she/he was 27 eliminated from the study. Behavioral Ratings l. Came willingly. Friendly. Talkative. Answered ques- tions well. 2. Came willingly. Quiet, but gave responses needed. 3. Came willingly. Restless. Mild problems with instruc- tions or performance of task. 4. Came reluctantly. Shy. Warmed up as time went on. Answered questions willingly. 5. Came reluctantly. Anxious throughout, mild problems. Answered questions. 6. Refused initially. Came willingly later. No problems thereafter. 7. Refused initially. Came willingly later. Anxious, mild problems, but gave answers. These ratings were devised to provide a descriptive account of the child's response to the examiner. It was felt that the child's behavior prior to taking the fear survey was important and may or may not be indicative of the child's subsequent responses. It also provided a rating for how the child responded to being taken out of the classroom and being asked questions by an unfamiliar adult. Setting The quality of the rooms where the children were tested varied greatly. Whenever possible, efforts were made to insure privacy. However, most schools in New York City were cramped for space and on occasion the testing 28 situations were not the best. The majority of testing rooms were suitable, however. Procedure 1. Day care center/nursery school directors were initially contacted through the mail. Names were obtained from city-wide day care directories, referrals and tele- phone listings. (Appendix E) 2. Phone contact was made with the directors one week after the letters had been sent. During the phone conversation an explanation of the research, procedures and age group needed was given. Whenever possible an appointment was made with the directors to discuss the project further. A total of twenty-one centers agreed to participate. 3. After the centers agreed to participate, letters were distributed to parents explaining the study and ask- ing mothers and children to participate. (Appendix F) 4. Only those children whose parents had signed permission forms were allowed to participate in the study. 5. Children were observed in their classrooms for a minimum of three hours. The experimenter was usually introduced to the classroom before observations began. ‘ 6. The experimenter introduced herself to each child before asking the child to come to a separate area for testing. 7. An attempt was made to establish rapport with each child by asking about the child's family, favorite 29 activities, etc. and allowing them to draw pictures if they wished. During this time a behavior rating of the child's response to the examiner and experimental situation was made. 8. The experimental task was explained to the child and demonstrated. Training items were administered and if the child was able to respond apprOpriately and understood the task, she/he was continued in the study. Children who had difficulties with the training items were eliminated from the study. Of 163 children tested, approximately five children were eliminated from the study. After successful- ly completing the training items, the child was administer- ed the 17 item fear survey. If a child gave a fearful response to any of the items, he/she was asked why he/she was afraid of the particular survey item. 9. Maternal questionnaires were left with the teachers to distribute to mothers who completed the questionnaire at their convenience. 0f the 163 question- naires distributed, 132 or 81% were returned. 10. A pre-determined time was arranged to discuss the research and their child's responses with the mothers at a time which was convenient to them. Since most of the mothers worked, this usually occurred at the end of the day when the mothers came to pick up their children. Although this session was made available to all mothers, not all took advantage of the session. When desired, results were discussed over the telephone with the mothers. 30 11. A letter of thanks was sent to each center after the research was completed explaining that a summary of results would be sent when the dissertation was completed. Scoring Fear Survey (Adult and child forms) Total number of items: 17 Response categories: Not at all A little bit Very scary Scoring weights: 1 2 3 Range of possible scores: 17 to 51 Higher scores indicate more fearful responses. Kuder-Richardson internal consistency coefficients - Children's Fear Survey: r = .79; Mothers' Fear Survey: r = .77 Frequency tables for mother and child fear survey item responses are contained in Appendices G and H. Stanford Parent Questionnaire Scales Total number of items: 74 Response categories: Strongly Strongly Agree Agggg Disagree Disagree Scoring weights: 3 2 1 O or 0 l 2 3 Usually an agreement with the question is indicative of the presence of the trait. However, occasionally disagreement with a question is indicative of the charac- teristic: For these items the scoring is from 0 - 3 beginning with strongly agree to strongly disagree, respectively. In any case, the higher scores indicate the presence of the selected subscale attitudes and a lower 31 score as absence of the subscale trait. The total score for each variable is the sum of the item scores. Each scale was scored separately. Kuder-Richardson internal consistency coefficients based on this study sample are as follows: Rejection: r = .8649 Restrictiveness: r = .7468 Rewarding Independence: r = .6522 Reasoning: r = .7666 Democracy: r = .5745 Punitiveness and Physical Punishment: r = .8358 Means and standard deviations for each subscale are listed in Appendix I. Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory Scales Total number of items: 45 Response categories: Very Much Somewhat A Little Not at all Like Like Like Like Scoring weights: 4 3 2 1 High scores indicate child reported as having various traits of the specific scale. Low score means item is perceived as not being like the child (child does not dis- play the behavior). Kuder-Richardson internal consistency coefficients based on this study sample are as follows: Communication: r = .7711 Independence in doing things: r = .6728 Affection: r = .6800 32 Obedience: r = .7973 Demanding Attention: r = .7526 Dependence in doing: r = .8637 Avoidance of Affection: r = .8099 Conscience: r = .8559 Inconsideration: r = .8111 Means and standard deviations for each subscale are listed in Appendix J. 33 CHAPTER I I I RESULTS Hypothesis I: There should be a positive correlation between the total number of fears reported by the child and the total number of fears attributed to the child by the mother. Children's Fear Survey Total Score: 3’: 33; S2 = 6.8 Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score: le = 27; S2 = 4.9 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation - Mothers'Fear Survey Total Score by Children's Fear Survey Total Score: 5 = .008 ns (3 = 130) Since there was no linear relationship between the mother and child scores, visual examination of each mother- child protocol was undertaken to determine the degree and amount of agreement on those fearful items chosen.. Children reported a rating of 3 (very afraid) for an average of 5.75 fears per child, whereas the mothers reported a rating of 3 (very afraid) for an average of only 1.55 fears per child. This difference was significant at the p<.001 level; (5 = 12.046). No relationship appears to exist between what the children stated they feared and what the mothers reported as their children's fears. There was significant difference in the degree and amount of fears reported by the child and mother, with the children reporting more intense and more frequent instances of fears. 34 Hypothesis II: There will be qualitative differences between the fears reported by children in different age groups. Chi square computations performed on the 17 Children's Fear Survey items yielded non-significant results for 15 of the items. The two items that yielded significant results are listed in Tables 1 and 2: Table 1 Children's Fear Survey Item #2 (Being in the dark) Fear Age Reported Older Younger No N = 25 17 42 % = 19.2 13.1 32.3 Little N = 11 ll 22 % = 8.5 8.5 16.9 Very N = 24 42 66 % = 18.5 32.3 50.8 Column 60 70 130 Total 46.2 53.8 100.0 .Chi Square = 5.697 g; = 2 p = .05 Note: Older = 60 months or above; younger below 60 months Younger children are more likely than older children to report being very afraid of being in the dark. 35 Table 2 Children's Fear Survey Item #8 (Certain parts of the apartment or building) Fear Age Reported Older Younger No N = 46 38 84 % = 35.4 29.2 64.6 Little N = 7 ll 18 % = 5.4 8.5 13.8 Very N = 7 21 28 % = 5.4 16.2 21.5 Column 60 70 130 Total 46.2 53.8 100.0 Chi Square = 7.928 d: = 2 p = .01 Note: Older = 60 months or above; younger = below 60 months Younger children are more likely than older children to report being very afraid of areas of their apartment or building. The hypothesis was supported for two of the seventeen Child Fear Survey items. In addition, the following Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was computed using a' one-tailed test of significance: Children's Fear Survey Total Score and Age: 5 = -.18 p_= .01 (g = 130) This negative correlation, though slight, indicates that older children listed fewer fears. Hypothesis III. Sex differences should emerge in children's reported fears. Chi square computations performed on the 17 Children's 36 Fear Survey items yielded non-significant results for 16 of the items. The one item which proved significant is listed below: Table 3 Children's Fear Survey Item #3 (Loud noises) Fear Sex Reported Male Female No N = 29 13 42 % = 22.3 10.0 32.3 Little N = 12 26 38 % = 9.2 20.0 29.2 Very N = 23 27 50 % = 17.7' 20.8 38.5 Column 64 66 130 Total 49.2 50.8 100.0 Chi Square = 11.545 d: = 2 p.= .003 Boys are more likely to report no fear of loud noises when compared to girls. Girls are more likely to have a moderate amount of fear of loud noises when compared to boys. The hypothesis was supported for one out of seventeen of the fear survey items as reported by the child. Additional information was obtained on sex differences in reported children's fears by examination of those fears attributed to the child by the mother on the Mothers' Fear Survey. Chi Square computations performed on the 17 Mothers' Fear Survey items, yielded only three significant chi- square scores: 37 Table 4 Mothers' Fear Survey Item #8 (Certain parts of the apartment or building) Child's Fear as Reported by the Sex Of Child Mother Male Female No N = 39 55 94 % = 30.5 43.0 73.4 Little N = 20 9 29 % = 15.6 7.0 22.7 Very N = 4 l 5 % = 3.1 0.8 3.9 Column 63 65 128 Total 49.2 50.8 100.0 Chi Square = 8.666 d: = 2 p = .01 Mothers of girls are more likely to report their child as having no fears concerning areas of the apartment or building as compared to mothers of boys. Mothers of boys are more likely to report their child as having a moderate degree of fear of certain areas of the apartment or building as compared to mothers of girls. 38 Table 5 Mothers' Fear Survey Item #15 (Frogs and Lizards) Child's Fear as Reported by the Sex Of Child Mother Male Female No N = 47 51 98 % = 37.3 40.5 77.8 Little N = 15 9 24 % = 11.9 7.1 19.0 Very N = 0 4 4 % = 0.0 3.2 3.2 Column 62 64 126 Total 49.2 50.8 100.0 Chi Square = 5.632 g; = 2 p = .05 Mothers of boys are more likely to report their child as having a moderate degree of fear of frogs and lizards as compared to the mothers of girls. Mothers of girls are more likely to report their child as being very afraid of frogs and lizards as compared to mothers of boys. 39 Table 6 Mothers' Fear Survey Item #17 (Being away from parents) Child's Fear as Reported by the Sex Of Child Mother Male Female No N = 24 39 63 % = 18.5 30.0 48.5 Little N = 35 19 54 % = 26.9 14.6 41.5 Very N = 5 8 l3 % = 3.8 6.2 10.0 Column 64 66 130 Total 49.2 50.8 100.0 Chi Square = 8.975 df = 2 p = .01 Mothers of girls are more likely to report their child as having no fear of being away from parents as com- pared to mothers of boys. Mothers of boys are more likely to report their child as being moderately afraid of being away from their parents as compared to mothers of girls. Additional support for the hypothesis was obtained from three out of the seventeen fear survey items attributed to the child by the mothers. 40 Hypothesis IV: A positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Stanford Parent Questionnaire (SPQ) scales: Rejection, punitiveness and physical punish- ment; and restrictiveness. This hypothesis was tested by means of Pearson Product- Moment Correlations; using one-tailed test of significance: Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by SPQ l (Rejection): E = .15 p = .03 (B = 130) Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by SPQ 6 (Punitive- ness and physical punishment): 5 = .18 p = .01 (g = 130) Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by SPQ 2 (Restric- tiveness): 5 = .06 ns (2’: 130) The hypothesis was supported for two of the three scales. Mothers who report their children as being fearful tend to describe themselves as rejecting, punitive and as using physical punishment. Restrictiveness does not appear to be a significant characteristic of mothers who reported their children as being fearful. Hypothesis V: A positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory (CBPI) scales: Dependence in doing, demanding attention, and conscience. 41 This hypothesis was tested by means of Pearson Product- Moment Correlations; using one-tailed test of significance: Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by CBPI 6 (Dependence in doing): E = .15 p = .03 (g = 130) Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by CBPI 8 (Conscience): 5 = .21 pg= .006 (g = 130) Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by CBPI 5 (Demanding Attention): .E = .13 ns (3 = 130) The hypothesis was supported for two of the three scales. Mothers, who reported their children as being fearful, tend to describe their children as being dependent and having a high degree of concern over whether they have upset their mothers. They did not report their children as being particularly demanding of their attention. Additional Findings I. Behavior Ratings Of the 121 children rated, 72% received a rating of l. The majority of the children tested were comfor- table with the examiner and displayed no objective signs of fright or uneasiness at being asked questions by an unfamiliar adult. II. Children's Fear Survey - Additional Questions Other fears: 93% of the children surveyed stated they had no other fears besides those listed on the fear 42 survey. Those children who stated they had other fears listed animals, imaginary creatures, actual experiences, a person or things in the environment. Fearful incidents: 95% of the children could not remember a specific incident or a time when they had been frightened. When a fearful incident was given, it usually involved an actual experience or event. Television fears: 90% of the children stated they had not been frightened by anything they had seen on television. Those children who had been frightened by television programs were usually frightened by an incident on a program or a particular type of program; such as violence on television or monster movies, respectively. Most children named a particular program they enjoyed watching, such as educational programs and cartoons most frequently. III. Mothers' Fear Survey and Demographic Variables The associations between mothers' scores on the fear survey and the following demographic variables were tested by means of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations; with two-tailed tests of significance: Mother Fear Survey Total Score by Number of Children in the Family: a = -.20 p = .02 (g = 130) Mother Fear Survey Total Score by Mothers Age: r = -.25 ‘p = .004 (g = 130) A relationship existed between mothers reporting their 43 child as fearful and how many children there were in the family. The higher the total fear survey score, the fewer children in the family. Also, younger mothers tended to report a higher number of fears for their children. Simple analysis of variance was used to examine differences in mothers' fear survey scores attributable to racial group membership and father's occupation. Results are presented in Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10. Table 7 Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by Race Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between 4 262.8512 65.7128 2.777 .0298 groups Within 125 2957.6796 23.6614 groups Total 129 3220.5308 Table 8 Mothers' Fear Survey Means for Racial Groups Racial Group N Means SD Black 14 27.214 3.42 White 86 25.790 4.87 Hispanic 17 28.588 5.44 Inter- racial 9 27.444 4.24 Oriental 4 32.250 7.50 Total 130 26.625 4.99 44 Since the difference between the group means was found to be significant, Dunnett's test was utilized so as to make multiple comparisons between the group means. Dunnett's 5 statistic yielded significant results for two out of ten mean comparisons; with two-tailed tests of significance: Hispanic vs. White: Dunnett _t_:_ = 2.1689, p( .05 Oriental vs. White: Dunnett t = 2.5964, p< .01 The Hispanic and Oriental mothers, when compared to the other racial groups, differed most from the white mothers in the reporting of children's fears. Table 9 Mothers' Fear Survey Total Score by Fathers' Occupation Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between groups 4 320.4826 80.1207 3.423 .0117 Within groups 93 2177.1194 23.4099 Total 97 2497.6020 45 Table 10 Mothers' Fear Survey Means According to Maternal Designation of Fathers' Occupation Fathers' Occupation N Mean SD Professional 17 24.2353 4.1008 Skilled 35 26.2857 5.8790 Semi-skilled 33 26.4242 4.4161 Unskilled 6 24.0000 2.6077 Student 7 31.8571 3.5322 Total 98 26.2347 5.0743 Dunnett's test was used to make multiple comparisons between the group means. Dunnett's 3 statistic yielded significant results for four out of the ten mean comparisons; with two-tailed tests of significance: Professional vs. Student: Dunnett f: 3.522, E4 .01 Skilled vs. Student: Dunnett t 2.793, 2‘ .01 Semi-skilled vs. Student: Dunnett E 2.708, 244.01 Unskilled vs. Student: Dunnett E = 2.926, pt..01 Mothers whose husbands were students, when compared to other paternal occupational categories, reported their children as being more fearful. Mothers' Fear Survey - Additional Questions Other Fears: 91% of the mothers surveyed stated their child had no other fears besides those listed on the fear survey. Those mothers who did report other fears 46 listed imagination or actual experiences as being the source of the fear. Fearful incidents: 13% of the mothers listed an actual experience or event as a fearful incident. 87% of the mothers reported no fearful incidents for their child. Hours of televisionyper week: Mothers were asked to estimate the number of hours of television their child watched per week: Z = 13.85 hours per week, S2 = 9.57. The minimum amount of television watched by a child was zero; the maximum reported was 44 hours. Television fears: 86% of the mothers stated their child was not frightened by anything on television. Mothers who did state their child had been frightened by something on television, usually listed a particular type of program, such as monster movies. When mothers listed a program that their child regularly watched, they usually listed educational programs, children's series and cartoons. 47 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Of the five hypothesis tested, hypothesis II, III, IV and V received partial support, while hypothesis I was not supported. Hypothesis II stated that there would be quali- tative differences between the fears reported by children in different age groups. Children under 5 years of age report- ed being very afraid of the dark and certain areas of their apartment or building. In addition, children above the age of five were less likely to list a large number of fears. Those children who stated they were afraid of an area in their building usually named the basement as the source of fear. Since basements are traditionally thought of as being dark places, the young child may have been expressing again a fear of the dark. Miller, et a1. (1974) found that developmentally fear of the dark occurs most around the fourth year, which is consistent with the findings of this study. Past researchers (Jersild and Holmes, 1935; and Poznanski, 1973, to name several) had found younger children feared noise, animals and strangers. The young children in this sample did not name these as being significant fears. This may be due to the uniqueness of the Manhattan sample. Manhattan is a noisy city at all hours and individuals living there gradually become conditioned to the noise level. Although Manhattan has its share of strangers and strange people, most young children in Manhattan are 48 accompanied by an adult when they leave their homes and any encounter with strangers would seem less frightening with an older person along for support and comfort. Also, few animals run free in Manhattan and when a child encounters an animal (i.e., dogs), it is either on a leash or the child is with someone older, hence the experience may not be as frightening as it would be if the child were alone. Hypothesis III stated that sex differences should emerge in children's reported fears. There were no signifi- cant differences in the reporting of fears between boys and girls, except for loud sounds. Boys reported no fear while girls reported a moderate amount of fear. The reporting of only one fear item which differentiates girls from boys seems to indicate that few sex differences exist between boys and girls when they report their own fears. However, the mothers reported more sex differences than did their children. Mothers of girls reported their children had no fear of parts of the apartment/building and showed no fear of being away from their parents. The mothers of boys reported their children as having a moderate degree of fear for certain areas of the apartment/building and being away from the parents. Although these findings were based on descriptions of children's behavior, more may have been revealed concerning the mother's sex-role stereotyping. Young boys are expected to explore more of the environment and achieve independence before girls. If mothers in this sample hold traditional sex-role expectations for their 49 boys, one might assume that any display of fear, or what might be interpreted as fear, would be unacceptable and, therefore, remembered by the mothers. Young girls' display of fear, on the other hand, would be accepted and considered normal and not significant to the mothers, thereby not being reported on the fear survey. Mothers of boys reported a moderate degree of fear for frogs and lizards, with mothers reporting girls being very afraid. Most of the children surveyed had no actual experience with frogs or lizards, while mothers seemed to base their judgments on how they thought their child would respond, rather than on an actual experience. Generally, sex differences were not a signifi- cant factor in the reporting of fears by children or their mothers. This finding is consistent with other studies conducted on children's fears (Angelino, Dollins & Mech, 1956; Eme & Schmidt, 1978, Jersild & Holmes, 1935; and Poznanski, 1973). Hypothesis IV stated that a positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the three Stanford Parent Questionnaire scales: Rejection, punitive- ness and physical punishment, and restrictiveness. The hypothesis was supported for two of the three parental attitudes, with the correlations being low, albeit signifi- cant. Mothers of fearful children tended to describe themselves as rejecting, punitive and as using physical punishment. These findings were contributed by a small 50 group of cases of fearful children combined with rejecting and punitive mothers, not typical of the sample as a whole. An investigation of the statements comprising the punitiveness and physical punishment scale revealed rather clear cut meanings, while statements on the rejection scale were more complex. On the rejection scale, the statements described children who disregard their mothers, are demand- ing and difficult to satisfy and seem indicative of a general lack of understanding of the child by the mother. These findings are consiStent with those of Brody (1969) who measured maternal attitudes with questionnaires and observed mother-child interactions. A brief synOpsis of Brody's findings indicates that children of high-rejecting mothers engage in less observation of mother and her activities, sought less information from mother, had a low rate of compliance with mother's requests and sought more attention, approval and praise. Although the results of this study and those of Brody (1969) seem to point to a relationship between mothers' rejecting attitudes and child behavior, this conclusion must be viewed with caution due to the low correlation levels. Although there have been several studies which researched the relationship between parental attitudes and practices and children's behavior (Barton, Dielman & Cattel, 1977; Baumrind, 1967; Becker, 1964; and Winder & Rau, 1962), research investigating the relationship between children's fears and maternal child- rearing attitudes is practically non-existant. Specific 51 research in this area is needed. The basic question still arises as to what causes the fearful behavior in the child: Is it the maternal attitude that results in fearful child behavior or vice versa? Bell (1968) prOposed the possibility that congenital differences in the degree of a child's person orientation may affect how the parent reacts to the child. Bell prOposed that children low in person orientation induce less nurturance from parents, are interested in physical activity and inanimate objects; parents of these children frequently resort to physical punishment. Another explanation for the results in this study may lie in the area of psychoanalytic theory which holds that one of the possible causes of a child's fear may be a symbolic substitute for problems in the parent-child relationship (Colm, 1959; Freud, 1955; and Poznanski, 1973). Further research is needed to determine what other variables contribute to maternal attitudes and fearful child behavior, and may account for their apparent association. Hypothesis V stated that a positive relationship should exist between the children's fears as reported by their mothers and these mothers' scores on the Child Behavior Toward the Parent Inventory (CBPI) scales: Dependence in doing, demanding attention, and conscience. The hypothesis was supported for two of the three scales, though again the correlations were low, albeit significant. Mothers of fearful children tended to describe their chil- 52 dren as being dependent and having a high degree of concern over whether or not they upset their mother (conscience). Combining the results of hypothesis IV and V into one concise statement: Mothers of fearful children are slightly more likely to describe themselves as rejecting, punitive and often resorting to physical punishment, and to view their fearful child as being dependent and as having a high- ly developed conscience. At this point a supposition may be advanced that some fearful children in this study display an insecure relationship with their mothers (Ainsworth & Witting, 1969; Jersild & Holmes, 1935). We are presented with the problem of a child making attempts at getting close to the mother, but being rebuffed. The situation is compounded in that the child is also fearful and more in need of the reassurance and nurturance the mother can provide. These mothers may regard the child's fear as unimportant and another attempt to draw attention, which the mother is unwilling to provide. As a function of these results, several questions emerge: Which came first, the fearful child or the rejecting, punitive mother? Has the child been exposed to specific events which elicited fearful behavior or has the mother's attitude and behavior caused the child to be susceptible to fear-producing situ- ations? Another possibility is that the above relationship is coincidental and unique to this study's population. The answers to these questions lie outside the bounds of this research and future studies delving into these areas are 53 needed. The major hypothesis of this study was hypothesis I, which stated: there should be a positive correlation be- tween the total number of fears reported by the child and the total number of fears attributed to the child by the mother. The correlation between mother's fear score and the child's fear score was not significant, in fact, it was very close to zero. No relationship exists between what the children stated they feared and what the mothers reported as their children's fears, in this study. Visual inspections of each mother-child protocol revealed discre- pancies in the intensity and amount of fears reported. Children reported an average of 5.75 fears per child, whereas mothers reported only 1.55 fears per child. There was a significant difference in the degree and amount of fears reported by the child and mother, with the children reporting more frequent and intense instances of fear. It had been assumed by this researcher that an obvious behavior such as fear would be significant both to the child and the mother, so that both would concur on what the child feared. However, children had the tendency to view them- selves as very afraid of more items than their mothers. Mothers tended to be reticent in labelling their child as fearful and preferred to list the child as not frightened or mildly frightened by a particular item. The results in this study seem consistent with those of Rachman (1974) who found subjective reports of fears more intense than the 54 reaction to the feared object. Therefore, it may be proposed that mothers in this study may not necessarily have been exposed to fearful displays in their children to items on the fear survey which the child stated he/she feared, and were reporting from objective experience only. Also, mothers in this study may not have considered their chil- dren's fears as unusual or extreme and were therefore less likely to report their child as fearful (Miller, Barrett & Hampe, 1974). Results from the questionnaires revealed a tendency for mothers of fearful children to be rejecting, punitive and to use physical punishment. If this is an accurate assessment of the mothers of fearful children in this study, the possibility exists that we can not expect them to give a reliable report of their child's fear. Children in this study spent on the average of 6 hours a day away from the mothers in some form of day care. Many displays of fearful behavior may have taken place in the day care setting and were unknown to the mother.) Mothers who spend the day with their child in the home may report more accurate assessments of children's fears. It is also possible that the children in this study were too young to give valid self-reports of fear. Chil- dren of the age range in this study may not have completely understood the task and may have been influenced by the h expectations of the experimenter (Bauer, 1976). In compar- ing the reports of fears in this study with those found by previous researchers, the children in this study were found 55 to be slightly higher in their reporting of fears. Fear reports in the literature range from 3.48 to 4.8 and as high as 7.0 fears per child (Angelino, et al., 1956; and Poznanski, 1973), as compared to 5.75 fears for the children in this study. The children in this study fall somewhere in the middle range for expected numbers of children's fears; they were not considerably more or less fearful than children in past research. Further research is needed comparing self and parental reports of children's fears. Additional Findings The rationale for the behavior ratings was to assess the child's behavior prior to being administered the fear survey. It was an attempt to provide a descriptive account of the child's response to the examiner and to possibly shed some light on the child's subsequent fear responses. Most children received a rating of one, indicating they were comfortable with the examiner and displayed no objective signs of uneasiness or fright. The majority of children surveyed did not list any other fears beyond those on the fear survey. They could not remember any fearful incidents and were not frightened by what they saw on television. There were few significant differences in these statistics when mothers were asked the same questions. One of the differences between mother and child responses occurred when mothers listed more instances of fearful incidents than did their children. These incidents involved an actual experience or event the child 56 had experienced. The average child in this study was reported by his/her mother as watching on the average of 13.85 hours of television per week. The types of programs listed were the same for children and mothers. Only 14% of the mothers and 10% of the children listed particular programs or incidents on programs as the source of what the child feared on television. These statistics are consider— ‘ably lower than those of Zill (1979). In his national survey of children, Zill found 25% of the children reported feeling afraid of something on television. The lower per- centages in this study seem to be a result of most mothers controlling their child's television viewing. Young mothers and mothers of small families reported more fears for their child. An explanation for this may be that the younger the mother, the more of a tendency to be unsure of her child and her parenting role. As a result she may be more perceptive of her child's fears than would mothers of large families who have more children to be concerned about. Hispanic and Oriental mothers reported their children as being more fearful than did White mothers, This finding is consistent with that of Tuddenham, Brooks_and Milkovich (1974) who in a longitudinal sample of 3000 children in Oakland, California found further differences in that Oriental mothers reported their children as being fearful and worried, shy, bashful, self-effacing and lonely. Hispanic (i.e., Chicano) mothers 57 reported their children as being afraid of non-dangerous things, shy, bashful, having trouble making friends and lonely. Both the Hispanic and Oriental communities, particularly in New York, are close knit and somewhat isolated due to language barriers. Mothers who place their children in day care outside of these communities may be more sensitive to their child's lack of transition from culture to culture. They may view this reticence on their child's part as fear, shyness or bashfulness, and are more likely to report these behaviors. Mothers whose husbands were students reported their children as being more fearful, as compared to other paternal occupational categories. Most of the mothers whose husbands were students were employed full-time,and these mothers' mean age was 28 years, which was younger than most of the mothers in the sample. Since young mothers, in this study, saw their children as being more fearful, these children may also be reacting to the additional stress of mother working, while father goes to school. Children in these families may be the barometers of the family stress and present problem behaviors, of which fearfulness may be one. Further research is needed to clarify these findings. This study has attempted to answer some of the questions concerning young children's fears and maternal attitudes. Many questions have been raised whose answers lie outside the bounds of this study. Further research is needed comparing children's responses to those of their mothers. 58 There is also a need for an in depth investigation of maternal attitudes and behavior and how, or if, they affect or cause children's fears. HOpefully, future investigators will find these questions intriguing enough to explore. APPENDICES 59 AEEENDIX A: Children's Fear Survey CODE# SEX DATE OF BIRTH ACE TRAINING ITEMS 1. Going to the store 1 2 3 6. Monsters 1 2 3 2. Fire 1 2 3 7. Trees 1 2 3 3. Playing outside 1 2 3 8. Getting shots from 4. Cartoons 1 2 3 the doctor 1 2 3 5. Listening to the radio 1 2 3 9. Toys 1 2 3 10. Getting into a fight with another child 1 2 3 Not at all A little bit Vegy Scared 1. Dogs and/or cats 1 2 3 2. Being in the dark 1 2 3 3. Loud sounds - really noisy, such as sirens, firecrackers or explosions 1 2 3 4. People you never saw before - strangers 1 2 3 5. Being in a place that's really small 1 2 3 6. Thunder and lightning l 2 3 7. Getting lost 1 2 3 8. Certain parts of the house or apartment, like the roof or basement ----------- 1 2 3 9. Sleeping alone 1 2 3 10. Bugs or Spiders (roaches) 1 2 3 11. Bad dreams 1 2 3 12. Being alone -- l 2 3 13. When (mother or father) is away, scared they won't come back---------- 1 2 3 14. Being in a place you can't get out of l 2 3 15. Frogs and lizards -—- 1 2 3 16. Going into a strange room - someplace you've never been before 1 2 3 17. ,Being away from your parents 1 2 3 Any other things that you are scared of that I didn't ask you about? Can you remember a time when you were really scared? Explain Have you ever been scared by something you saw on T.V.? Explain 60 APPENDIX A: MOTHERS' FEAR SURVEY The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what sorts of things frighten your child. Please read each item carefully and circle the number that best describes how much your child fears the items at present. g SURE 39 ANSWER EVERY ITEM Not at all A little bit Very scared mm: MUSIC (D 2 3 Not at all A little bit Very scared 1. Dogs and/or cats : l 2 3 2. Being in the dark — — l 2 3 3. Loud sounds, such as sirens, firecrackers or explosions -------- l 2 3 4. Strangers 1 2 3 5. Being in an enclosed place -------- l 2 3 6. Thunderstorms (thunder and lightning) l 2 3 7. Getting lost- 1 2 3 8. Certain parts of the house or apartment building, such as the roof or basement 1 2 3 9. Sleeping alone 1 2 3 10. Insects or spiders l 2 3 11. Nightmares - l 2 3 12. Being alone 1 2 3 13. When (mother or father) is away, afraid (mother or father) won't come back-- 1 2 3 14. Being confined or locked up------—--- 1 2 3 15. Frogs or lizards l 2 3 16. Entering a strange room 1 2 3 17. Being separated from parents ---------- l 2 3 List any other fears that your child has that were not mentioned above: Do you remember times when your child was frightened? If yes, explain: Has your child ever been scared by something on T.V.? If yes, explain: How many hours of T.V. does your child watch? each day each week What sort of programs on T.V. does your child watch? 61 APPENDIX B CODE NUMBER General Information Child's Birthdate: Sex: Male Female Sexes and ages of other children in family: (to nearest birthday) Sex: Ages: How much time does your child spend in a day care center/nursery school each week? Hours: Days: How long has your child been in day care? Your age: Marital Status: Single ______Married _____ Divorced _____ Widow If married: Is your husband currently in the home? ____ Yes ___ No Highest grade of schooling you have completed: ___ Grade School ___ High School G.E.D. College Graduate School Husband's Work: Your Work: Yearly family income: under $4,000 $4,000 to $7,000 ____$7,000 to $10,000 $10,000 to $16,000 ___ $16,000 to $25,000 $25,000 and over 62 APPENDIX C The following statements have been made by parents about themselves, their children, and their families. Please read each statement and decide how it applies to you. Look at the next page of this questionnaire for a minute and you will see that there are four choices on the right hand side of the page for an answer. 0n the left side of the page there are statements. You should put one circle around SA or Alor 2_or SD. §A_means you agree strongly with the statement. A means you agree with the statement more than you disagree with it. D_means you disagree with the statement more than you agree with it. §2_means that you strongly disgggee with the statement. If you ggree strongly with the statement or feel sure that it applies to you, put g_circ1e around the letters SA, §A_means STRONGLY AGREE. If you are sure that a statement does not apply to you or you strongly disagree with the statement, put a circle around the letters SD, §2_means STRONGLY DISAGREE. Use the 5 (Agree) or 2_(Disagree) for statements you are less sure about or feel less strongly about. PLEASE ANSWER EVERY STATEMENT, even though some may not seem to describe you or your family. For example, there might be a statement about brothers and sisters and you may have only one child. Give the answer according to what you believe you would thinkcnrfeel or do if the statement did apply, or the situation did come up. If you have more than one child, please answer the statements as they apply to the child you have brought to participate in this study. Work as quickly as you can. You do not need to think about each statement too carefully -- just give your impression about it. In other words, answer every one, but do not think too long about any one. Start with number 1 and do each one in order. Give your impression of each statement quickly and go on to the next one. 10. 11. 63 STANFORD PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE He thinks he knows everything but he doesn't. He'll stand there and argue that white is black, even when you try to explain things to him. I turn off the TV in the middle of his programs or I will tell him to leave the dinner table because he's been misbehaving. When he was younger, we always used to pick him up the second he fell. We've pointed out to him that there are people who seem friendly but are not and that it's always wise to approach any person you don't know with some reserve. Usually when I'm around and he wants attention I'm not so busy that I can at least answer him. I may not be able to do what he wants but I feel I at least owe him an answer. The most effective punishment seems to be when we really take him in tow and either give him a spanking or a long talking to. Taking away some privileges doesn't work nearly as well. He's a kid who's hard to please; he's just contrary. I would say that he and I aren't as happy with each other as we . might be. If he leaves home he is definitely required to let us know where he is and we set a time for him to be back. Parents should make lots of things available for kids to try out and let the kids try lots of things. I always try to give the reasons why he should or should not do certain things. Strongly égree SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA Agree Strongly Disaggee Disagree D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD D SD 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Strongly He has likes and dislikes and we consider them in making the rules. He knows when he's been spanked -- it's not just a tap on the wrist. The first two years of my son's life are sort of a blur. I don't remember very much about them. I wish I knew how close he feels to me. Whenever he goes out to play, we want him to watch himself and be very careful. It's good for him to have lots of ways of keeping busy on his own. We try to explain why we ask him to do something. I try to treat people the way I'd want to be treated. He knows that I'm going to paddle his fanny if he does something wrong. I'd say that in past years I have showed my affection too much. Now I try not to overdo it. Sometimes I think I understand him pretty well but then there are things he does that I don't understand. He's not allowed to cross a busy street without some older person walking with him. A lot of times he'll say he can't do something, it's too hard for him and start asking questions about it. Well, we try to help him come up with the answers and then show him that it isn't very difficult and that he can work these things. Sometimes I think that the big trouble with a lot of children is nobody reasons with them as to why they shouldn't do things or why they should. Agree SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 65 Strongly égree ree Disagree If he gets angry at me, I just let him express it as much as he wants to and I explain my position and that's it. SA A D He's past the age of spanking. SA A D I'm sort of inept at playing with babies. SA A D I try to kiss him and he'll back away from me. SA A D We're always after him to keep the noise down, to tone it down. SA A D I'm an independent person -- I know how to make my way in the world. ‘ SA A D Let's say he does something I didn't want him to do. I tell him I still love him but I have to punish him. SA A D I want him to grow up to be happy. I'd rather not hold him to what I want. SA A D Once or twice I took him in, pulled down his pajamas and beat him with my hand. SA A D To my way of thinking, he seems to want an extraordinary amount of attention. SA A D We frequently have to call his attention to the fact that he should not interrupt our conversations and that he should be quiet. SA A D We've tried to show him that we plan ahead on things like meals and if there are particular things he wants he must ask ahead of time. And so a couple of times when he has asked ahead, we've tried if possible to do it at that time. SA A D We've always tried to explain to him why you shouldn't do this or why you should do that. SA A D Strongly Disagree SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 66 Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 480 ‘ 49. 50. Host of all I want him to do some- thing he really loves doing, and not to study something or go into something for other reasons than that he really likes it. If I see he's hitting his brother or sister hard trying to hurt, then I paddle his bottom. He hasn't been very difficult to bring up. He wasn't very affectionate when he was younger. We keep close track of our son -— we always know where he is. There are some times when it's just not convenient to let him do things and I don't let him, but I like to let him try. He seems kind of young to try to explain things to him like the consequences of some things he might do. I certainly don't want him to have the feeling that he had as little to do with what went on in the family as I did when I was growing up. When they lie, when it's a provable lie, I get very angry about it and I've occasionally gone so far as to take a belt to them about this. If I've punished him and he goes to his bedroom and cries, I've insisted he stay there if he's going to cry. I feel that probably I have been a little bit lacking in that knack of getting down to his level on a lot of things. We keep awful close track of our kids. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 67 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree I think it's very important for a child to learn to do things for himself within the limits of his capabilities. We try to make it possible for him to do as many things as he can. SA A D I think the thing that works best in trying to get him to behave the way I want him to is to talk to him; I always talk things over with him. SA A D We might encourage him in new activities other than what he wants himself but if we knew he was resisting us, we certainly wouldn't continue to push him. SA A D Anytime I have ever whipped my son, I've always made it a point to set him down and tell him exactly why. And then I feel that afterwards we probably have been closer than we ever were. SA A D Quite often when we try to do something for him, he doesn't seem to appreciate it and we kind of feel he should. SA A D I don't like it when he comes and asks me things while I'm eating, and I get annoyed. SA A D He had one boyfriend that was slightly coarse and we didn't particularly approve of him so we told our son to try and steer clear of him. SA A D I would like him to be sure of himself in strange situations. SA A D If you talk to your children ahead of time and you can anticipate what will happen you can often eliminate lots of problems when they come and tell you what they want to do. SA A D Strongly Disagree SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 68 I would like for him to go through college and I think he's capable of it, but if he chooses to do some- thing for which he does not have to go to school, I'm certainly not going to put up a fuss about it. He has lied to me a couple of times and I have really whipped him. I don't think he ever will again. He feels by crying, I suppose, he'll get what he wants. We tell him it won't do him much good to cry. We've always warned him about talking to strangers. He knows he's not supposed to let a stranger come up and talk to him. I think that children, within their own group of friends, have to work out their own differences. I would say that for everything that we have forbidden or scolded him about, he was perfectly aware of the reason. Mostly I'd like him to grow up to be a person who likes to do what he's doing. He doesn't do too much that we can praise him for. He's supposed to report in just before he goes somewhere. We're trying to bring him up so that he's pretty much responsible to himself. We found that children don't know what you're talking about when you explain things to them. I can't figure him out sometimes-- I don't know what makes him tick. Strongly ree SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA Strongly Agree Disagree Disagree A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD A D SD 69 Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 72. I think you should teach them to be as self—sufficient as possible. I think they need lots of love and care but they should be self— sufficient. SA A D SD 73. I always try to tell him the reasons each time. SA A D SD 74. Sometimes he seems to do things just to annoy me and I find this hard to understand. SA A D SD 70 APPENDIX D CHILD BEHAVIOR TOWARD THE PARENT INVENTORY A number of things that children do are listed here. Please read each item and circle the answer that describes what your child does with ygp. §§_SURE IQ MARK EACH ITEM. If you think the item is Very Much Like your child, circle VAL. If you think the item is Somewhat Like your child, circle §WA. If you think the item is A Little Like your child, circle AA. If you think the item is Not at All Like your child, circle EL, Very Some A Not Much What Little at all Like Like Like Like 1. Tells me about his friends or activities VML SWL LL NL 2. Tries to do things for himself-------- VML SWL LL NL 3. Likes to sit close to me ------------ VML SWL LL NL 4. Does what I ask even though he doesn't like it VML SWL LL NL 5. Keeps asking me to do things for him even when I'm working-- - VML SWL LL NL 6. Asks for help when it's not really needed-- VML SWL LL NL 7. Doesn't Show he loves m ----------- VML SWL LL NL 8. Is anxious to please me again when he has done something to hurt me --------- VML SWL LL NL 9. Is a nuisance even when I'm busy------ VML SWL LL NL 10. Tells me about his hopes and fears--—- VML SWL LL NL 11. Does his chores without my help-------- VML SWL LL NL 12. Greets me with a big hug or kiss------ VML SWL LL NL 13. Is easy to manage VML SWL LL NL 14. Interrupts when I'm talking to neighbors or friends— VML SWL LL NL 15. Wants me to Show him how to do things he could figure it out alone ----------- VML SWL LL NL 71 l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Very Some A Not Much What Little at all Like Like Like Like Shows little affection toward me ----- VML SWL LL NL Tries hard to make up with me if he has broken a rule VML SWL LL NL Rushes me even when he knows I'm tense VML SWL LL NL Tells me about his problems --------- VML SWL LL NL Keeps busy for long periods of time without my attention VML SWL LL NL Asks me to kiss him goodnight------- VML SWL LL NL Obeys my rules -- VML SWL LL NL Is a nuisance when I'm busy and can't give him attention VML SWL LL NL Often wants my help to get things done VML SWL LL NL Doesn't return my affection---------— VML SWL LL NL Asks me to forgive him if he has made me unhappy VML SWL LL NL Often causes trouble even when I'm upset VML SWL LL NL Lets me know what's on his mind-~--——- VML SWL LL NL Likes to go ahead with things on his own--------- VML SWL LL NL Shows me how much he loves me ---—---— VML SWL LL NL Does what he is supposed to even when I'm not there VML SWL LL NL Refuses to leave me alone. Insists that I work or play with him--------- VML SWL LL NL Asks me to do even Simple things for him VML SWL LL NL Is cold or indifferent to me ------—-— VML SWL LL NL Tries to be especially nice to me after he has worried me VML SWL LL NL Is noisy even though he knows it bothers me VML SWL LL NL 72 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Very Some A Not Much What Little at all Like Like Like Like Doesn't keep secrets from me ---------- VML SWL LL NL Will take help from me only after trying to do something for himself---- VML SWL LL NL Hugs me warmly— VML SWL LL NL Tries to keep quiet when I tell him to VML SWL LL NL Gives me a hard time if I don't leave what I'm doing when he wants me ------- VML SWL LL NL Wants my help for problems he could solve alone VML SWL LL NL Doesn't warm up when I try to be friendly VML SWL LL NL Is very apologetic if he has misbehaved --- VML SWL LL NL Makes problems even when I'm rushed VML SWL LL NL 73 APPENDIX E Dear Director: My name is Micheline Beam and I am currently an advanced graduate student in the process of completing my Ph.D. requirements in Psychology from Michigan State University, while here in New York. I also have recently completed an intership at St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York. Presently, I am in the process of gathering information needed to study children's fears. In order to gather this information, I will need to ask questions of children between the ages of 4 and 6 and their mothers. I am writing this letter in the hOpes of receiving permission to ask mothers and their 4 and 5 years old children from your program to volunteer to be part of my research. Enclosed you will find a brief syn0psis of my research and letters of introduction from St. Vincent's Hospital and Michigan State Univer- sity. At your earliest convenience I would appreci- ate a response and an Opportunity to discuss my research with you further. Thank you, Micheline Beam, M.A. 74 DISSERTATION SYNOPSIS Fear undoubtedly is a survival mechanism that has some usefulness. An excessive amount of fear may prove to be disruptive, but lessor amounts of fear can prove to be helpful. Fear causes an individual to rapidly act in the face of a threat or danger, which may take the form of fleeing or defense. The ability of any species to survive depends upon its ability to assess dangerous situations and govern its behavior accordingly. Fear, therefore, is a basic and vital emotion. But, as man has evolved in terms of intelligence and reasoning ability, the capacity for fear has proved to be more of an hindrance than a survival mechanism. Although children's fearful behavior is accepted to some extent, the reasons as to why fears occur perplexes many parents and adults who work closely with children. It is for this reason that I thought it might be valuable to study children's fears from the perspective of their being a normal part of development. Through my research I am attempting to Show that childhood fears are a normal occurrence given the child's naivety about the world around them. However, it is interesting to investigate why some children are more fearful than others, whether or not girls are more fearful than boys, etc. Another aspect that is valuable to research is the child-rearing attitudes of parents. An important aspect of childhood that greatly influences development is the mothering that they receive and the attachment that develops between child and primary caretaker. The child's first human relationship is of extreme importance since it establishes the foundation upon which the later personality is formed. Using the above foundation as a beginning point, my study involves young children (4 and 5 years old) and their mothers. Some of the assumptions of my research are: a) there should be a correspondence between the types of fears reported by the mother and her child; b) 4 and 5 year old children should report different types of fears; c) the mothers of fearful children should receive significant scores on various parental attitude scales. Upon your approval I will ask the children some questions about things found in their environment, in the form of a game. The mothers will be asked to fill out a questionnaire involving a general information form and parental attitude questions. Both child and mother will be seen at one time ( I will see the child separately, while the mother fills out the questionnaire). The whole procedure is usually completed within 20 to 45 minutes. No return visit with the child or mother is necessary. To assure confidentiality, names of parents and children will not be used in reporting the results of the study or in any research records. A summary of the results will be made available upon request. Micheline Beam 75 5531:.‘V/iIRNE3N531arIEE; 1'1(:155|:)11}Eil “BVIBWHWHSWEEWNENNMMLNXlafli ' ammo C) . and Medical Center f New York "‘W'z“ Amummmmw To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to introduce Ms. Micheline Beam, who was a psychology intern in the Child Psychiatry and.Adolescent Service of St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center from September, 1976 to September, 1977. Ms. Bean's appointment was a requirement for her doctorate in clinical psychology at Michigan State University. We would appreciate your giving her every consideration in helping her find subjects for her doctoral dissertation. Ms. Bean is a very conscientious, warm and thoughtfhl young woman who has earned the respect and admiration of her colleagues and supervisors for the way she has worked with the children assigned to her professional care. . We are sure she will be as careful with your children as she has been with ours. Sincerely yours, fl/éx/ 96542-7 Albert Blumberg, Ph.D. Assistant Chief Psychologist Director, Psychology Training 76 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 48824 OLDS HALL January 6, 1977 Internal Revenue Service 0.8. Treasury Department To Whom It May Concern: This is to certify that Ms. Micheline Bean is on appointment as a graduate clinical intern at St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York in New York City from September 13, 1976 to September 13, 1977. During the time of this appointment she is considered a graduate student in our department. Her activities during this period are in compliance with the supervised professional experience requirement for all our advanced degree clinical candidates. Sincerely, ,,//;.. or Z / J/hn a. Wakel “Chairperson JEW:eda 77 APPENDIX F NAME OF SCHOOL Dear Parent: I am grateful to (Director's name) for giving me the opportunity to write to you. My name is Micheline Beam. I am currently an advanced graduate student from Michigan State University and working on my doctorate here in the New York area. I have completed an internship at St. Vincent's Hospital and Medical Center of New York. I am in the process of gathering information about young children's reactions to those situations found in the child's everyday life. In order to obtain this information, I would like to talk to children between the ages of 4 and 6 and their mothers. I will ask the children questions about things in their environment that they encounter everyday. The questions are arranged in the form of a game that is enjoyable and holds the interest of the children. The mothers will be asked to answer some questions about their child. The children will be seen at school for about 20 minutes and the mothers can answer their questions at home. To assure confidentialy, no names will be used in reporting the results of the study. A summary of my findings will be sent to your director and will be made available to participating parents. The research has been approved by my doctoral committee at Michigan State University and your school's board of directors. Those mothers who wish to participate and agree to let their child participate, please sign the permission slip at the end of this letter and return it to the director or your child's classroom teacher, as soon as possible. Only those children whose parents have signed the permission slip below will be seen. For those mothers who participate, a time will be arranged to discuss the study and their child's responses. Thank you for your cooperation. Micheline Beam I GIVE PERMISSION FOR MYSELF AND MY CHILD TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY BEING CONDUCTED BY MICHELINE BEAM AT (NAME OF SCHOOL). DATE SIGNATURE OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN CHILDREN'S FEAR SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES - FREQUENCY TABLE 78 APPENDIX G ITEM (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 1. No 89(68.5%) 42(32.3Z) 42(32.3%) 41(31.5%) 64(49.2%) 52(401) 34(26.2%) 1 case missing 84(64.6%) 63(48.5%) 35(26.9%) 46(35.4%) 52(401) 58(44.6%) 1 case missing 29(22.3%) 83(63.8%) 15 cases missing 51(39.2%) 68(52.3%) 1 case missing 2. Little 11(8.5%) 22(16.9%) 38(29.2%) 39(30%) 40(30.8%) 22(16.9%) 38(29.2%) 18(13.8%) 33(25.4%) 44(33.8%) 23(17.7%) 29(22.3%) 37(28.5%) 41(31.5%) 12(9.2%) 33(25.4%) 32(24.6%) 3. Very 30(23.1%) 66(50.8%) 50(38.5%) 50(38.5%) 26(20%) 56(43.l%) 57(43.8%) 28(21.5%) 34(26.2%) 51(39.2%) 61(46.9%) 49(37.7%) 34(26.2%) 60(46.2%) 0.15(11.5%) 20(15.4%) 46(35.4%) 29(22.3%) lggg (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) <11), (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 1. No 72(55.4%) 21(16.2%) 70(53.8%) 1 case missing 76(58.5%) 91(70%) 1 case missing 55(42.3%) 31(23.8%) 1 case missing 94(72.3%) 2 cases missing 81(62.3%) 64(49.2%) 49(37.7%) 1 case missing 44(33.8%) 1 case missing 84(64.6%) 48(36.9%) 10 cases missing 98(75.4%) 4 cases missing 80(6l.5%) 1 case missing 63(48.5%) 79 APPENDIX H 2. Little 53(40.8%) 92(70.8%) 56(43.l%) 51(39.2%) 29(22.3%) 70(53.8%) 52(40%) 29(22.3%) 38(29.2%) 60(46.2%) 56(43.l%) 66(50.8%) 42(32.3%) 44(33.8%) 24(18.5%) 49(37.7%) 54(41.5%) MOTHER'S FEAR SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES- FREQUENCY TABLE 3. Very 5(3.8%) l7(l3.l%) 3(2.3%) 3(2.3%) 9(6.9%) 5(3.8%) 46(35.4%) 5(3.8%) 11(8.S%) 6(4.6%) 24(18.5%) l9(l4.6%) 4(3.1%) 28(21.5%) 4(3.l%) 0(0) 13(10%) 80 APPENDIX I Stanford Parent Questionnaire (SPQ) SPQ Total i = SPQ Scale X = SPQ Scale i - SPQ Scale g... SPQ Scale is. SPQ Scale f = SPQ Scale X = Score: 129.3, SD = 19.16; Minimum 1 (Rejection): 18.13, SD = 8.25; Minimum 2 (Restrictiveness): 21.37, SD - 4.99; Minimum 3 (Rewarding Independence): 28.03, SD = 3.56; Minumum 4 (Reasoning): 27.58, SD = 4.39; Minimum 5 (Democracy): 22.93, SD = 3.28; Minimum 6 (Punitiveness and Physical 11.28, SD = 5.16; Minimum = 69 Maximum = 0 Maximum = 4 Maximum = 20 Maximum = 15 Maximum = 15 Maximum Punishment): = 0 Maximum 176 40 32 36 36 30 24 CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CBPI CHILD BEHAVIOR TOWARD THE PARENT INVENTORY (CBPI) 81 APPENDIX J Total Score: X'= 118.10, SD = 11.07; Minimum = 89, Scale 1 (Communication): X = 16.57, SD = 3.07; Minimum = 8, Scale 2 (Independence in doing things): )7: =- 15.74, SD -- 2.48; Minimum = 9, Scale 3 (Affection): X = 18.27, SD = 2.20; Minimum = 11, Scale 4 (Obedience): Y .. 14.69, SD - 3.03; Minimum = 5, Scale 5 (Demanding Attention): X = 12.02, SD = 3.06; Minimum = 5, Scale 6 (Dependence in Doing): X = 10.86, SD - 3.57; Minimum = 5, Scale 7 (Avoidance of Affection): X = 5.63, SD - 1.82; Minimum = 5, Scale 8 (Conscience): X = 14.77, SD = 4.25; Minimum = 5, Scale 9 (Inconsideration): X’= 9.68, SD - 3.37; Minimum = 5, Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum 151 20 20 21 20 20 20 16 24 19 REFERENCES 82 REFERENCES Abramovitz, R. Parenthood in America. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1976, 5(3), 43-46. Ainsworth, M.D. and Witting, B.A. Attachment and explora- tory behavior of one year olds in a strange situation. In B. Foss (Ed.), Determinant of infant behavior. IV. London: Methuen, 1969. Angelino, H.; Dollins, J. & Mech, E.V. Trends in the fears and worries of school children as related to socio- economic status and age. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1956, A2, 263-276. Aries, P. The family and the city. Daedalus, 1977, 106(2), 227-235. Baldwin, A.L. The effect of home environment on nursery school behavior. Child Development, 199 g9, 49-62. Baldwin, A.L.; Kalhorn, J. & Breese, F.H. Patterns of parent behavior. Psychology Monograph, 1945, 58(3), (Whole No. 268). Baldwin, A.L.; Kalhorn, J. & Breese, F.H. The appraisal of parent behavior. Psychology Monograph, 1949, 63(4), (Whole No. 299). Barton, K,; Dielman, T.E. and Cattell, R.B. Child-rearing practices related to child personality. Journal of Social Psychology, 1977, 101, 75-85. Bauer, D.H. An exploratory study of develOpmental changes .in children's fears. Journal of Child Psychology and Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monograph, 1967, 1:, 43-88. Beam, M. An exPerimental investigation of young children's fears. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State * . Univer31ty, 1974. Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child develOpment research, (Vol. I). New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Behrens,M.L. Childrearing and the character structure of the mother. Child DevelOpment, 1954, 32, 225-238. 83 Bell, R.Q. A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychologngeview, 1968, 75(2), 81-95. Bowlby, J. The nature of a child's tie to his mother. lpternational Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1958, 32' Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss. Vol. I. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Bowlby, J. Child care and the growth of love. Baltimore, Md: Penguin Books, 1973 (a). Bowlby, J. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Vol. II. New York: Basic Books, 1973 (b). Brody, G.F. Maternal child-rearing attitudes and child behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1(1), 66. Brody, S. Patterns of mothering. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1956. Bronson, G.W. The develOpment of fear in man and other animals. Child Development, 1968, 22' 409-431 (a). Bronson, G.W. The fear of novelty. Psychology Bulletin, 1968, 69(5), 350-358 (b). Bronson, G.W. Fear of the unfamiliar in human infants. In H.R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Bronson, G.W. Infants reactions to unfamiliar persons and novel objects. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1972, 21(4, Serial No. 148). Champney, H. The measurement of parent behavior. Child Development, 1941, 12(2), 131-166. Colm, H. Phobias in children. Psychpanalysis and the Psychoanalytic Review, 1959, AA, 65-84. Constantine, L. Open family: A lifestyle for kids and people. Family Coordinator, 1977, 3A, 113—121. Croake, J.W. Fears of children. Human DevelOpment, 1969, 13, 239-247. Davids, A. Child personality and psychOpathology: Current tOpics. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974. Davis, G. Childhood and history in America. New York: Psychohistory Press, 1976. 84 Dielman, T.E.; Barton, K. & Cattell, R.B. Relationships among family attitudes and child rearing practices. Journal of Genetic Psyphology, 1977, 130, 105-112. Eiduson,B.T.:Cohen, J. & Alexander, J. Alternatives in child rearing in the 1970's. American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 1973, 43(5), 720-731. ' Eme, R. and Schmidt, D. The stability of children's fears. Child Development, 1978, 49, 1277-1279. Ferguson, L.R. and Rowland, T.S. Maternal attitudes as predictors of maternal behavior. Society for Research in Child Development, Biennial Meeting, March, 1969. Finkelstein, B. In fear of childhood: Relationships between parents and teachers in p0pular primary schools in the nineteenth century. History of Childhood Quarterly, 1976, 3(3), 321-335. Fisher, S. and Fisher, R.L. What we really know about child rearing. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1976. Freud, S. Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy. In, The complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. (Vol. 10), London: Hogarth Press, 1955. Goldstein, R.M.; Taub, H.B.; Caputo, D.V. & Silberstein, R.M. Child status and demographic variables as related to maternal child-rearing attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Ski1ls, 1976, 42, 87-97. Hagman, E.R. A study of fears of children of preschool age. Journal of Experimental Education, 1932, 1, 110-130. Harlow,H.F. The maternal affectional system. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior. (Vol. 2). London: Methuen & Co., 1961, p. 3-29. Havighurst,R.J. The relative importance of social class and ethnicity in human development. Human Development, 1976, 19, 56-64. Hebb, D.O. On the nature of fear. Psychology Review, 1946, .53, 259-2780 Hoffman, L.W. Effects of maternal employment on the child. Child Development, 1961, 32, 187-197. Hollingshead, A.B. and Redlich, F.C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. Holmes, F.B. An experimental study of the fears of young children. Child Development Monographs, 1935, 29, 85 Jersild, A.T. Child Psychology (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960, ch. 12. Jersild, A.T. and Holmes, F.B. A study of children's fears. Journal of Experimental Education, 1933 (Dec.), 2, 109- 118. Jersild, A.T. and Holmes, F.B. Children's fears. New York: Teachers College, Columbia UniverSity, 1935. Jones, H.E. and Jones, M.C. Fear. Childhood Education, 1928, .5, 136-143. Lapouse, R. and Monk, M.A. Fear and worries in a represent- ative sample of children. American Journal of OrthOpsy- Levitt, E.E. The psychology of anxiety. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Co., 1967. Lewis, M. and Brooks, J. Self, other and fear: Infants' reactions to peOple. In M. Lewis and L.A. Rosenblum, (Eds.) Ihe_Qrigins_gf_§ggr. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974. Chapter eight. Lewis, M. and Rosenblum, L.A. (Eds.), The origins of fear. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. Marks, I.M. Fear and phobias. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Maurer, A. What children fear. Journal of Genetic Psycholo- McBride, A.B. The growth and development of mothers. New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Miller, L.C.; Barrett, C.L.; Hampe, E. & Noble, H. Factor structure of childhood fears. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 1972, 39, 264-268. Miller, L.C.: Barrett, C.L. & Hampe, E. Phobias of child- hood in a prescientific era. In A. Davids (Ed.), Child personality and psychopathology: Current topics. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974, p. 89-135. Morgan, G.A. and Ricciuti, H.N. Infants' responses to strangers during the first year. In B. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior. London: Methuen, 1969. Mussen, F.H.; Conger, J.J. and Kagan, J. Child develop- ment and personality. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row, 86 Porter, B.M. Measurement of parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics, 1954, 46(3), 176-182. Poznanski, E.O. Children with excessive fears. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1973, 43(3), 428-438. Pratt, K.C. A study of fear of rural children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1945, 61, 179-194. Rachman, S. Phobias: Their nature and control. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1968. Rachman, S. The meanings of fear. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1974. Ramey, C.T. and Campbell, F.A. Parental attitudes and poVerty. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1976, 128, 3-6. Rheingold, H.L. and Eckerman, C.O. The infant separates himself from his mother. Science, 1970, 168, 78-83. Rycroft, C. Anxiety and neurosis. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1970. Sawhill, I.V. Economic perspectives on the family. Daedalus, 1977, 196(2), 115-125. Scarr, S. and Salapatek, P. Patterns of fear development during infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1970, 26, 53- 90. Schaefer, E.S. and Bell, R.Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development, 1958, 22, 339-361. Schaefer, E.S. and Bayley, N. Maternal behavior, child behavior and their intercorrelations from infancy through adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 22(3, Whole No. 87). Schaefer, E.S. and Finkelstein, N. Parent's report of child behavior toward the parent inventory. Unpublished form, 1972. Schaffer, H.R. Cognitive components of the infant's response to strangeness. In M. Lewis and Rosenblum (Eds.), The origins of fear. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974. Chapter one. Scheck, D.C. and Emerick, R. The young male adolescent's perception of early child-rearing behavior: The differential effects of socioeconomic status and family size. Sociometry, 1976, 39(1), 39-52. 87 Scherer, M.W. and Nakamura, C. A fear survey schedule for children (FSS-FC): A factor analytic comparison with manifest anxiety (CMAS). Behavior Research and Therapy, 1968, 2, 173-182. Sroufe, L.A. and Waters, E. Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 1977, 42, 1184-1199. Stendler, C.B. Possible causes of overdependency in young children. Child Develgpment, 1954, 25(2), 125-146. Tuddenham, R.D.; Brooks, J. & Milkovich, L. Mother's reports of behavior of 10-year-olds: Relationships with sex, ethnicity, and mother's education. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10(6), 959-995.. Valentine, C.W. The innate basis of fear. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1930, 21, 394-419. Watson, J.B. and Raynor, R. Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1920, 2, 1-14. Wenar, C. The reliability of mother's histories. Child Development, 1961, 22, 491-500. Winder, C.L. and Rau, L. Parental attitudes associated with social deviance in preadolescent boys. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64(6), 418-424. Zegans, S. & Zegans, L.S. Fear of strangers in children and the orienting reaction. Behavioral Science, 1972 Zill, N. National survey of children. Preliminary results. New York: Foundation for Child Development, 1979. Zuckerman, M. and Oltean, M. Some relationships between maternal attitude factors and authoritarianism, personality needs, psychOpathology and self-acceptance. Child Development, 1959, 29, 27-36. HICH TAT E UNIV. LIBRARIES M MMMMI MMMMM M 26 715 53‘160 £3 1 IGAN s MMMMM 1:253 13