I. . ~ .’ - .. «'n-M'HK‘ ‘ '
*I "*‘ 2 f t «c 2”? 1' "' “4 "I
i 55., J: I .‘ ‘N K
5 , .
.3. I'

    

'90
h z
a» 7;

“- aacmwa-mmw nun-r

it

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
Responsibility of Fifth Graders Related to
Authoritarian/Authoritative Parents

presented by

Richard W. Hill

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D . degree in Family Ecology

 

Major professor MM
Date WM 3 /7})/

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

 

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
.—,_.

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in bodk drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

'91:"
F sit

~_/‘

,- \tga 5 -- 599:4

 

 

RESPONSIBILITY OF FIFTH GRADERS RELATED TO
AUTHORITARIAN/AUTHORITATIVE PARENTS

By

Richard warren Hill

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1981

ABSTRACT

RESPONSIBILITY 0F FIFTH GRADERS RELATED TO
AUTHORITARIAN/AUTHORITATIVE PARENTS

By

Richard warren Hill

Responsible citizens seem to be a prerequisite for a democratic
social system. Low levels of responsible behavior by adults and youth
have often been the focus of media attention. This study sought to
identify the differing effects of authoritarian and authoritative
parents on a child's locus of control and the effect of locus of
control on a child's level of responsibility. Forty middle income
urban and rural two-parent families, each with a fifth grade child,
comprised the sample population. Teachers helped evaluate responsi-
bility levels of the children.

An interviewer visited each home to explain the study and the
instruments. The parents and the child responded individually to
their respective instruments in the presence of the interviewer. The
teachers completed and returned their instruments at their convenience.
Parent style was determined by parent responses to 12 scale items on a
seven-point range from authoritarian to authoritative. Agreement or
disagreement with scale items on other instruments by the child, the
parents, and the teacher determined responsibility level scores of the
children. The children also completed a forced-choice instrument to

identify their locus of control perceptions.

Richard warren Hill

Bivariate and multivariate regressions were computed to analyze
relationships between parent style and locus of control and between
child locus of control and responsibility levels. Limitations of sample
size and data collected prohibited controlling for the many genetic
and social interaction variables involved in human development. Locus
of control accounted for 8.6 percent of the responsibility variance.
Children with internal locus of control perceptions were judged more
responsible than were children with external perceptions.

Mother authoritativeness was positively related to internal locus
of control in children, explaining 10.9 percent of the variance.
Father authoritativeness explained another eight percent of the
variance, but was negatively related. There were few, if any
authoritarian parents in the sample. Nearly all scored within the

authoritative range of responses.

Dedicated to Mildred, my wife,
for her love and patience as
I worked to understand human

behavior these past 41 years.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this graduate degree was made possible by the
encouragement, support, and assistance of many people. Only a few
of them can be acknowledged here and these statements are inadequate
to express the true appreciation felt for the contributions of each
person named.

I received academic support throughout the graduate training
from many faculty members and fellow students. My committee members
were especially helpful in developing my educational program and
research plan. The members included Dr. Eileen M. Earhart, committee
chairperson, Department of Family and Child Ecology; Dr. Beatrice
Paolucci, Department of Family and Child Ecology; Dr. Margaret M.
Bulbolz, Department of Family and Child Ecology; and Dr. William A.
Faunce, Sociology Department. The help of Dr. Linda Nelson and
Dr. Joanne Keith, Department of Family and Child Ecology was crucial
and greatly appreciated, during the final stages of writing. Periodic
discussions with Dr. Ann Soderman, Project Director for the Employed
Mother-Child Responsibility Pilot Study, helped to clarify distinctions
between democratic and authoritative behavior of parents. Special
thanks are due Mari Wilhelm, fellow student, for her time, patience,
and assistance with computer procedures while busy finishing her
own graduate program.

Many Cooperative Extension and 4-H co-workers contributed to
my graduate studies with enthusaistic interest and encouragement.

Admission to the doctoral program was recommended by Dr. Norman Brown,

iii

4-H Program Director, Michigan; Dr. Gordon Beckstrand, 4-H Program
Director, Colorado; and Dr. William Caldwell, 4-H Program Director,
Nebraska. Confidence, encouragement, and idea-sharing was always
available as needed from Ray Gillespie, Associate Director of
Extension, Michigan; Leah Hoopfer and Bonnie Neff, Michigan State
4-H Staff; and from Joanne Thurber-Schultink, Department of Human
Environment and Design, Michigan State University.

An essential contribution to the completion of this degree was
the support and encouragement of our sons, our daughter, and their
families, Tony; Rita; Jim; Linda; Kenneth; Scott; Ronald; Todd;

Duane; Richard; and Donald.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . .
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . .

Responsibility . . . . . . . . .

Locus of Control . . . . . . . . . . . .

Authoritarian vs. Authoritative Style

Literature Summary . . . . . . . . . .

Research Hypotheses. . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 1A . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis lB . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 3A . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 3B . . . . . . . . . .

III: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . .
Measurement Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Responsibility Measure. . . . . . .
Child's Self Evaluation. . . .

Parent Evaluation. . . . . .

Teacher Evaluation . . . . .

Locus of Control Measure. . . . .

Authoritarian-Authoritative Measure .

Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . .

Page
vii

viii

0000me H

\D

11
12
16
16
16
l6
17
17
17

18

20
22
22
23
23
24
29
30
34
36
45

Page
IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Parent Characteristics and Child Locus of Control . . . . . . 46
Hypotheses lA.and 1B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Child Locus of Control and Responsible Behavior . . . . . . . 53
Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
’Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Authoritarian-Authoritative Parent Style and
Child Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Hypotheses 3A and 3B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Summmary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Influences on Locus of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Influences on Responsibility Development . . . . . . . . 66

Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Implications for Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Implications for 4-H and Other Youth Serving
Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Implications for Further Research. . . . . . . . . . . . 73

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
APPENDICES
A. Authorization for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

B. Source Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
C. Instruments for this Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

vi

Table

10

ll

12

13

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Child Self Evaluation of Responsibility: Frequency of
Affiramative Answers to Item Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27

Parent Evaluation of Child Responsibility: Percentage of
Fathers and Mothers Who Agreed with the Statements. . . . . 31

Teacher Evaluation of Child's Responsibility: Percentage
of Children Judged Responsible by Teachers for Each Scale
Item 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 33

Locus of Control: Percentage of Children Who Agreed with
Each of the Internally Focused Statements. . . . . . . . . . 36

Authoritativeness: Percentage of Mother and Father
Disagreement with TFI Scale Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Distribution of the Responses to the Scales Used in
this Study 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 44

Authoritarian-Authoritative Parent Style and Child's Locus
of Control: Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis. . . . . . 48

Cross Tabulation: Internal and External Locus of Control

by Mbther's and Father's Authoritative Level, Combined
Mother-Father Authoritative Level, Sex of Child, and

Rurality of Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

The Effect of Sex of Child and Parent Style on Child's
Locus of Control: Stepwise Foward Regression. . . . . . . . 52

Locus of Control and Responsibility: Bivariate Analysis. . 55

Cross Tabulation: Responsibility by Sex of Child, Place
of Residence, and Locus of Control. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Authoritarian-Authoritative Parent Style and Child
Responsibility: Bivariate and Multivariate Analysis. . . . 59

The Effect of Child's Locus of Control, Parent Style, and

Sex of Child on Child's Level of Responsibility:
Hierarchical Multivariate Regression. . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Table Page

1 The Research Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7

viii

I. INTRODUCTION

This study concerned the importance of responsible citizens to a
democratic society. Responsible people were defined as those who are
self confident, self accepting, and self directing. They participate
in their social settings in individual and unique ways, but with caring
concern for the well-being of others. The definition applies to social
settings which include the family, the community, the school, the job,
the playground, and various levels of government. Sources in the
literature which support such a definition of responsibility are presented
in chapter two. Responsibility and responsible behavior were considered

to be synonymous terms.

lies-2.22

Low levels of responsibility often draw the attention of the media.
There appears to be a growing concern about inappropriate disposal of
chemical wastes by industrial corporations, through ignorance or indif-
ference. Examples of waste chemicals polluting ground water have been
reported in many states. Newspapers often report fewer than 25 percent
of the eligible voters have cast ballots on some local issue.

The examples just presented suggest that adults are often less
responsible than would be desirable in a democratic social system.
But low levels of responsibility are not limited to adults. Media
reports, during August 1980 in one rural Michigan community, noted the
actions of 5,000 young people at a rock concert. Three persons were

killed and six seriously injured in a highway mishap directly related

to the concert. Liquor sales to minors were alleged. Neighboring
residents were subjected to excessive noise and to language which they
found to be obnoxious. Trespassers entered their property.

In another town in that county, city council minutes in the local
newspaper reported complaints about teenagers "hanging out" on the
main street late at night. The result was damage to store fronts and
excessive trash to be cleared away each morning at opening time. Families
complained that the local park was no longer a pleasant place for them
because of groups of young peOple listening to loud music. Similar
examples of adult and youth behavior could likely be identified in other
locations.

The United States is organized so that citizens at all levels may
have a voice in the decisions that are made. When people do not exercise
that right, the system does not work as well as intended. The best solu-
tion to a pressing problem may not have been found because the person
with the most apprOpriate idea for solving the problem did not participate
and present that idea. If persons with valid and convincing objections
to a contemplated action do not go forward with those objections,

a damaging result may follow. Responsible citizenship is required if the
United States is to solve its economic, environmental, energy, and
resource problems in ways that benefit the most and inconvenience the
fewest numbers of people. Responsible national leaders, supported by the
citizenry, are needed to help solve those same problems on a world scale.

Why do some children become responsible persons while others do not?
Several scholars have written about the development of responsible

behavior. Fingarette (1967) said children eventually become responsible

by being treated more and more as though they are responsible.
Bronfenbrenner (1979) supported that view stating that development is
facilitated when the developing person can experience progressively more
complex interactions with significant others who encourage a gradual
shift of power toward the developing person. Matteson (1975) explained
that there is need for young people to work beside adults who encourage
them to accept responsibility for tasks and for making decisions.

The conditions described as conducive to the development of responsi-
bility were more prevalent for young people of previous generations than
they are today in the United States. The labor of children has become
less necessary to society and the number of hours in school have been
extended for them. Coleman (1974) observed that, though schools have
expanded to fill much of the time that other activities once occupied for
children, they do not substitute for those activities. Those earlier
activities of children included more chances for responsibile action.
There were situations that gave young people authority over matters which
affected other pe0ple. They experienced nearly immediate consequences
of their actions and were strengthened by facing them.

Coleman stressed the importance of an appropriate balance between
protection and opportunity for young people. Some of those laws protect
from potential harm, but at the same time make it difficult for many
young people to have some of the experiences which would be most bene-
ficial to their growth and development. Some laws isolate young people
from adult-like responsibilities. For example, the state of Michigan
administers a law preventing children under sixteen years of age from

performing numerous farm jobs, away from home, which were commonly done

by that age group just a few years ago. Delivery truck drivers who once
took their sons or daughters with them during the summer to deliver goods
are now prevented from doing so by insurance regulations. In Coleman's
opinion, the rights of young people to protection have been implemented
to the extent that their rights to opportunity have been sacrificed.

Throughout history, the continuation of society has depended upon
the mixture of persons of all ages. Society is decreasing the experiences
for youth to learn responsibility by almost eliminating their role rela-
tions with younger children. General adult-youth segregation further
reduces the chance to learn responsibility from adult models.

Lipsitz (1977) suggested that, given such changes in the developmental
experiences available to youth, considerable research should have focused
on family and early adolescent relationships. The quantity of such research
seems small, however. According to Lipsitz, the Social Research Group has
estimated that close to 10 percent of all federally funded adolescent
research in fiscal 1973 and 1974 involved the family, but the portion of
that funding which dealt specifically with the family and the child
in late childhood or early adolescence was minimal.

One would expect that both biological and cognitive changes in late
childhood and early adolescence should make possible deeper and broader
roles as worker, friend to adult, citizen, and member of community organi-
zations. Lipsitz found such roles for maturing young people have been
little studied. Even more serious is the lack of opportunity for young
people to practice such roles in order to develop their new physical and

cognitive capacities.

Crandall, Katkovsky, and Crandall (1965) found that self reSponsibility
was well established by third grade, based on data from 923 third through
twelfth graders. Stephens (1979) expressed concern that after children
pass age ten, when they are most eager to imitate and help adults, it
becomes increasingly difficult to help them develop responsible, caring
attitudes toward others. Whiting and Whiting (1975) also considered care
and concern for others as an aspect of responsible behavior. They suggested
that unless the child learns to care for others during childhood the child
may never develop such nurturant feelings. Crandall et a1., Stephens,
and Whiting and Whiting support the assumption of this study that fifth

graders will have already become responsible or less responsible persons.

Conceptual Framework

 

The major purpose of this pilot study was to examine the extent to
which certain experiences of children and their acceptance of responsi-
bility are related. Ten was chosen as the focal age for the child popula-
tion because it is mid-point in the age span of eight to 12 years suggested
in the literature as a significant period when children have become
responsible or less responsible persons. Schools were considered an
appropriate contact point for children and their families and the fifth
grade a logical group. Most fifth graders are ten years old and most ten
year olds are in the fifth grade. A narrow age span was thought desirable
to reduce the effect of age variability.

Responsible persons were considered to be self confident, self
accepting, and self directing. They participate in their social settings

in individual ways with care and concern for others. Since school age

children spend considerable time in school, teachers were asked for
evaluations to help determine responsibility levels of the children,
along with parent evaluations and the child's self evaluation.

The major childhood experience which was investigated was the
relationship between the responsibility level of children and the
tendency of their parents to be either authoritarian or authoritative
persons. There is evidence (Mussen, 1960; Tallman, 1970; White and
Lippitt, 1960) that authoritative family relationships are more likely
to develop responsibility appropriate to a democratic society than are
authoritarian relationships. A dictionary definition (American Heritage,
1976) states that an authoritarian advocates absolute obedience to
authority.

Baumrind (1968) described authoritative parenting in these words:

The authoritative parent is supportive but

not suffocating, is not afraid of making standards

known, values disciplined behavior that is monitored

by self control, and engenders such behavior by

reasoning and explaining in verbal give-and-take with

the child.

In contrast, the authoritarian parent is more

obedience centered and dogmatic, offers orders rather

than engaging in verbal give-and-take, and is less liekly

to reason with or explain to the child. (p. 255)

Garbarino (1976) supports the importance of parenting authoritatively
to serve as a model of behaving responsibly in a democratic social system.
Teaching children to live responsibly in a democratic society is not to
teach them to expect to live without authority but rather to help them
learn to relate effectively with authority, whether possessing it or
subject to it.

Self direction or independence was a part of the definition used for

responsibile behavior. Pepper (1973) agreed with that point of view by

stating that if not encouraged to become an independent creative person
the child may become an unthinking conformist. The authoritative parent
was considered more likely than the authoritarian parent to model and
encourage independence.

It was considered unlikely that children with a low sense of internal
control would make many attempts at independent decision making or creative
thinking. Such children would not believe in their own ability to affect
outcomes. Crandall et a1. (1965) stated that punishment, discipline,
or rewards have little power to change behavior of a child with a strong
sense of being externally controlled. An internal locus of control per-
ception was considered to be a prerequisite to responsible behavior as
defined for this study. Authoritative parents rather than authoritarian
parents were considered more likely to permit and encourage children to
make important decisions and provide honest feed-back upon which the

child could build a sense of internal locus of control.

Definitions

 

A summarization of the definitions of important terms used in this
study follows:

Responsible behavior--Active participation in self confident,
self accepting, self directing, unique ways with care and
concern for others.

Authoritarian parent--A parent who demands unquestioning
obedience from children and tends to give orders without
explanation or reasoning.

 

Authoritativegparent--A parent who sets standards of
expectations, makes them known to the child and engenders
selfdmonitored disciplined behavior by reasoning and
explaining in verbal give-and-take with the child.

 

Locus of control-~One's sense of feeling able to influence
outcomes (internal control) or of feeling unable to influence
outcomes (external control).

 

Research Questions

 

The purpose of this study was to provide empirical evidence for
answers to these questions:

1. Do children of more authoritative parents have a greater sense
of internal locus of control than do children of more authoritarian
parents?

2. Do children who have a stronger sense of internal locus of con-
trol exhibit higher levels of responsibility acceptance than do children
with a stronger sense of external locus of control?

3. Is there a direct relationship between the authoritative charac-

teristics of parents and the level of responsibility observed in children?

Overview
The plan of this investigation was to identify relationships which
may exist between father and mother authoritativeness, a child's sense
of locus of control, and the level of responsibility acceptance by the
child. In chapter two, a review of relevant literature and the research
hypotheses are presented. Research methodology is presented in chapter
three, covering data collection, the sample population, measurement and

analysis procedures, assumptions, and limitations.

II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A definition of responsibility was presented in the opening paragraph
of chapter one. Literature supporting that definition is presented first.
Next, literature relevant to locus of control is examined, followed by
references with a bearing on the contrast between authoritarian and
authoritative parenting. The chapter is concluded with a presentation

of the research hypotheses.

Responsibility

 

According to Fingarette (1967), responsibility emerges when the
individual, as a matter of personal concern, accepts something society
presents as worthy of concern. If the individual does not accept, does
not care, and is not concerned about life as defined by the social group,
that individual becomes an outsider even though skilled and intelligent.
Such a person may be called amoral, perverse, shiftless, or irresponsible
by others in the group. Of course, to accept the pattern of behavior
offered by the group requires knowledge of what kind of behavior is expected
by those with whom one interacts. Certain approved proactices must be
known, accepted, and practiced to be considered responsible by one's
own society.

In considering the matter of care and concern, Fingarette recognized
that it may not always matter who wins at bridge or tennis, but it is
necessary to care about certain other outcomes. There are times when one
must be held responsible, whether caring or not. A rational person must

be held responsible for doing mental or physical harm to another.

10

Fingarette's reference to acceptance of life as suggested by one's
social group placed responsible behavior in a cultural context. He
inferred that a responsible person is one who behaves generally in ways
consistent with the norms of society. His reference to being held
responsible for certain outcomes added a moral dimension to responsibility.
A responsible person behaves with care and concern for the well-being of
others as well as self, as defined by a specific social group.

There is a problem with letting Fingarette's proposition stand as a
total definition of responsible behavior in a democracy. That fails to
recognize need for creativity or self direction, traits of importance in
such a society. A person who was a total follower might be considered
a responsible person in an autocratic society, but more than following
or conforming is required of citizens in a democracy.

White and Lippitt (1960) reported on experiments related to democracy
and autocracy. They suggested several psychological conditions that
foster the development and maintenance of a democratic social system.

One of those conditions was self confidence and self acceptance in
initiating one's own contributions and in expressing one's own needs.

Another study (Stephens, 1979) found that most responsible teens
started as family helpers. They had been in responsible adult-like roles.
In the Stephens' population, traditional apprentice-type training was
available. Even in some of the modern homes, there were responsible
jobs for children when families did their own fixing, building and
repairing. Responsible jobs were also experienced by young people where
the mother was very busy due to a large family, outside employment, or

disability, and their help was really needed. Taken together, several

11

references (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Coleman, 1974; Fingarette, 1967; Matteson,
1975; Stephens, 1979; Whiting and Whiting, 1975) indicate that a child is
stimulated to become a responsible person when that child's contributions
are needed, when there is opportunity for the child to make and help make
important decisions, and when there is ample time for the child to be with,

imitate, and help responsible adults.

Locus of Control

 

Locus of control seemed important to this study because of the need,
in a democratic society, for responsible persons to think and act
individually as well as to follow orders and do what is expected by society.
The definition used here for responsible behavior included a self direction
component. It was considered unlikely that persons who generally felt
controlled by outside forces and other people would make much effort
toward self direction. It seemed inconsistent to expect a person to func-
tion responsibly without having a general sense of internal control-a
confidence in being able to affect outcomes. Rewards and punishment or
discipline, during childhood years may have little power to change
behavior if the child senses external locus of control (Crandall et al.,
1965). From the view of such children, it would not seem worth it to try
to change because they would not believe their changing would make any
difference.

Locus of control deals with both positive and negative outcomes
(Lefcourt, 1966). According to Lefcourt, those who sense internal locus
of control feel substantially responsible for both positive and negative
results from own actions, but those sensing external locus of control feel

little if any responsibility for what happens. If the result was good

12

it was a matter of luck. If the result was undesirable, fate or bad luck
caused it. In a study reported by Lefcourt, the externally oriented
showed a higher tendency to be conformists than did internally oriented
subjects.

Chandler (1980) found that mothers of the internally oriented not only
allowed children more autonomy and self direction at an earlier age than
did mothers of the externally oriented, but they also provide earlier
intentional training. Governing parents had quite external children.
Parents concerned with issues of power, those governing parents, apparently
communicated a sense of powerlessness to their children, in Chandler's
opinion. To summarize, Chandler found that the parents of internal locus
of control children employed authoritative methods of discipline, were
accepting, non-restrictive, and rewarding of independence, and they made
suggestions as opposed to just giving orders.

Locus of control is consistently related to a variety of personality
scales, with internal scorers describing themselves as more active,
independent, and effective than external scorers (Hersch and Scheibe,
1967).

Crandall et al., Lefcourt, Chandler, and Gurin, Gurin, Lao, and
Beattie (1969) predict generally more responsible behavior from children
with internal locus of control than could be expected from externals, with
the possible exception of persons who are economically disadvantaged or

who are the long time victims of prejudice.

Authoritarian vs. Authoritative Style
One might expect that a childhood spent in a democratic family would

be the best preparation for becoming a responsible citizen in a democratic

l3

society. This seems, however, not to be the case. The American Heritage
Dictionary (1976) defined "democratic" as a belief in social equality.

A small child cannot possibly possess the experience, competency, or
knowledge to make important decisions as the social equal of the adults
in the family.

Bashor (1976) stated that the democratic ethic was very strong but
complex and that there was ample evidence to justify some exercise of
parental authority. Evidence also suggested that authority and democracy
were and perhaps must be in a tension relationship with one another.
Baumrind (1978) listed four propositions with wide popular and scientific
support to explain why childhood was not the time for pure equality with
parents:

1. Children are inferior to adults in the competencies

required to survive independently and therefore require
special protection.

2. Children undergo successive qualitative transformations

requiring commensurate changes in social status as they

pass from one stage of development to the next.

3. Self-determination in adulthood is a product of maturation and
not a gift bestowed by permissive caretakers.

4. Adult authority properly exercised in early years is
positively related to later independence. (pp. 179-96)

Baumrind suggested that when children can, alone, assume the consequences
of their acts they may be trusted with the decisions leading to the acts.
Smith (1977) found that acceptance of parental authority by children
was strongly associated with the child's perceptions of parental expertise
and benefits received from parents. The quality of the personal relation—
ship between parent and child was also an important determinant of the

child's acceptance of parental authority. It seems likely that these two

14

conditions would be met more often under authoritative than under
authoritarian parenting styles.

The Dictionary, Bashor, and Baumrind provided evidence that a
parenting style which exerts more parental authority than would be possible
in a purely democratic family is crucial to the development of responsi-
bility in children. Smith contributes the indication that such authority
is more likely to be accepted by the children if the parents are competent
and on friendly, caring, accepting terms with them.

Tallman (1970) studied the variables critical for effective family
problem solving and hypothesized that the structure should allow for both
open channels of communication and centralization of authority. In
addition, an atmosphere should be provided which allows for conflict of
ideas while maintaining consensus as to goals. Such a family structure
requires a rather subtle distinction between authority and authoritarianism.
Tallman contended that families thus structured should be able to achieve
their goals, be creative, and generally foster the innovativeness necessary
for adapting to a changing society. Tallman's typology was designed to
identify the family with effective problem solving behavior. In such a
family the children are treated as though they are responsible people
but the parents do not abdicate their authority. The family described
is neither democratic nor authoritarian, but authoritative.

Tallman emphasized the necessity of creativity and innovativeness
for a family to adept to a changing society. Creative innovative people--
the good problem solvers--are also needed to bring about necessary changes
in society. Children growing up totally dependent upon authoritarian
parents for direction and decisions of all kinds are not likely to advance

many new ideas when social or individual changes and improvements are needed.

15

Coopersmith (1967) contrasted the authority of parents with authori-
tarian parents, relative to the development of self esteem. He found that
families of children with high self esteem established the most extensive
sets of rules and were zealous in enforcing them. The effect was to estab-
lish the authority of the parents, define the environment, and provide
standards by which the child could judge competence and progress. According
to Coopersmith, parents of high self esteem children had a special way
of dealing with limits. Such parents were non-coercive and recognized
the rights and opinions of the child. The child's views were sought,
opinions were respected, and concessions granted when possible. Children
entered discussions as significant participants and gained the benefits
of self assertion. Self esteem is certainly important to self acceptance
and independent, confident self direction.

Hill (1980) discussed self direction, drawing attention to the
widesprad impression that independence first becomes an issue at the time
of adolescence. He said that middle class families tend to value indepen-
dence from the time the young child begins to tie shoes, if not before.
According to Hill, studies have shown that the most independent adolescents
feel the most respect and affection for their parents. Parental attitudes
which permit the child some independent action as a participating member
of the group should aid the development of responsible behavior. Such
parenting style is more authoritative than authoritarian.

The references in this section clearly indicate that the authoritative
style of parenting is more likely to develop responsible children than
will authoritarian or democratic styles. Baumrind (1978) contended that

parents have the obligation to provide children with genuine choices from

16

among a few good options, consistent with each child's stage of

development.

Literature Summary

The references in chapters one and two which contributed to an under-
standing of the definition of responsible behavior include Bronfenbrenner
(1979), Coleman (1974), Crandall et a1. (1965), Fingarette (1967), Libsitz
(1977), Matteson (1975), Stephens (1979), White and Lippitt (1960),
and Whiting and Whiting (1975).

References relating to the nature and importance of locus of control
were Chandler (1980), Crandall et al. (1965), Gurin et a1. (1969), and
Hersch and Scheibe (1967).

The importance of authoritative parenting as contrasted to authori-
tarian or democratic parenting was established by Bashor (1976), Baumrind
(1968, 1978), Coopersmith (1967), Garbarino (1976), Hill (1980), Mussen
(1960), Pepper (1973), Smith (1977), Tallman (1970), and White and Libbitt

(1960).

Research Hypotheses
From the conceptual framework set forth, from the research questions
posed, and from the review of literature, the following hypotheses were

developed. The hypotheses are graphically presented in Figure l.

Hypothesis 1A
The more authoritative the mother, the greater is the child's

sense of internal locus of control.

Hypothesis 1B

 

The more authoritative the father, the greater is the child's sense

of internal locus of control.

l7

Hypothesis 2

 

The greater the child's sense of internal locus of control, the

higher is the level of responsibility observed in the child.

Hypothesis 3A

 

The more authoritative the mother, the higher is the level of

responsibility observed in the child.

Hypothesis 3B

 

The more authoritative the father, the higher is the level of

responsibility observed in the child.

 

 

Authoritative 1A Internal 2 A

Mother or .___‘L.B._,Locus of Control a) Responsible

Father Child Child

Authoritative 3A A

Mother or 3B 9 Responsible

Father Child
Figure l

The Research Hypotheses

III: METHODOLOGY

The following methodological steps have been described in this chapter:
data collection, sampling procedure, a description of the sample popula-
tion, limitations of the study, measurement procedures and analysis
strategies.

The data were gathered as part of a pilot study, entitled, "The
Acceptance of Responsibility in Cildren: A Comparison of Families with
Employed and Non-Employed Mothers," funded by an All University Research
Initiation grant from Michigan State University.1 The major purpose
of the study was to identify differences in the degree of responsible
behavior in children of dual-employed and single employed, two-parent
families. It was a specification of the Employed Mother-Child Responsi-
bility Pilot Study that each family would have at least one fifth grade
child and that half the families have both parents working and the other
half would have only the father employed. There were to be 20 of each
type of family in the sample population. Forty families, meeting the
stated specifications were identified for the study.

The directors of the Employed Mothers-Cild Responsibility Pilot
Study considered it desirable to have a mix of rural and urban families
in the sample population. The selection of East Lansing and Charlotte,
Michigan, schools met that criterion. The fact that families in those
two locations also enjoy similar economic levels was an important
consideration. Two graduate students were hired for the Pilot Study
to assist with the project and to interview the families. The author

of this dissertation was one of those research assistants.

 

1All University Research Initiation, Family and Child Ecology Department,
Grant #681.

18

19

The following time schedule was established and followed for the
Employed Mothers-Child Responsibility Pilot Study:
Design sampling procedures,

select and/or develop instruments July-Sept., 1980
select and train interviewers

Conduct interviews Oct.-Jan., 1981
Code and keypunch data Feb.-Mar., 1981
Analyze data Apr.-June, 1981

Five instruments were used to gather data for this study. One was
completed by the mother and the father to assess the degree to which the
parent was authoritarian or authoritative. Another, completed by the
child, was intended to identify the child's locus of control. The
child also responded to a second instrument which established a level of
the child's responsibility as viewed by the child. The fourth instrument
was completed by the father and the mother to obtain their individual
appraisal of their child's responsibility level. The fifth instrument
was the teacher's evaluation of the child's responsibility level.

All data for this study were checked and recorded on code sheets
by the two interviewers. Coding reliability was established by quality
checking 33 percent of the data. The error rate in coding was found to be
less than 0.1 percent. Frequencies were computed on each item on the five
instruments and out-of-range values were found and corrected. Keypunching
was done and verified by trained personnel in the computer laboratory
at Michigan State University. ‘Missing data were less than 0.4 percent

and were not deemed to have a significant effect in biasing the data.

20

The Sample

 

To provide balance between rural and urban families in the
study, twenty families were selected in each school district. When the
fifth grade classes had been identified the names of the children were
arranged in alphabetical order in each school district. A random numbers
table was used to select from the lists those families which were
invited to participate in the study. The remainder of the selection process
differed between the two districts. In the urban district the research
assistant followed the initial letter of invitation with a phone call to
the family within two days of the time the famdly should have received
the letter. Forty families received the letter of invitation in that
district and twenty of them accepted.

In the rural district 62 randomly selected families were invited by
letter to participate in the study. School authorities asked that no
additional contact be made until families had responded through the school
or by phone to the research assistant. The school's request was honored.
The first 20 families to respond became study participants.

No information was obtained in either district about why some families
chose to participate in the study and others did not. It was considered
possible that parents with responsible children might have accepted in
greater proportion than did parents of less responsible children.

The teachers and the administrators in the rural district agreed to
help determine if there was a significant difference between the responsi-
bility levels of children in that district who were in the study and the
children in families who chose not to participate. The teachers completed

responsibility evaluations of the fifth grade children in all the families

21

chosen at random and invited to participate in the study. The teachers
did not know which families were study participants and which had chosen
not to take part.

An analysis of variance found no significant difference in the responsi-
bility levels of the 41 children in non-participant families and the
responsibility levels of 21 study children, as evaluated by teachers.

The analysis of variance produced an F value of .7197 with a probability
of .4900.

Forty mothers, forty fathers, forty-one fifth graders, and seven
teachers comprised the sample population for this study. One family had
two children in the fifth grade, though they were not twins. The parents
with the two fifth graders provided individual responses for each child.
The child population was comprised of 20 boys and 21 girls; 73% were
10 years old, 23.8% were eleven years old and one child was nine at the
time of the visit.

Two mothers and one father had not graduated from high school. High
school graduation was the highest level of formal education attained by
21 percent of the mothers and 12 percent of the fathers. Seventeen
percent of the fathers and 12 percent of the mothers were graduates of a
four year college, and 40 percent of the fathers and 26 percent of the
mothers had attended graduate school. In 1970, 23 percent of the males
and 14 percent of the females aged 25 and over, lving in Ingham County,
Michigan, had completed four or more years of college. The corresponding
figures for Eaton County were 12 percent and 8 percent, respectively
(Michigan Family Sourcebook, 1980). The school districts in this study

were located in Ingham and Eaton Counties.

22

None of the fathers earned less than $15,000 annually.
Twenty-four percent of the fathers earned over $30,000 per year and
the remainder had an annual income between $15,000 and $30,000. The
annual income of 17 percent of the mothers was between $15,000 and $30,000.
The remainder of the working mothers earned less than $15,000 annually.
These incomes compare to the 1975 median income of $16,631 for husband-
wife families in Michigan, according to the Michigan Family Sourcebook

(1980).

Limitations

 

The characteristics of the sample population should be kept
in mind when evaluating the results of this study. No single-parent
families were included in the sample and only fifth grade children were
measured for responsibility levels. Generalization of findings are subject
to the following additional limitations:

1. The sample population of 41 children was relatively small.

2. The sample was only representative of some fifth grade classes
in two non-randomly selected schools within large school districts.

3. The population families had more formal education and a higher
level of income than the general population in Mid Michigan. This was
partly due to the exclusion of single parent households and slight over

representation of dual employed parents.

Data Collection Procedures

 

An interviewer visited the home of each participant family to explain
the study and the measurement instruments. The father, the mother, and
the fifth grade child then completed responses to their respective instru-

ments in the presence of the interviewer. Discussion between family

23

members, before the questionnaires were completed, was discouraged, but
interviewers answered participant questions relative to understanding the
instruments and the study.

The home room teacher of each child in the study completed an
instrument evluating the child's level of responsible behavior. Those
instruments were delivered to the schools and picked up several days

later, when completed.

Measurement Procedures

 

The data collection procedures planned for the Employed Mother-
Child Responsibility Study included three questionnaires for evaluating the
child's level of responsibility. One was designed for the child's self
evaluation, one was for a teacher evaluation of the child, and the other
was used by the mother and father to individually rate their child. Two
other instruments were included to measure the authoritarian vs. authori-
tative orientation of the parents and to determine locus of control

for the child.

Responsibility Measure

It was concluded from the literature review that persons oriented
toward responsible behavior in a democratic social system will possess
most of the following characteristics: (a) self confidence, (b)
self acceptance, (c) self direction, (d) knowledge, acceptance, and
adherence to family and community norms, (e) willingness to work for
changes in norms when appropriate for the well-being of the group or its
members, and (f) care and concern for others.

Item criteria were developed each with a direct relationship to

one or more the characteristics of responsible persons, as described in

24

the previous paragraph. The criteria are presented as questions followed
by parenthetic letters showing relationship to specific responsibility
characteristics above. To be included as a measure of responsible
behavior each instrument item, in the opinion of the author, must have
shown a clear association with one or more of these criterion questions.
Does the focal child:

1. Perform tasks and make decisions with confidence and self
direction? (a,c) '

2. Fulfill expectations of family and community, such as
completion, orderliness, promptness, and quality of work?
(d.e.f)

3. Express ideas about needed changes in family, school and
community norms? (a through f)

4. Participate in family, school, and other group decisions?
(a,b,csd)

5. Respond to the needs of others? (a,b,c,e)

6. Persist in assigned or assumed tasks? (a,d)

7. Accept consequences of own actions? (a,b,c,d,f)

Child's Self Evaluation. The Social Attitude Scale (SAS) developed
by Dale B. Harris, Institute of Child Welfare, University of Minnesota,
was used for the child's self evaluation. Harris (1957) said the SAS
was intended to discriminate children who have a reputation among their
peers for responsibility as contrasted with children who have little
reputation for responsibility. According to Harris (1980) the SAS was
a carefully developed self evaluation instrument, shown to be the best
among several personality test predictors of post high school performance.
The scale was substantially correlated with other measures of personal

and social adjustment. Each item on the scale was justified as reflecting

25

behavior classified as reliable, accountable, loyal, or as doing an
effective job.

According to Harris, evaluations of peers and teachers relative to
four behavior classifications were used to provide a criterion for the
scale. Classes composed of 227 boys and 228 girls and their teachers
were asked to nominate the three boys and the three girls who were best
described by each of the following statements: (Each child and each
teacher made nominations.)

1. This person can be depended upon. When a promise is given

to do something, you know it will be done. Work is well
done and this person can be trusted.

2. This person is a square shooter and does not take advantage

of or cheat others. When something has been done wrong, this

person will admit it and not try to blame others.

3. This person thinks for the good of others, not always for
self, and is loyal to the group.

4. This person is one who gets things done. On a class project,
on a committee, or on a work job, this person gets right to
work and can be counted on to do it well and promptly.

An 89-item scale was administered to those same school classes a
day or two after they made their nominations. Scores on the SAS were
related to scores on a tally for each of the four characteristics resulting
from the nomination procedure. The number of times a given child was
nominated for one of the behavior characteristics was his/her score
on that trait. Only a very few children received no nominations but
another few received the majority of the votes cast. No one behavior
characteristic appeared to be more closely related than another to the

sum of the scores of the remaining three, so a total score obtained by

summing the four trait scores appeared justified.

26

Criteria for selecting the items most associated with responsibility
to be included in the final form of the SAS were determined as described
below. Twenty-five boys and 25 girls scoring highest in the sum of the
four characteristics were selected from the total population tested. An
equal number of boys and girls were selected from the unnominated or low
scoring children to constitute a criterion sample of less responsible
children. Using these criteria, 50 items were retained for the SAS
from the original 89. A copy of the 50 item SAS is in Appendix B.

For the Employed Mother-Child Responsibility Pilot Study, some
items were re—worded and three items were added to the scale. Of the
53 items, 46 met the criteria for the responsibility measures of this
study. The child self evaluation instrument with the items used for this
study identified is included in Appendix C.

Less than 25 percent of the children selected a low responsibility
response to the following scale items; (1) I get in trouble in school,
(2) I've had trouble with the law or police, (3) If I received too much
change, I'd return it, (4) I can go on working when the teacher leaves
the room, (5) I miss school for no good reason, and (6) Cheating is
alright if you don't get caught.

Over 75 percent of the children gave the responsible answer to these
scale items: (1) I have been sent to the principal for being bad, (2)

I waste time, (3) I am.concerned when others are treated badly, (4) Honesty
is the most important thing, (5) I am on time for meals, (6) If everyone
pitches in to help, it can be done, and (7) I like to organize things.
Frequencies of the agreement responses to each of the 46 items on the

child self evaluation responsibility measure are shown in Table l.

27

TABLE 1

Child Self Evaluation of Responsibility: Frequency of the Affirmative
Answers to Item Statements.

 

 

 

 

Scale Items Fgequigizig
If everyone pitches in to help, it can be done. 98 (40)
Honesty is the most important thing. 93 (38)
One should care for parents when they are old. 93 (38)
I'd know what to do if home alone during a tornado watch. 90 (37)
I do the best I know how. 85 (35)
I am on time for meals 83 (34)
I can go on working when teacher leaves room. 83 (34)
If I received too much change, I'd return it. 83 (34)
I'm concerned when others are treated badly. 83 (34)
It's important to do necessary things before fun things. 81 (33)
I feel bad when I must disappoint others. 78 (32)
If lost in strange city, I could find help. 78 (32)
I like to organize things. 76 (31)
Every person should help his town or city. 73 (30)
Good citizens should vote. 73 (30)
If a friend were injured I'd know what to do. 68 (28)
I have regular jobs around the house. 68 (28)
I'm capable of staying home alone for hours. 66 (27)
Can find things to do if teacher doesn't. 66 (27)
People can rely on me. 66 (27)
I volunteer for special projects at school. 63 (26)
I get up with alarm clock or when called once. 61 (25)
I stick to a job till it's finished. 61 (25)
I'm concerned about current events. 59 (24)
Parents are satisfied with way I spend money. 54 (22)
Policemen are helpful. 51 (21)

I work out my own problems without help. 41 (17)

28

TABLE 1 (cont'd.).

 

 

 

 

Scale Items Fgequen§i2:)
I finish what I start. 39 (16)
*Do something for your neighbor only if he does

something for you. 34 (14)
*Parents must remind me to put things away. 34 (14)
*I must be reminded to keep clean. 31 (13)
*I have trouble getting school work done on time. 27 (11)
I've been elected leader or captain. 24 (10)
*I let others plan when working in a group. 22 ( 9)
I've been chosen room helper or for errands. 22 ( 9)
*If you don't like to do it, you'll get someone else

to do it if you are smart. 12 ( 5)
*Our country would be better off if there were no

elections and no one had to vote. 12 ( 5)
*I would let a friend down. 10 ( 4)
*I miss school for no good reason. 7 ( 3)
*Teacher complains I don't finish my work. 7 ( 3)
*I get in trouble in school. 5 ( 2)
*I've had trouble with the law or police. 2 ( l)
*I waste time. 2 ( l)
*I am often late for school. 00 (00)
*I have been sent to the principal for being bad. 00 (00)
*Cheating is alright if you don't get caught. 00 (00)

 

1"Always" and "Often" were combined as the affirmative response to compute

the frequencies of unstarred items.

*These items were reverse scored for the responsibility scale. "Sometimes"
and "Never" were considered the responsible answers for these items.

29

The original value range of 4 to 184 for this scale was reduced to a
range of 0 to 20 by simple prOportion. The transformation was necessary
in order to give this scale equal weighting with the three other scales
which comprise the responsibility variable for this study. The Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was found to be .833. The
mean was 13.99 and the standard deviation was 1.79.

Parent Evaluation. The parent questionnaire for evaluating the

 

child's responsibility was developed for the Employed Mother-Child
Responsibility Pilot Study. The instrument contained 44 items designed
to elicit parents' expectations and attitudes about task allocation to
and completion by the focal child. The father and the mother were to
respond to the scale individually by agreeing or disagreeing with

each of the 44 statements. Parents were instructed by the interviewers
to make their responses with only the focal child in mind, not another
child or all of their children if there were others in the family.

Twenty of the scale items on this parent questionnaire were considered
to fulfill the criteria established for measuring the child's level of
responsibility. the instrument for parent use in evaluating the child's
responsibility level, with the appropriate 20 items identified, is
included in Appendix C.

Over 95 percent of the mothers and fathers said their child does
not find excuses to stay home from school, is a caring person, and if
home alone in a tornado would know what to do. About 70 percent of the
mothers and fathers said they do not have to remind their child to
complete household tasks. There were only four items on which there was

a difference of ten percent or more between aggregate percent of father

30

and mother responses. The items included: (1) I must be continually
after my child to finish things, (2) My child is more mature than other
children the same age, (3) It is hard for my child to find something to
do when adults do not suggest, and (4) If lost in a strange city my
child could find help. A complete summary of the parent responses to the
20 items on the parent evaluation scale is presented in Table 2.

The value range for this instrument was 0 to 20. The Cronbach
alpha reliability coefficient for this scale was .562 for father responses
and .640 for mother responses. The means were 15.88 for fathers and
16.56 for mothers. Standard deviations were 3.11 for fathers and 3.55
for mothers.

Teacher Evaluation. The third scale used to measure child responsi-

 

bility was the Minnesota Personality Profile II, developed by the Univer-
sity of Minnesota Institute of Child Development and Welfare. The measure
is a teacher rating scale consisting of a ten item Likert type design.
It has a five-point designation of behavior for each item in general
adjustment, realism, persistence, responsibility, attentiveness, dependency,
flexibility, calmness, sensitivity, and compliance. A copy of the instru-
ment is included in Appendix B.

Johnson and Bommarito (1976) cite the wide use of the instrument for
a diversity of predictive purposes with various sample populations.
According to Harris (1980) the score weights at the five positions in each
scale item were arrived at by consensus of six judges as representing
desirability from a general functional mental health viewpoint. The

scoring weights represent an approximation to a simple ordinal scale of

31

TABLE 2

Parent Evaluation of Child Responsibility: Percentage of
Fathers and Mothers Who Agreed with the Statements.

 

 

 

 

Scale Items Fathers Mothers
Z (N-41) Z (N=41)

Child is a caring person. 95 (39) 98 (40)
If home alone during tornado watch, child
would know what to do. 100 (41) 98 (40)
Child can prepare own meal. 90 (37) 95 (39)
If lost in strange city, child could find help. 88 (36) 95 (39)
Child is effective in solving own problems. 88 (36) 90 (37)
If friend were injured, child would know
what to do. 90 (37) 90 (37)
Child usually finishes what starts. 88 (36) 88 (36)
Child can stay alone for several hours. 88 (36) 85 (35)
Child regularly participates in extra-
curricular activities. 83 (34) 85 (35)
Child is more mature than others same age. 54 (22) 68 (28)
*I must remind my child to finish household

tasks. 68 (29) 64 (25)
Child gets up without being called. 51 (21) 51 (21)
*I must be continually after my child to

finish things. 34 (14) 51 (21)
*Child wastes a lot of time. 21 ( 9) 24 (10)
*Child is occasionally in trouble at school. 19 ( 8) l7 ( 7)
*Child forgets to give me phone notes. 22 ( 9) 15 ( 6)
*It's hard for child to find something to do

if adults don't suggest. 2 ( l) 15 ( 6)
*Getting to meals on time is hard for my child. 7 ( 3) 10 ( 4)
*I must usually call my child several times

to get up for school. 14 ( 6) 10 ( 4)
*My child often finds excuses to stay home

from school. 2 ( l) 2 ( l).

 

*These items were reverse scored for the responsibility scale. Disagree-
ment was the response indicating the more responsible behavior.

32

psychological desirability. Though no normative data were established,
the ratings did correlate substantially with post-high school performance
adjustment, according to Harris. Five was the desirable answer for each
item.

For the Employed Mother-Child Responsibility Pilot Study, five
scale items were added to this instrument. Of the final 15 items on
the scale, 11 were considered as meeting the criteria established for
measuring the child's level of responsibility for this dissertation
research. The teachers' evaluation instrument, with the 11 selected
items identified, may be found in Appendix C.

The teachers indicated that over 75 percent of the children in the
sample are sensitive individuals, they will go out of their way to
please, and are compliant enough to agree to sensible requests. Teachers
rated less than 45 percent of the children as high in leadership or
extra-curricular activities. From 60 to 70 percent of the children
were rated as responsible on the remaining scale items. Teacher
responses are summarized in Table 3.

The original value range for the responses to this scale was 11 to
55. The range was transformed by simple proportion to 0 to 20 to
provide equal weighting when combined with the other three child respon-
sibility scales. The teacher responses were found to have a mean of
13.78 and a standard deviation of 4.09. The Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient for the teacher scale was .900.

It was determined that a combination of the four measures of the
child's responsibility level would be taken as the responsibility variable

of the child for statistical procedures. The rationale for that decision

33

TABLE 3

Teacher Evaluations of Child's Responsibility: Percentage
of Children Judged Responsible by Teachers for each Scale Item.

 

 

 

 

Scale Items Fgeque§EZE§
Compliant 83 (34)
Sensitive/insensitive 78 (32)
Accepts responsibility for own actions 68 (28)
Considerate of classmates 68 (28)
Dependent 68 (28)
Persistent 68 (28)
Reliability 68 (28)
Attentive at school 64 (26)
Frequency of task completion 61 (25)
Extra-curricular activities 41 (17)
Leadership 24 (10)

 

1Teacher responses 4 and 5 on the five point scale were combined to
compute the above frequencies.

was that each evaluator (child, father, mother and teacher) sees the
child from different perspectives and that all observations together
reflect a more composite view of the child than any of the separate

viewpoints.

The combined child responsibility scale, the result of adding the
evaluations from the child, the father, the mother, and the teacher, was
found to have a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of .884. The
value range was 0 to 80 with a mean of 60.10 and a standard deviation

of 9.37.

34

Locus of Control Measure

The review of literature suggested that in order to behave responsibly
in a democratic social system one would need some sense of being able to
influence outcomes. It seemed reasonable to expect that children would
need to gain a sense of internal locus of control before they would be
willing to make many decisions, present new ideas, or accept the conse-
quences of their actions which are all important aspects of responsibility.
Rotter's I-E scale was chosen to measure the child's sense of locus
of control.

Rotter's 29-item, forced choice I-E instrument (Appendix B) was
produced after several revisions based on item analysis, social desir-
ability controls, and studies of discriminant validity (Robinson and
Shaver, 1973). The item-total correlations were based on data from
200 male and 200 female elementary psychology students. A Kuder-
Richardson internal consistency analysis yielded r-.70 for both males and
females. A sub-group of that population produced a test-retest reliability
coefficient after one month of r-.72 (N-60). Another sub-group yielded
a coefficienc of 48.55 after two months (N-ll7), according to Robinson
and Shaver. Hersch and Scheibe (1967) found Rotter's I-E scale consis-
tently related to a variety of personality scales.

During the pre-test of the instrument, fifth grade children
seemed to understand most of the scale items even though it was not
designed for their age group. However, it seemed too long for them
and they tired of it well before they had finished. The scale was
therefore reduced to 13 items (Appendix C). The reduction was based on

the item correlations shown in Robinson and Shaver. Items with

35

highest correlations were used. Anastasi (1968) explained that rejecting
items with low correlations increases the homogeniety of a scale but
narrows the criterion coverage.

The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for this thirteen
item scale and this sample population was .318. The reliability analysis
revealed three items with extremely low or negative item-total correlations.
Those three items were removed from the locus of control scale. The
remaining ten-item scale was found to have a reliability coefficient of
.395. Although a reliability coefficient of .40 is often considered
a minimum acceptable statistical level, the ten-item scale was retained
in this pilot study on conceptual grounds. The range of values for the
locus of control scale was 0 to 10. The mean response was 6.85 and the
standard deviation was 2.14.

Over 75 percent of the children in this sample agreed with the
following scale items, indicating an internal perception of locus of
control: (1) Misfortune results from one's own mistakes, (2) People
get the respect they deserve, (3) Success is a matter of hard work,
not luck, (4) Getting others to do something depends on ability, not
luck, and (5) The number of friends you have depends on how nice a person
you are. Less than 50 percent of the sample agreed with: (1) When I
make plans, I'm certain they will work and (2) I don't believe luck
or chance has a large role in my life. A summary of all the agreement
responses to items indicating an internal perception of locus of control

is shown in Table 4.

36

TABLE 4

Locus of Control: Percentage of Children Who Agreed with Each

of the Internally Focused Statements.

 

 

 

 

Frequencies
Internally Focused Scale Items Z (N841)
Getting others to do something depends on ability,
not luck. 93 (38)
The number of friends you have depends on how
nice you are. 83 (34)
Misfortune results from one's own mistakes. 78 (32)
Success is a matter of hard work--not luck. 78 (32)
People get the respect they deserve. 76 (31)
Getting what I want is not a matter of luck. 73 (30)
When capable persons don't become leaders, it is
because they missed opportunities. 59 (24)
By being active in political affairs, citizens can
control world events. 54 (22)
When I make plans I'm certain they'll work. 42 (17)
I don't believe luck or chance has a large role
in my life. 29 (12)

 

Authoritarian-Authoritative Measure

The literature review supported the concept of identifying the

attitude of parents along a continuum from authoritarian to authoritative

as a variable related to a child's locus of control and responsibility

level. There was evidence to indicate that one should expect authoritative

parents to relate to responsible children through influence on the child

toward an internal sense of locus of control.

Based on the literature review it seemed apparent that authoritative

parents would be expected to exhibit the following characteristics:

37

(a) confidence in and open-mindedness toward influence from others,
(b) fairness about equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities,
(c) friendliness and goodwill in attitude and action toward others,
(d) openness toward individual autonomy,
(e) acceptance of group norms as necessary to the maintenance of any group,
and (f) respect for rules, regulations, and authority figures established
within the framework of the five preceding characteristics.
Item criteria were established, each of which, related directly
to one or more of the characteristics of authoritative parents as described
in the previous paragraph. Letters in parentheses following each criterion
indicate one or more of the above characteristics with which it relates.
Instrument items were sought which would indicate the degree to which:
1. Each family member is encouraged and expected to have a voice
in family decisions, solving family problems, and in performing
family tasks. (a,b,c,d)
2. The children in the family are helped to understand the
reason behind family rules, regulations, and values.
(b,c,d,e)

3. Famdly norms encourage flexibility and self direction among
family members. (a,b,d)

4. There is opportunity for consensus among family members about
role allocation within the family. (a,b,d,f)

The scale chosen for measuring parents' authoritarian-authoritative
orientation was the Traditional Family Ideology (TFI) Scale by Levinson
and Huffman (1955). The scale was designed to assess differences in
family ideology along an autocratic-democratic continuum. It appears
from the literature review and an examination of the TFI scale that the
term "authoritarian-authoritative" can be substituted for "autocratic-

democratic" with reference to the scale, without negative consequences.

38

In fact, the former term is considered more precise and is used in the
remainder of this study when referring to the TFI scale.

The scale is based on five personality factors: conventionalism,
authoritarian submission, exaggerated masculinity and femininity, extreme
emphasis on discipline, and a moralistic rejection of impulse life. The
authoritarian extreme of the continuum is characterized by hierarchical
conceptions of family relationships, discipline in child-rearing, and
sharp dichotomization of sex roles. Characteristics of the authoritative
extreme of the continuum include decentralization of authority, greater
equality in husband-wife and parent-child relationships, and increased
individual self-determination.

The TFI scale is essentially an application of ideas gained from
clinical interviews dealing with childhood recollections and family
relationships. Each scale item was kept simple, casual, and chosen to
represent as many as possible of the five aspects of personality identified
earlier (Levinson and Huffman). The scale was composed of 40 items.

The (corrected) split-half reliability for the TFI scale was .84 for a
sample of 109 adults. The sample was composed of 67 men and 42 women,
aged 20 to 40, enrolled in psychology classes at Cleveland College. On
four projective questions concerning various family roles and practices,
the responses of the lowest and the highest scoring quarters on the TFI
were compared. The results indicated that the categories which differ-
entiate high and low scorers reflect the variables on which the TFI was
originally constructed.

An abbreviated twelve-item form of the TFI scale was presented to

five groups (total of 507 subjects) in Boston. The groups tested

39

included Harvard Summer Session, Boston University sophomores and freshmen,
registered nurses, and student nurses. The Harvard summer group had a
split-half reliability on the initial test of .92 and a sixdweek test-
retest reliability of .93. The Levinson and Huffman hypothesis that
individuals are relatively consistent in their tendency to take an
authoritative or an authoritarian stand in various ideological spheres

is supported by significant correlation with other scales including
Religious Conventionalism.

The twelve items were selected from the 40 item scale according
to discriminatory power and simplicity of each item, and considering
the broadness of over all item content. The abbreviated version yielded
about the same results as the 40-item original instrument, according to
Levenson and Huffman.

After a careful examination of the twelve-item TFI, it was concluded
that each of the twelve items met one or more of the criteria established
in this study for discriminating authoritarian-authoritative parents.
It was accepted as the total measure of that variable, and is included in
Appendix C. Each parent was asked to check the scale individually without
conferring with the other. Their responses were on a seven-point range
from "very strongly agree" to "very strongly disagree." As scale items
were stated, agreement was an authoritarian position and disagreement
was a more authoritative answer. "Very strongly agree" was coded l and
"very strongly disagree" was coded 7, making the higher score the
more authoritative position.

On only one item the majority of the parents agreed with the more

authoritarian position: "The Family is a divinely ordained sacred

40

institution." On all other items at least half of the parents supported
an authoritative position. On the following four scale items more than

75 percent of the mothers and fathers evidenced an authoritative position:
if children are told too much about sex they will experiment; a man should
not be expected to have respect for a woman if they have had pre-marital
sexual relations; it is unnatural for women to have authority over men,
and if a child is unusual in any way parents should try to make the child
become more like other children. The mother and father responses to the
authoritarian-authoritative scale are summarized in Table 5.

Overall, in aggregate percentages, the fathers scored more towards
the authoritarian end of the continuum and the mothers more toward the
authoritative end. However, there were no items in which the percentages
exceeded a difference of more than ten percent between mothers and fathers.
This would suggest that most of the parents in the sample population
tended to be more authoritative than authoritarian. This is supported
when examining the means and standard deviations as described below.

The value range for this scale was 12 to 84. The reliability
coefficient for the scale was .856 for fathers and .787 for mothers.

The mean score for fathers was 62.22 with a standard deviation of 14.22.
For mothers the mean score was 63.65 with a standard deviation of 12.47.
A score of 48 would be the theoretical neutral point between the two ends
of the scale continuum. All scores within a range of one standard
deviation on either side of the mean scores for both fathers and mothers
were on the authoritative side of the mid-point of the scale. The
frequency distribution for this and all the other scales used in this

study are summarized in Table 6.

PLEASE NOTE:

Pages 41 and 42
lacking in number
only. Text follows.
Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.

43

TABLE 5

Authoritativeness: Percentage of Mother and Father Disagreement
with TFI Scale Items.

 

 

Frequencies
Scale Items Fathers Mothers
7. (NI-41) Z (Na41)

 

 

 

If child is unusual, parents should try to

make the child more like others. 93 (38) 95 (39)
If children are told too much about sex
they will experiment. 78 (32) 85 (35)

Man should not be expected to have respect
for a woman if they've had pre-marital

sexual relations. 78 (32) 83 (34)
It's unnatural for women to have

authority over men. 76 (31) 78 (32)
Determination and drive are the most

important male qualities. 68 (28) 76 (31)
Mother has failed if children are messy

or rowdy. 66 (27) 76 (31)
Husbands should have main say-so. 56 (23) 66 (27)
Don't let child talk back to parents,

or they'll lose respect for parents. 66 (27) 61 (25)

Women don't understand wife role if
they object to "obey" in marriage ceremony. 56 (23) 61 (25)

There's nothing lower than one who does not
feel love, gratitude, and respect for

 

parents. 63 (26) 54 (22)
Sex and crime facts show need to crack down

on children to save moral standards. 56 (23) 51 (21)
Family is a divinely ordained sacred

institution. 24 (10) 15 ( 6)
1 II I! I

"Very strongly disagree, strongly disagree,‘ and "disagree" were combined

to compute the above frequencies.

44

 

 

m¢.~H mo.mo mniow quNH mom. Magoo:
~N.¢H ~N.~o Hmimu «mima cam. nonumm

«mahum

o>wuouauosus<

.omwumuauozu:<

¢H.N mm.o CHIN oHIo mmm. Houucou mo mdooq
mm.m oa.oo mnimm omlo «mm. confinaou
mo.c m~.ma main omlo Goa. Hosanna
mm.m om.oH omioa ouio oeo. nonuoz
Ha.m mm.mH ONIw omlo New. nonumm
mn.H mm.ma wHINH culo mmw. vHHAU

"hufiafinwmsoamom

coauofi>on and: owamm omomm unoaoammmoo meadow

wumvcmum Hmauo< ofinfimmom hufiafinowaom

 

 

.hcsum menu aw pom: meadow dam on momaoamom onu mo :ofiuanauuman

o mqmdh

45

Statistical Analysis

 

Analysis was done on the CDC 6500 Computer at Michigan State
University, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Bivariate regression was selected for analysis of the
relationship between child responsibility and locus of control, to
determine if the children with a strong sense of internal control
exhibited higher levels of responsibility acceptance than did the
children with a more external sense of control.

Bivariate regression was also used to analyze the relationship
between locus of control and style of parent, to learn if children of
more authoritative parents felt a greater sense of internal locus of control
than did the children of the more authoritarian parents in the sample.

Step-wise multiple regression was used to compare the influence
upon child responsibility from the child's sense of locus of control
with influence from parent style. The purpose here was to learn if there
was any direct relationship between the authoritarian-authoritative style

of parents and the level of responsibility observed in their children.

IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses were employed to
test the hypotheses. The findings from these procedures have been
reported in this chapter in three major sections; parent characteristics
and the child's sense of locus of control, child sense of locus of control
and child responsibility, and parent characteristics and child responsi-
bility. The final section is a composite regression analysis examining,
simultaneously, the relationships found to be significant in the three
hypotheses.

Parent Characteristics and
Child Locus of Control

 

Of particular interest to this study was the child's sense of
locus of control. Internal locus of control was considered basic to
responsible action in a democratic social system. It was considered
likely that the nature of the parent child interactions was an important
influence on the development of a sense of locus of control within the
child.‘ The specific interest in this research was to examine if a child's
locus of control might be affected by the authoritarian or authoritative

interaction of the parents.

Hypotheses 1A and 18

1A - The more authoritative the mother the greater is the child's sense
of internal locus of control.

1B - The more authoritative the father the greater is the child's sense

of internal locus of control.

46

47

Findings. Hypothesis 1A was supported by bivariate regression
analysis. Authoritativeness of the mother was regressed on locus of
control and was found to be significant at the probability level of .037.

Hypothesis 13 was not supported. The fathers' scores, when regressed
on locus of control, were not significant with a probability of .692.

The zero order correlation was -.064. Less than one percent of the
variance was explained by this relationship.

Multivariate analysis was carried out to determine the combined
effect of mother's and father's level of authoritativeness. A stepwise
forward regression procedure was used. Mother and father scores were
regressed on locus of control. Mother scores entered the equation on
step one with a beta weight of .507 and an overall significance of .037,
explaining 10.9 percent of the variance. Father scores entered the
equation on step two with a -.333 beta weight and an overall significance
of .021, explaining an additional eight percent of the variance. Both
variables together explained 18.9 percent of the variance. The multir
variate analysis supports the findings of the authoritative mother as
being positively related to the development of locus of control in
children this age. In addition this analysis demonstrated that the
father's level of authoritativeness, after taking into account the
mother's score, contributed significantly to the child's locus of control
but not in the direction hypothesized. These findings are summarized
in Table 7.

Discussion. Further examination of the data was carried out to

 

clarify understanding of these relationships. Fifty-one percent of all

children in the study scored above the mean for locus of control.

48

 

 

Hmo. Nm.c and. mmq. «no. no.m mmm.I umsumm .N amum
mmo. mc.q moa. Hmm. nmo. no.c mom. ensue: .H mmum
Houuaou mo mauoq
do vommouwom
moamum ucmumm
"oumwum>auaaz
Houuaoo mo moooa
Nmo. mma. I «co. «co. Nae. mma. I «oo.l so vmmmmuwom
mahum nosumm
Houuaoo mo maooa
mmo. no.q moa. Hmm. mmo. mo.q Hmm. so vommouwom
mahum nosuoz
"mumwum>am
m Ham m m>oaom
.mHm Inm>o Nu .fiuaaz .me Iumuom mumm mwmhama<
cu m

 

 

.mfimhama< oumHHm>HuH=z can mumwuo>am
"Houucoo mo maooq m.cHHno can mahum uaoumm o>fiumufiu05u5<lomfiumuwuonuo<

h mam<H

49

Sixty-one percent of the mothers who were above the mean (63.65) on

the authoritative scale had children who scored above the mean (6.85)

on the locus of control scale. Of the mothers with authoritative scores
below the mean, 38.8 percent had children above the mean for locus of
control.

In comparing households where one parent had an authoritative score
above the mean and the other parent had a score below the mean the
findings were strikingly different. When it was the mothers who were
above the mean, 85.7 percent of the children were high on locus of
control scores, indicating internal control. When the mothers were the
parent with the low score, 16.7 percent of the children were above the
mean. When both parents were either above or below the mean for authori-
tativeness, their children were equally divided by the mean of the locus
of control scale. See Table 8 for the summarized data.

With the available data two additional explanations for locus of
control variance were explored: sex of child and rurality of residence.
If the difference had a developmental base, a tentative hypothesis would
be to expect girls to show higher levels of internal locus of control
than boys. If location of residence was an influence one might expect
rural children to show higher levels of internal locus of control than
urban children. Due to the sample size it was necessary to examine data
for significant bivariate relationships.

Cross tabulation showed that 61.9 percent of the girls and 40.0
percent of the boys scored above the mean, toward higher levels of internal
locus of control. In the total sample 51.2 percent of the children

scored above the mean. Analysis of variance was computed and a

50

TABLE 8

Cross Tabulation: Internal and External Locus of Control
by Mother's and Father's Authoritative Level,
Combined Mother-Father Authoritative Level,

Sex of Child, and Rurality of Sample.,

 

 

Locus of Control

 

 

Z Below Mean Z Above Mean
(External) (Internal)
Total Sample 48.8(N-20) 51.2(N=21)
Mother's Authoritative Score:
Above Mean 39.0(9) 61.0(14)
Below Mean 61.2(11) 38.8(7)
Father's Authoritative Score:
Above Mean 59.1(13) 40.9(9)
Below Mean 36.8(7) 63.2(12)
Combined Mother and Father,
Authoritative Scores:
Both Above Mean 50.0(8) 50.0(8)
Both Below Mean 50.0(6) 50.0(6)
Mother Above-Father
Below Mean 14.3(1) 85.7(6)
Mother Below-Father
Above Mean 83.3(5) 16.7(1)
Sex of Child: Male 60.0(12) 40.0(8)
Female 38.1(8) 61.9(13)
Residence: Urban 55.0(11) 45.0(9)

Rural 42.9(9) 57.1(12)

 

51

significant relationship was found (F=4.163, p=.048). The cross
tabulations are shown in Table 8.

Cross tabulation showed 45 percent of the urban and 57.1 percent
of the rural children had scored above the mean for locus of control.
Analysis of variance found the difference between urban and rural children
not to be significant (F-.015, p-.902).

Multiple forward regression was used to analyze the relative effect
of the most significant variables, sex of child and parent style on locus
of control variance. Sex of child and parent style were regressed on
locus of control. Over 25 percent of the variance was explained. Sex
of child entered the regression on step one, suggesting the strongest
bivariate relationship. Mother's parent style entered on step two,
suggesting that given the sex of the child, an additional 6.8 percent
of the variance could be explained. On step three, the father's authori-
tative score entered and explained an additional 10.4 percent of the
variance.

This forward stepwise regression supports the hypothesis that all
three variables contribute significantly to the variance in locus of
control. The relationships supported suggest higher levels of internal
locus of control if the child is female, the mother is more authorita—
tive in parenting style and the father is less authoritative. The
stepwise forward regression is summarized in Table 9.

Empirical evidence from these data does support that parents have a
significant influence on a child's sense of locus of control. The
evidence indicates that authoritative mothers encourage a perception of

internal locus of control in their children. The evidence also indicates

52

 

mac.

moo.

mno.

moa.¢ mmN.

ow~.m HmH.

qoq.m «mo.

mom.

mam.

mam.

Hmo.

mac.

mmo.

oqo.m

mum.~

eoq.m

©¢m . l muoum
m>HuMuauonus<

m.uonumm

.m swam

mac. muoum
m>fiumufiuonus<

m. “ma—HOS

.N amum

mas. xmm m.uaaao
.H scum

“Houuaoo
«0 msoog w.cafinu
so vommouwom
mamum uaoumm mom
vaano mo xom

 

.mam

m Han
Iuo>o u

.uHDS

o>oaom
Iumuom
cu m

wuom mfimhamn<

 

 

"Houuooo «0 @5004

.GOfimmouwmm vumshom omfisnmum

m.paasu no oahum unnumm

m mqm<9

mam vawno

to sow mo “queen was

53

that the authoritativeness of fathers has a significant influence on the
child's locus of control but toward an external perception. Authoritative-
ness of the parents explained 18.9 percent of the child's locus of control
variance when sex of the child was not controlled.

In considering these findings, it is necessary to remember that
only seven of the 80 parents in the sample scored in the authoritarian
half of the value range on the authoritarianlauthoritative scale, and
most of those were near mid-range. Nearly all parents in the sample
exhibited some level of authoritativeness. The number of authoritarian
parents was too small to make conclusions about strongly authoritarian

parents.

Child Locus of Control and Responsible Behavior
It is difficult to conceptualize a person who behaves responsibly
in a democratic social system, according to the definition for responsi-
bility, without a substantial sense of internal locus of control. The
objective here was to look for evidence that responsible behavior is
significantly related to internal locus of control in fifth grade
children. The literature suggested that orientation toward responsible

behavior was well established by age eight or nine (Gurin et al., 1969).

Hypothesis 2
The greater the child's sense of internal locus of control, the
higher is the level of responsible behavior observed in the child.
Findings. Hypothesis 2 was supported by bivariate regression
analysis. Locus of control regressed on the child's responsibility level

was found to be significant at a probability level of .067. The value

54

used for the child's responsibility level included evaluations from the
child, the teacher, the mother, and the father.

Hypothesis 2 was also supported by bivariate analysis when locus
of control we regressed on the responsibility evaluations from the child
and from the teacher. Significance at the probability level of .016
was found for the child's self evaluation and at a probability of .038
for the teacher's evaluation.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported by bivariate analysis when locus
of control was regressed on the father or the mother evaluations of the
child's responsibility. Significance was at a probability level of .298
for the father score and at .691 for the mother score. The zero order
correlations were .166 and .064 respectively. These analyses are
summarized in Table 10.

Discussion. Empirical evidence supports the concept of a relation-

 

ship between locus of control and responsibility, when the responsibility
measure includes evaluations from the child, the teacher, the father,
and the mother. According to the evidence, children with a greater sense
of internal locus of control were evaluated as being more responsible
than the children with a more external locus of control perception.

When subscales of the child responsibility measure were used in
the analysis differing results were obtained. It was found that children
evidencing internal locus of control were more responsible than those
evidencing external locus of control, according to the child and the
teacher evaluations. Neither parent appeared to evaluate the internally
controlled child as being significantly more responsible than the

externally controlled child.

55

 

 

Hmo. cod. coo. «no. Hmo. oea. coo. ouoom ensue:
mam. HHH.H mac. nee. mam. HHH.H sea. muoum assume
mmo. qmo.e ooH. own. mmo. emo.e own. muoom nonomma
oao. emm.o oea. «hm. oHo. mmm.e cum. ouoom vafieu
moo. ecm.m one. man. moo. eon.m mam. ouoom Hence
I suaaapameoammm
cease so
vommouwmm Houuooo no
moqu “ouo«Hm>Hm
m Ham m meosom
.wam sua>o u .uaaz .mam nuance moan memaaaa<
N on a

 

 

.mamhfima< oumfiuo>wm "huaawnwmaoamom can Houuooo mo mnoog

o~ mdm<a

56

It is important to keep in mind, as reference to Table 6 will show,
that each child responsibility scale evaluates the children at various
high levels of responsibility. None of the subscales found the children
to be seriously lacking in responsibility. The teacher evaluations had
the lowest mean and the greatest variance. The child self evaluations
showed the next lowest mean. Both parents evaluated the children as
responsible with all the scores within one standard deviation below the
mean falling above the midpoint of the possible range for that scale.

It appears that the data compared children with various levels of responsi-
ble behavior, not responsible and irresponsible children.

The child and teacher evaluations may have had a common reference
point in the other children in the age group at school. Parents may
have lacked such a reference point for comparison and tended to estimate
highly their child's level of responsible behavior. The evaluation of
responsibility by the teacher for the children in the control group
demonstrated no significant differences between those who responded to
the study and those who did not. This rules out likelihood that families
with more responsible children responded. An alternate explanation is
that the instrument used for the parent evaluation does not provide for
enough variation of responsibility; the data suggest revisions of that
instrument may be necessary.

To examine alternative explanations for the responsibility variance,
sex and place of residence were cross tabulated with responsibility.

The males divided 70 percent on the lower responsibility side of the
mean and 30 percent on the higher responsibility side. Female scores

were 23.8 percent below the mean and 76.2 percent above the mean.

57

Analysis of variance between responsibility and sex found an F value
of 15.76 with a probability of .001. With a sample population of

20 boys and 21 girls, the girls outnumbered the boys in the portion of
the sample above the mean responsibility score by three to one. There
was no significant difference in responsibility levels between rural

and urban children. Cross tabulations are shown in Table 11.

TABLE 11

Cross Tabulation: Responsibility by Sex of Child,
Place of Residence, and Locus of Control.

 

 

 

 

Responsibility
Z Below Mean 2 Above Mean
Total Sample 46.3(N-19) 53.7(N-22)
Sex of Child: Males 70.0(14) 30.0(6)
Females 23.8(5) 76.2(16)
Place of Residence: Urban 40.0(8) 60.0(12)
Rural 52.4(11) 47.6(10)
Locus of Control: External 55.0(11) 45.0(9)
Internal 38.1(8) 61.9(13)

 

Authoritarian-Authoritative Parent Style and Child Responsibility

 

The purpose here was to learn if there were direct relationships
between the authoritarian-authoritative nature of parents and the level
of responsibility observed in their children. The interest was in
examining relationships which did not involve locus of control as an

intervening variable.

58

Hypotheses 3A and 3B

 

3A - The more authoritative the mother, the higher is the level of
responsibility observed in the child.

3B - The more authoritative the father, the higher is the level of
responsibility observed in the child.

Findings. Hypotheses 3A and 3B were not supported by bivariate
regression analysis. Mother authoritativeness was regressed on child
responsibility with a probability level of .843. A probability of signi-
ficance at the .487 level was found when father authoritativeness was
regressed on child level of responsibility.

For further analysis a stepwise multiple forward regression was
used. Locus of control as well as parent style scores were regressed
on child responsibility. Locus of control entered the equation on
step one with a beta weight of .335 and an overall significance of .067,
explaining 8.6 percent of the variance. Mother scores entered the
equation on step two with a beta weight of -.132 and p - .130, explaining
an additional 1.9 percent of the variance. Father scores entered the
equation on the final step with a beta weight of -.022 and p - .257,
explaining less than one percent of the variance. These findings are
shown in Table 12.

Discussion. The evidence did not indicate significant positive
parent style influence directly on a child's responsibility level. The
mothers' authoritative scores had a significant but negative relationship
to responsibility scores of the children, explaining three percent of
the variance. To keep that influence in perspective, one should keep
in mind that sex of the child explained 27 percent of the variance, when

locus of control was not in the equation.

59

 

enm. moe.a nos. «mm. Ham. moo. «No.n “madam
.m swam

and. mme.~ eofl. mmm. man. can. NMH.I omega:
.m scum

moo. eon.m omo. mam. Ace. eom.m mmm. Houueou mo maooo
.H doom

xuwawnwmcoammm
so vommmuwom
Houucou no mooog
mam mahum uaoumm

“oumaum>wuaaz
“we. mas. moo. moo. “we. mas. maa.u “cause
new. oqo. .Hoo. Nmo. mew. oeo. Nmo.- tango:
huaawnfiwaoamom

so commouwom maaum
uamuom "mum«Hm>Hm

 

m Has a m>oamm
.wam Ium>o Nu .uH:z .wfim Iuousm moon manuamo<
cu m

 

 

.mwmhaoo< museum>aufioz can oumaHm>Hm
"huqafinfimooomom vaano van mahum unmumm m>Humuwuonus<lomwumuwuonuo<

NH mamda

60

The evidence from this study indicates that the authoritativeness
of the parents influences responsible behavior in children, primarily

through locus of control.

Summagy

The conceptual model hypothesized for this study was presented
in Figure 1, page 17. It was proposed that more authoritative parents
would have children with a greater sense of internal locus of control
than would less authoritative or authoritarian parents. Children with
a greater sense of internal locus of control were expected to exhibit
higher levels of responsibility than children with a more external sense
of locus of control. Direct relationship was also expected between
authoritativeness of parents and the responsibility level of their
children.

Support was not found for direct positive relationship between
parent authoritativeness and child responsibility. Parent style influence
on responsibility was shown to be mediated through locus of control.
Analyses, when controlling for additional measures available in the
data set, demonstrated the significant impact of sex of the child.
Higher levels of internal locus of control and responsibility were
present when the children were female. No significant difference was
apparent due to place of residence.

One final analysis procedure, a hierarchical multivariate
regression, was deemed necessary to test the theoretical model and
to summarize the findings. Responsibility of child was regressed on
locus of control (step 1), mother's authoritative score (step 2), sex

of child (step 3), and father's authoritative score (step 4).

61

This analysis explained 32.6 percent of the variance. The results are
presented in Table 13.

Locus of control explained 9.1 percent of the variance, mother's
score an additional 2.3 percent and sex of the child explained 21.2
percent. The father's authoritative score did not contribute
significantly to the model. Internal locus of control did relate to
the higher levels of responsibility, however, for whatever reason, being
female at this age also had a highly significant affect on responsi-
bility. Any model not taking sex into account, as an explanation of

responsibility in children this age, would appear to be inadequate.

62

 

 

moo. wom.e awn. «mm. new. mam. Hwo. muoum m.um£umm
.e ovum
Ncc. om.m own. Hum. moo. cum.HH Haw. nafiso we now
.m amum
moa. enm.~ «Ha. nmm. mmm. «om. «NH. ouoom m.uonuoz
.N swam
mmo. mmn.m Hao. Hon. one. mmn.m «ma. Houuooo «0 maooa
.H ovum
"sumaanfimaoamum cameo so
nommouwom pawno no now
can .mahum unease
.aouuooo mo mnuog
m Had a m>osmm
.wfim Ium>o Nu .uanz .me Iuouam doom mwmhaoo<
cu m

 

 

.:0flmmmuwom ouoaum>fiuanz Hmoa£oumumwm

”huwawnwmoonmom mo Ho>oq m.na«£u do

cameo no now new uaaum bemoan .Houuaou mo «soon m.eaaeo mo Hummus one

ma man<a

V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summagy

Low levels of responsible behavior by adults and youth have often
been the focus of media attention. Responsible citizens seem to be a
prerequisite for a democratic social system, hence in this study, the
development of responsible behavior was investigated. Responsible
people were defined as self accepting, self confident, self directing,
innovative persons who participate in their social settings with care
and concern for others.

The goal of this study was to explore why some children become
highly responsible persons but others do not. The main thrust of the
study was to identify the differing effects of authoritarian and
authoritative parents on a child's locus of control and the effect
of locus of control on a child's level of responsibility. The literature
suggested that one's basic orientation to be a responsible or a less
responsible person may be well established by age ten or when one is

a fifth grader. The study focused on the responsibility level of
fifth graders.

The research questions investigated included:

1. Do children of more authoritative parents have a greater sense
of internal locus of control than do the children of more authoritarian
parents?

2. Do children who have a greater sense of internal locus of
control exhibit higher levels of responsibility acceptance than do

children with stronger external locus of control perceptions?

63

64

3. Is there a direct relationship between the authoritative charac-
teristics of parents and the level of responsibility observed in their
children?

The data for this study were gathered as part of a pilot study entitled,
"The Acceptance of Responsibility in Cildren: A Comparison of Families
with Employed and Non-Employed Mothers," funded by an All University
Research Initiation grant from Michigan State University.1 The sample
population included forty families, each composed of a mother, a father,
and at least one fifth grade child. Half the families were rural
residents and half lived in an urban area. The sample could be described
as being representative of the fifth grade classes in two non-randomly

selected schools within large school districts in mid Michigan.

Conclusion

 

Several conclusions can be drawn from the analysis. Conclusions
relative to influences on locus of control development will be discussed
first, followed by conclusions about the development of responsible

behavior in the sample population.

Influences on Locus of Control

Higher level of mother authoritativeness was found to be positively
related to an internal locus of control perception in the children. Of
the authoritative mothers 61 percent had children with higher measures
of internal control. Only 38.8 percent of the less authoritative mothers

had children with high levels of internal locus of control. Mother

 

1All University Research Initiation, Family and Child Ecology

Department, Grant #681.

65

scores on the authoritarian-authoritative scale accounted for 10.9 percent
of the child variance on the locus of control scale.

The authoritativeness of fathers was negatively related to locus of
control but not at a significant probability level when considered alone.
However, when analyzed with and mediated through the mother's influence,
the parent style of the father was significant at a .021 probability
level, in a negative direction.

The mothers' and the fathers' authoritativeness accounted for 18.9
percent of the children's locus of control variance.

When the authoritativeness of the father and the mother were the
same, both higher or both lower, their children were equally divided
between internal and external locus of control perceptions. When one
parent was high and the other low on authoritativeness the child's locus
of control perception was positively related to the mother's score rather
than the father's. When mothers were the high parent 85.6 percent of
the children scored high on internal control. When it was the mother
who was the low parent only 16.7 percent of the children.were high on
internal locus of control.

Sex of child was shown to have a significant relationship with
locus of control. Nearly 62 percent of the girls, but only 40 percent
of the boys, perceived locus of control to be internal. The relationship
was significant (p - .048). Only 8.2 percent of the variance was
explained by sex, while 17.2 percent was explained by parent level

of authoritativeness.

66

Influences on Responsibility Development

The children's locus of control perceptions were found to have a

significant positive relationship to their levels of responsibility.
The more they perceived locus of control to be internal the higher were
their responsibility levels. When the responsibility measure included
evaluations from the child, the teacher, the mother and the father, the
relationship was significant at the .067 probability level.

When analyzed separately, locus of control was found to be signifi-
cantly related to the child's self evaluation at the .016 probability
level and to the teacher evaluation at a probability level of .038.
Mothers and fathers did not consider children who were internal controlled
to be more responsible than externally controlled children. The analysis
found non-significant relationships between the child's locus of control
scores and mother and father evaluations of responsible behavior in
children (p - .298 for fathers, p a .691 for mothers).

Sex of the child was found to be a strong predictor of responsible
behavior in this sample population. High responsibility girls outnumbered
high responsibility boys by about three to one, though the total sample
was composed of 20 boys and 21 girls. Over three-fourths (76.2%) of
the girls scored high on responsibility compared to less than one-third
(30%) of the boys, who scored high on responsibility. The relationship
between responsibility and sex was found to be highly significant.
Analysis of variance produced an F value of 15.76 with a probability of
.001.

In this sample population authoritarian-authoritative parent styles

did not have significant direct effect on the responsibility of children

67

but were indicated through locus of control perceptions (p = .843 for
mothers, p - .487 for fathers).

Stepwise forward multiple regression was used to analyze the
influence of locus of control and father and mother authoritativeness
on responsibility levels of children. Locus of control was found to
have a significant influence (p - .067), explaining 8.6 percent of the
variance. Hierarchical multivariate regression found locus of control
explained 9.1 percent, sex of child 21.2 percent, and mother's authori—
tativeness another 2.3 percent. Father's score did not contribute sig—
nificantly to the child's responsibility variance.

A myriad of variables have impacted on children from conception to
fifth grade. The list would include genetics, social relations with
parents, grandparents, peers, siblings and teachers, health, and tempera-
ment to name a few. The limitations of the sample size and data collected
prohibited controlling for all those variables. However, it was among
those variables that locus of control accounted for 8.6 percent of the
responsibility variance and that parent authoritativeness accounted for
18.9 percent of the locus of control variance. The conclusion seemed
evident that parent style was an important force in the development of
responsible behavior in the children in this sample, operating through
impact on locus of control. An important aspect of this conclusion is
that the parent style variance was almost entirely within the authori-
tativeness range as defined for this study. There were few if any authori-

tarian parents.

68

Implications

 

The vocabulary available for use in this discussion was inadequate
in at least one respect. The word "authoritative" sounds so much like
"authoritarian" that the reader may be confused. "Less authoritative"
was always used in this discussion to identify persons lower on the
parent style scale, since few if any parents in the sample were truly
authoritarian. A permissive or laissez faire parent style could also
be appropriately called "less authoritative" though that meaning was never
intended here. There is need for a word to replace "authoritative" in
this usage; one which would not be confused with authoritarian, democratic,
or permissive.

This study became more complex than first anticipated. The relation-
ships studied became more complicated as they were examined. The number
of variables which may affect one's responsibility level may be nearly
limitless when genetic, biologic, social, and psychological aspects of
environment are considered. Consequently, numerous implications could
be drawn from the study, but only a few were selected for discussion

here.

Implications for Parents

It seemed likely that children with a perception of internal locus
of control over outcomes would want to exercise that power over outcomes.
They would ask questions, make decisions, seek changes, and participate
in the activities around them. If they did this with care and concern
for others they would likely be regarded as responsible children, especially
by themselves and by their teachers, according to the evidence from this

study.

PLEASE NOTE:

Page 69 lacking in
number only. Text
follows. Filmed as
received;

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.

70

Paradoxically, those very behavioral traits, viewed in this study
as responsible, may add stress to family relations. Even the parent who
relates to children authoritatively and helps create those traits, may
wish for a child who is more compliant, obedient, unquestioning, and
less anxious to decide for self at the fifth grade level. It would
appear that in many ways parenting a responsible child as defined for
this study might well be more difficult than parenting a more passive
child. If this observation is valid, it may help explain why the father
and mother evaluations of responsibility were not significantly related
to the child's sense of internal locus of control. Parents may have been
judging the more obedient, more passive, less questioning, more external
child as being responsible because the parenting of such a child was
comparatively easier. Parents may wish for their children to be always
obedient and unqestioning while children at home, but be self directing,
independent, innovative, and responsible when away from home and when
they become adults.

Parents may not be aware of the contradiction or discontinuity in
such a point of view. Educational efforts could be devised to help
parents recognize that the stress of explanation, verbal give and take,
and shared responsibilities with young children are necessary if they
are to become responsible self directing adults. A major objective of
such a parent education program would be to help parents understand the
connection between authoritative parenting, an internal sense of locus
of control and the development of responsible behavior in children.

The use of experiential methods, providing opportunity for parents to

practice behaving authoritatively and to distinguish accurately

71

authoritative from authoritarian and permissive behavior, would be
important components of such an educational effort. Success in teaching
parents about authoritative parenting and the development of responsibility
in children might not make the parenting job any easier, but could well
result in greater numbers of more responsible persons.

The evidence suggests implications relative to the changes that have
been occurring in the division of parenting roles between fathers and
mothers. Mothers are spending more time out of the home in economic
careers. Fathers are just beginning to spend increased time in the home
sharing the homemaking and child nurturing roles. Some few fathers are
assuming the major child nurturing role as the mother advances her career
in the business or professional world. In other families, mother still
holds the major homemaking and child nurturing role along with a
career, receiving little extra support at home from.husband and children.

The different effect of mother and father on locus of control in
children shown in this study is a concern. If the quantity of interaction
time with children changes for father and/or mother, what happens to
the authoritativeness of that interaction and its effect on locus of
control in the children? It will be important to learn what happens to
the total quantity of parent-child interaction, as well as the quality
of that interaction, as parent roles shift between the father and the
mother. This discussion is expanded in the section on implications for

research.

Implications for 4-H and Other Youth Serving Organizations
Abundant references in the literature review indicated that children

are stimulated to become responsible when their contributions are needed,

72

when there is opportunity for them to make and help make important
decisions, and when there is ample time for them to be with, imitate,
and help responsible adults. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Coleman, 1974;
Fingarette, 1967; Matteson, 1975; Stephens, 1979; Whiting and Whiting,
1975) By definition, authoritative parents were expected to interact
with children much as described above. In this sample population, the
more authoritative parents tended to have children with internal
perceptions of locus of control and children with higher levels of
internal control tended to be more responsible than children with lower
internal control, consistent with similar studies reported in the
literature.

White and Lippitt (1960) suggested that if children could experience
authoritative relationships in all or most of their social interactions,
the chances for development of responsible persons would be greatly
enhanced. The leaders and administrators of Scouts, 4-H Clubs, Little
Leagues, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, and other youth serving organizations
have the choice, as parents do, of being authoritarian or authoritative.
The implications from this study are that young people would be better
aided toward responsibility if youth programs were planned and carried
out in authoritative rather than authoritarian manner.

This implication is important for young people who already experience
authoritative relationships at home. The authoritative youth organiza—
tion could serve to confirm, reinforce, and repeat the lessons learned
at home. Authoritative youth organizations could serve a role of even
greater importance for young people who otherwise would experience mainly

authoritarian relationships with adults.

73

What might an authoritative youth serving organization look like?
The literature review as well as the empirical evidence from this study
would seem to indicate that an authoritative youth serving organization
would provide: (1) a chance for children to feel that others depend on
them for important contributions; (2) opportunity for children to have
a voice in decisions that will affect them; and (3) experiences that
permit children to be with, observe, and help adults at work or play.

Dr. Rene Dubos, in a recent interview, stated that we must rearrange
our society so that young people become a real part of it. If they remain
on the margins, they will never enter it and trouble for the future is

enormous (Freese, 1981).

Implications for Further Research

This study suggests the need for development of better instruments.
An internal-external locus of control measure with higher than the .395
reliability of the instrument used for this sample population is highly
desirable.

The instrument developed for this pilot study and used for parent
evaluation of child responsibility found small variance among the children.
An instrument which would help parents discriminate responsibility levels
of their children to a greater degree is needed.

The child self evaluation instrument showed high reliability and
had been validated in other studies. It did not show much variance
in this study. The children evaluated themselves near the middle (mean-
13.88) of a possible range of 0-20 with a standard deviation of 1.79.
This study shows the need for a better instrument for the child's self

report of responsible behavior.

74

In considering implications and genralizations from this study it
is important to keep the limitations of the sample in mind. One purpose
of the pilot study was to identify and validate need for further research
in the area of parenting and responsibility development. Preliminary
agreement was obtained from the participants to contact them for a
follow-up study before the children leave high school.

It would be of interest to learn whether or not the children rated
as responsible in this study would still be the responsible ones in the
follow-up investigation. There was a striking difference between boys
and girls in the proportion evaluated as responsible in this study. Will
that difference remain, disappear, or become greater as the children mature?
It would be of interest to learn if the authoritarian-authoritative measure
of parent style will remain stable. Will the more authoritative parents
of the fifth grader remain the more authoritative parents of the high
school senior? Which type of parent will experience the most stress
as the children reach adolescence, the more or the less authoritative?

If the findings of this study should be confirmed by replication
on a more representative population sample, there would be important
implications for the future development of responsible children. The
finding that father influence on locus of control perception was negative
and significant only when mediated through the mother influence suggests
a research area which seems important. Why was father's influence negative
and mother's positive even though both were authoritative and there was
only a small difference in the mean scores (fathers-62.22, mothers-63.65)?

If the male and female sex roles continue to become more similar

in and outside the home, several research questions will become increasingly

75

important to the development of responsible young people. If father
assumes more of the direct child nurturing role with younger children,

will the authoritativeness of the father continue to affect the child's
locus of control negatively? Will the effect become significant with

more time spent nurturing children? Will the father's effect become sig-
nificant without mediation through the mother's interaction? If mothers
reduce their quantity of nurturant interactions with young children will
the mother influence also become negative? If mothers assume roles outside
the family more similar to traditional male roles will their authoritarian-
authoritative scores become less authoritative? If so, how will that
change affect their influence on locus of control perceptions in their
children?

Some research questions are suggested by the finding that more girls
than boys scored high on internal locus of control and high on responsi-
bility levels. Was the difference due to genetics or maturation or to
difference in social interaction or role expectations between the sexes?

Is it a temporary difference which will disappear or does the difference
remain through life? If the difference remains, for whatever reason,

what are the implications for assuming adult roles in a democratic society?
What are the implications for equality between the sexes in the business

and political world, so long dominated by males?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Abidin, Richard R. Parent Education and Intervention Handbook.
Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1980.

 

Adams, Kathryn A. and Liane V. Davis. The Father's Perception of His Role
and the Child's Development (1978) (ERIC ED 177386).

 

American Heritage Dictionary. Paperback ed. (1976).

Anastasi, Anne. Psychologgcal Testing. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Co., 1968.

 

Anderson, Harold, ed. Creativity and Its Cultivation. New York:
Harper and Row, 1959.

 

Bashor, Philip S. Parental Authority and the Democratic Ethic. (1976)
(ERIC ED 176896).

Baumrind, Diana. "Authoritarian vs. Authoritative Parental Control,"
Adolescence 3 (Fall 1968): 255-72.

 

Baumrind, Diana. "Reciprocal Rights and Responsibilities in Parent-Child
Relations," Journal of Social Issues 34 2 (1976):179—96.

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. Social Statistics. New York: McCrawbHill, 1979.

 

Boulding, Kenneth E. The Economy of Love and Fear. Belmont, CA.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973.

 

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1979.

 

Browne, C. G. and Thomas S. Cohn. The Study of Leadership. Danville, 111.:
The Interstate Press, 1958.

Chandler, Theodore A. et a1. "Parental Correlates of Locus of Control
in Fifth Graders," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 26 3 (198):183-96.

 

Coleman, James. et a1. Youth: Transition to Adulthood. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1974.

 

Combs, Arthur W. "What Can Man Become?" In Self in Growth, Teachingi_
and Learning. Edited by Don E. Hamachek. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1965.

 

Combs, Arthur W. Forward to Humanizing EduCation. Edited by Robert M.
Leeper. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, NBA, 1967.

 

76

77

Coopersmith, Stanley. The Antecedents of Self Esteem. San Francisco:
W. H. Freeman and Company, 1967.

 

Crandall, V. C., W. Katkovsky, and V. J. Crandall. "Children's Belief
in Their Own Control of Reinforcement in Intellectual-Academic
Achievement Situations." Child Development 36 (1965):98-109.

 

Fingarette, Herbert. On Responsibility. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc., 1967.

 

Flapan, Dorothy. Children's Understanding of Social Interaction. New
York: Teachers' College Press, Columbia University, 1968.

Foa, Uriel and Edna B. Foa. Societal Structures of the Mind. Springfield,
111.: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1974.

Freese, Arthur S. "Dubos and 80." Modern Maturity 24 4 (l98l):34-36.

 

Garbarino, J. "The Family: A School for Living." The Elementary
School Principle. 55 5 (l976):66-70.

Goertzel, Victor and Mildred C. Goertzel. Cradles of Eminence. Boston:
Little, Brown, and Co., 1962.

 

Gordon, Chad and Kenneth Gergen. The Self in Social Interaction. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968.

Gordon, Ira. The Infant Experience. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing
Co., 1975.

 

Gurin, P, G. Gurin, R. C. Lao, and M. Beattie. "Internal-External Control
in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth." Journal of Social
Issues (l969):148-50.

Hamacheck, Don E. Encounters with Self. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc., 1971.

 

Harris, Dale B. "A Scale for Measuring Attitudes of Social Responsibility
in Children." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 3 (1957):
322-26.

Harris, Dale B. (Letter to Dr. Anne Soderman, Dept. of Family and Child
Ecology, Michigan State University, February 28, 1980.)

Hayes, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.

Heider, Karl. The Dani of West Irian, Module 2: Warner Publications,
1972. (Microfilm)

78

Hersch, Paul D. and Karl E. Scheibe. "Reliability and Validity of
Internal-External Control as a Personality Dimension." Journal of
Consulting Psychology 31 (l967):609-13.

 

 

Hill, John P. Understanding Early Adolescence--A Framework. Chapel Hill,
NC: Center for Early Adolescence, University of North Carolina,
1980.

Houghton, Raymond W. "Focus on Humanism and the Teacher." In
Humanizing_Education. Edited by Robert R. Leeper, Washington D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NBA, 1967.

 

Johnson, 0. J. and J. W. Bommarito. Tests and Measurements in Child
Development: Handbook I. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.

Kandel, Denise B. and Gerald Lesser. Youth in Two Worlds. San
Francisco: Josey-Bass, Inc., 1972.

Kanoy, Robert C., III et a1. Psychology in the Schools 17 l (1980):
395-99.

Kantor, David and Williams Lehr. Inside the Family. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1976.

 

Konopka, Gisela. Young Girls. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1976.

 

Lefcourt, H. M. "Internal vs. External Control of Reinforcement; a
review," PsychologicalBulletin 65 (l965):206-220.

Levinson, Daniel J. and Phyllis E. Huffman. "Traditional Family Ideology
and Its Relation to Personality." Journal of Personality 23 (1955):

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1961.

 

Lipsitz, Joan. Growing Up Forgotten. Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company,
1977.

Matteson, David R. Adolescence Today. Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey
Press, 1975.

Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Edited by Charles W.
Morris. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1934.

Michigan Family Sourcebook. East Lansing, MI.: Institute for Family
and Child Study, Michigan State University, 1980.

Miller, D. R. and G. E. Swanson. The Changing American Parent. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

79

Moustakas, Clark E. The Self: Explorations in Personal Growth.
New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1956.

 

Mussen, Paul H., ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960.

Pepper, William F., ed., The Self Managed Child. New York: Harper
and Row, Publishers, 1973.

 

Pickarts, Evelyn and Jean Fargo. Parent Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-hall, Inc., 1971.

 

Price, Dorothy Z. "Relationship of Decision Styles and Self-Actualization."
Home Economics Research Journal 2 (1973):12-20.

 

Purkey, William.W. Self Concept and School Achievement. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-hall, 1970.

Robinson, John P. and Phillip R. Shaver. Measures of Psychological
Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1973.

Rosenberg, Morris. Society and the Adolescent Self Imagg. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.

 

Smith, Thomas E. "An Emperical Comparison of Potential Determinants of
Parental Authority." Journal of Marriage and the Family 39 l
(l977):153-63.

Stephens, William N. Our Children Should be Working, Springfield, 111.:
Charles C. Thomas Publishers, 1979.

 

Straus, Murray A. and Bruce W. Brown. Family Measurement Techniques,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1978.

Tallman, Irving. "The Family as a Small Problem Solving Group,"
Journal of Marriege and the Family 32 (l970):94-104.

White, Ralph K. and Ronald Lippitt. Autocracy and Democracy.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

Whiting, Beatrice B. and John W. M. Whiting. Children of Six Cultures.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.

Whiting, Beatrice B. The Company We Keep. (a taped lecture) National
Council on Family Relations, Boston, August, 1979.

Young, Robert K. and Donald J. Veldman. Introductory Statistits for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1977.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

AUTHORIZATION FOR STUDY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
HUMAN SUBJECTS (UCRIHS)

253 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
(5|?) SSS-ZISO

A

September 3, 198u

Dr. Anne K. Soderman
Family 8 Child Sciences

Dear Dr. Soderman:

Subject: Preposal Entitled ”The Acceptance of Responsibility in_
Children: A Comparison of Families with Employed and‘
Non-Employed Mothers“ -

The above referenced project was recently submitted for review to the UCRIHS.

We are pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects

appear to be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this
project at its meeting on September 8, I980 .
Projects involving the use of human subjects must be reviewed at least annually.
If you plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining apprOpriate UCRIHS approval prior to the anniversary date noted above.

.Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

.WT/S’LL—LZMR

Henry E. Bredeck
Chairman, UCRIHS

HEB/jms

cc: Dr. John Cantlon
Dr. Joanne Keith

80

81
MIC HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ° 48824
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILD ECOLOGY

November 4, 1980

Dear Parents:

A subject of growing concern today with both parents and educators is the
teaching of responsibility to children so they will be useful and contribur
ting members of society. In order to better understand characteristics in
individuals and families that lead to responsibility, a study has been pro-
posed for the Charlotte area by Dr. Anne K. Soderman and Dr. Joanne G. Keith,
Assistant Professors in the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State Univer-
sity.

You and other parents of fifth graders in the Charlotte System are invited to
consider participating in this research project. Knowledge gained from the
study will be valuable to parents, teachers, administrators, and school coun-
selors, as well as for inclusion in university courses dealing with family and
child development. All information gathered will be handled in a manner to pre-
vent specific data from being identified with specific families in the study.
Selection of families will be considered on a first-response, first-chosen
basis.

If you would consider being a part of this research project or desire more
information, please complete and return the attached response slip to the school
with your child. Returning the slip does not commit you to participate in the
study, but it will lead to a contact with you by the researchers for a dis-
cussion of the proposed study. At that time, you can decide whether or not to
take part. More details can also be obtained by contacting Mr. Richard Hill,
Research Assistant in Charlotte at 543-8908, or Dr. Anne Soderman, Project
Director at 353-5248.

’<_.r’; fiév" .-
k, //\I I ~ fkmvuig f rusted

Anne K. Soderman, Ph.D. Rick Kent, Principal, Parkview
Project Director, M.S.U. Elementary School
Charlotte, Michigan

KEI, ,1( LI ,‘,£Lfl
Richard W. Hill
Research Assistant
Please retum response slip by Wednesday, Novanber 12, 1980

 

RESPONSE SLIP

Please contact us to discuss possible participation in the Charlotte study of
responsibility in children.

Name

 

Address

 

Telephone Best time of day to phone is

MS U is an Al/imatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

82

Consent Form

 

"The Acceptance of Responsibility in Children: A Comparison of Families
with Employed and Non—Employed Mothers"

Names of Participants in Family:

 

 

 

 

Address:

 

We have been informed of the nature of the research project, "The
Acceptance of Responsibility in Children: A Comparison of Families with
Employed and Non-Employed Mothers" and understand that our participation
would include the parental views, response of our child to two question-
naires, and response of our child's teacher to the Minnesota Profile.

We understand that the investigators will preserve, in conformity with
state and federal law, the confidentiality of information gathered and
that a summary with results will be sent to us upon request. We also
understand that our participation is voluntary, that we can refrain from
answering questions at any time, that we may withdraw from the project
at any time, and that no benefits are guaranteed from such participation.
We further understand that a debriefing session to discuss any questions
or feelings we have related to the study may be held upon request.

We hereby agree to participate in this research study conducted by Anne
K. Soderman and Joanne G. Keith, Assistant Professors in the Department
of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State University.

 

 

Signature of parent date

 

 

Signature of parent date

 

 

Signature of subject child date

APPENDIX B

SOURCE INSTRUMENTS

Social Attitude Scale

 

Institute of Child Welfare University of Minnesota

Directions: Here are some statements on which some people feel one way

 

u.and others feel another way. Since people do not agree, there are no
right or wrong answers. Read each statement and then UNDERLINE the
answer which shows how you feel about these things. Do not skip any

items.

Work rapidly. Don't think too long about each statement--just

give your first and honest feeling about it.

Underline "AGREE" if you agree with the statement,
or think it is true, or if your answer is yes.

Underline "DISAGREE" if you disagree with the
statement, or think it is not true, or if your
answer is no.

 

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE 1. It is always very important to finish anything
one has started.

DISAGREE 2. At school, it is easy to find things to do when
the teacher doesn't give us enough work.

DISAGREE 3. Police cars should be especially marked so that
you can always see them coming.

DISAGREE 4. It is no use worrying about current events or
public affairs; I cannot do anything about them
anyhow.

DISACREE S. We ought to worry about our own country and let
the rest of the world take care of itself.

DISAGREE 6. In school my behavior gets me into trouble.

DISAGREE 7. I am hardly ever on time for meals.

DISAGREE 8. I have been in trouble with the law or police.

DISAGREE 9. When a person does not tell all his income in
order to get out of paying some taxes, it is just

as bad as stealing money from the government.

DISAGREE 10. A person who does not vote when he can, is not a
good citizen.

83

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

84

I hardly ever get my school work done on time.
I have played hookey from school.

Every citizen should take the time to find out
about current events even if it means giving up

some spare time.

In school I am sometimes sent to the principal
for being bad.

Maybe some minority groups (Negroes, Indians,
Mexicans, Jews, etc.) do get bad treatment,

but it's no business of mine.

We ought to let Europe get out of its own mess.

People criticize me for wasting time.

When I work on a committee, I usually let other
people do most of the planning.

I am often late for school.

If it is worth starting at all, it is worth
finishing.

I am the kind of person that people can count on.

In school, I am one of those who can go on
working even though the teacher is out of the room.

People can count on me to get things done, without
checking on me.

I am frequently chosen as a room helper or to run
errands.

I do my chores the very best I know how.
I have been elected leader or president of my class.

Nothing is more important than to be honest with
other people.

My teacher often complains because I don't finish
my work.

When you can't do a job, it is no use to try to
find someone else to do it.

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

85

It is more important to get the job done than
worry about hurting other people's feelings.

Why bother to vote when you can do so little
with just your one vote.

"Never give a sucker an even break."

Letting your friends down is not so bad because
you can't do good all the time for everybody.

Our country would be a lot better off if we didn't
have elections and people didn't have to vote.

It's a good thing thejgtlantic Ocean separates
us from Europe because then we don't have to worry
about them.

It's more important to work for the good of the
team than to work for your own good.

I would never let a friend down when he expects
something of me.

People would be a lot better off if they could
live far away from other people and never had to
do anything for them.

Every person should find some time for the
good of his town or city.

If everyone pitches in to do a job it can always
get done.

It is a good rule to do something for your
neighbor only if he does something for you.

Doing things which are important should come
before things you enjoy doing.

When a person doesn't like something he is
supposed to do, he will try to get someone else
to do it if he is smart.

Cheating on examinations is not so bad as long as
nobody ever knows.

People have a real duty to care for their parents
when they are old even if it costs a lot.

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

AGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

DISAGREE

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

86

I usually work things out for myself rather than
get someone to show me how.

I usually volunteer for special projects at school.

Children often get punished when they don't deserve
it.

When given a task I stick to it even if things I
like to do better come along.

It doesn't really matter whether parents attend
Parent-Teacher meetings regularly.

87

 

m a m N H
oaHu
m>Huoouum o>Huomuum m>Huomuum o>HuoouumaH onu we once
huo> mHHmomD hHoumuoooz on ou momma m>Huo0uumoH
No: mH o>Huomuum so: .m
H N m c m
moon? mnu pH mH xoon moon on umna
on owns muonuo may moon mHnHHm momsuxo you muHHHnHm
moamHn mHouHoHumn ou moHuH moaHuoaom moxma.aooHom uncanny momma
Nmooo on amps How huHHHnHmoOQQou oxmu o: moon HHms 30: .c
m n e N H
oaom a: m>Hw
mownuhom ImHnoouu hhm> EH: oxma oHnoouu oHuuHH
mo manm pH mH uH can: no“ ou an m o no: on hHHmmo
as o>Hw u.aos o co monum ouHso moxma saga a: mo>Hu huo> do mm>Ho
Nxmmu m on umHmumd on moon HHos 30: .m
H N m c m
NHomaHn
pH on owns moons ouoom NHomaHn uponm muoHoa poow
no dynamo: gnu 30:: cu oHumHHmou oHumHHmou pom muHamm
hHmuoHnaoo Boom u.omoon amazoaom hHuHmm :30 mHn macaw
No: mH UHumHHmou to: .N
n e m N H
uooHHooxm poou ommuo>< “Hum uoom
umH uooaumofiom Hmuoomw m.pHH:o mHnu .oOHono 55 GH .H
.pHHao man no onumu “30% co noncommunoo
umnu manage no puos osu «0 Hanson onu muHuB .amuH some mo ummH on» up ooHH «so so um=0HuusuumoH

muommoafiz mo huHmuo>Hoa

 

mummHmz aHaao no musuaumaH

 

HH mHHwoum huHHmnomuom

88

m

mmanHOQ
imHadm .ommoHa
ou msOonm 008

H

own: hHHmmm
huo> .hnosoa

momma

«HnamemeH
.eawam

H

suHsonmaa
ammuanHm

on den oxomm

a

mmmmHa
ou hma mH:
mo uoo @000

m

uH oxmu
u.:mu mmaHu
Imaom .umom

moo>umz

mmmvH so: ou
unmom cu BOHm

N

m
mummoomu

oHnHmawm
ou moouw<

m

amnu
mHouuoou use
monHomm mm:

s

unmaouHuxo
umuwm oaoo
moHuuom

m
mumSuo muomm

Ion mGOHummm
Imam oHn
IHmomm moxma

a

nHm: mxomm omnu

uooooomoo

.umuam HHme
:30 mom:

H
m>HumHmou

.mumuu
loco omumo

N

oHOu mH

on mesa mo
muHmonno moon

No: mH uanHaaoo 30:

N

nus: ou ppm:

.m>HuHmommoH

e
mocowwo
moHnuoa

.nwooa

N:uH oxmu: on one HHoa so:

m

VONmHmm

N

m>Hmmmm

aw; Mfl QmNU um £035 30:

q

=oenu was
suns shape:
cu momma

H

oooooanoH
Ho ooH
mHHmmm hum>

aeHHnu when an oHonmHm 3o:

m

unopemdopaH

m

:30 mHS GO £038

mum> mamH

locum monomH

No: mH unopoommo 30:

.OH

89

Rotter's I-E Scale

 

(Correlations are those of each item with total score, excluding that item.)
1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish
them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their
parents are too easy on them. Filler
2. a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly
due to bad luck. .26
b. People's misfortunes result from mistakes they make.
3. a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because
people don't take enough interest in politics.
2, There will always be wars, no matter how hard people
try to prevent them. .18
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve
in this world.
2, Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecog-
nized no matter how hard he tries. .29
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
2, Most students don't realize the extent to which their
grades are influenced by accidental happenings. .18
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective
leader. .32
b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken
advantage of their opportunities.
7. a, No matter how hard you try some people just don't like
you. .23
b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand
how to get along with others.
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's
personality.
b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what
they're like. Filler
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen will
happen. .16

b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as
making a decision to take a definite course of action.

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

18.

a.

lo‘

a.

90

In case of the well prepared student there is rarely if
ever such a thing as an unfair test.

Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course
work that studying is really useless.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has
little or nothing to do with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right
place at the right time.

The average citizen can have an influence in government
decisions.

This world is run by the few people in power, and there
is not much the little guy can do about it.

When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make
them work.

It is not always to plan too far ahead because many
things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune
anyhow.

There are certain people who are just no good.

There is some good in everybody.

. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing

to do with luck.

Many times we might as well decide what to do by flipping
a coin.

Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky
enough to be in the right place first.

Getting people to do the right thing depends upon
ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are
the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor
control.

By taking an active part in political and social affairs
the people can control world events.

Most people don't realize the extent to which their
lives are controlled by accidental happenings.

There is really no such thing as "luck."

.24

.30

.27

.27

Filler

.29

.31

.36

91

19. a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.
b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. Filler
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person likes you. .27
b. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person
you are.
21. a, In the long run the bad things that happen to us are
balanced by the good ones. .15
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability,
ignorance, laziness, or all three.
22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
2, It is difficult for people to have much control over things
politicians do in office. .23
23. 2, Sometimes I don't understand how teachers arrive at the
grades they give. .26
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study
and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves
what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their
jobs are. Filler
25. 2, Many times I feel that I have little influence over
the things that happen to me. .48
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or
luck plays an important role in my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly.
2, There's not much in trying too hard to please people, if
they like you, they like you. .20
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.
b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. Filler
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.
2, Sometimes I feel I don't have enough control over the
direction my life takes. .24
29. a, Most of the time I can't understand why politicians
behave the way they do. .11
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad

government on a national as well as on a local level.

 

Note:

Score is the total number of underlined choices
(i.e., external items endorsed).

APPENDIX C

INSTRUMENTS FOR THIS STUDY

mhm3H< amumo uo>mz

mNmBH< uo>oz

um>oz moEHumaom

mmaHuoaom omuwo

owuwo ohm3H< uo>mz

mhmaH< uo>oz

Hm>mz mmafiumaom

mmafiuwaom fimuwo

:muwo mkm3H< um>mz

m%m3H< um>mz

uo>mz moEHumaom

moaHumaom nmumo

moaHuoaom ooumo

mmaHumaom comma

moaHuoEom .oaHu :0 upon xuos Hoonom he onuuom mHnsouu o>mn H .HHM

.muo> pHsosm conned m .coNHuHu ooow m on 0H .OH

coumo m>m3H< .uH eunuch oHno3 H .ondaonm
oHHns mwomno none oOu xumn ma o>mw uoHSmmu m «H .m

mhm3H< uo>oz .mUHHoe no 3mH one nuHs mHnsouu pH coon o>m£ H .mm

mmafiuwfibm .me05 HOW 03H“ GO 3“ H .N

.mHnoouu ouoH ma muow u0H>mnmn he .Hoonum oH .ou

souwo mam3H< .mmHuuooou nonuo oH
oHdoma cu wooden: owns moons omouooooo an H .m
mhm3H< uumz .mHHmmmm
oHHnse no muoo>m uomuuoo uoonm ooououooo an H .e
mmEHumaom .HawaHms mm omaoUHHom noonoou H .m«
.oo ou nwsooo m: o>Hm u.omooo wonummu onu
can: as ou mmch .53 on mass 3 on .Hoosom 3 .N

amumo mhm3H< .oopoHamu onon uoonuHa uumum H owns anon H .H

 

pom umuHH unoh

ham dem uoo
muoosoumum osu
wonuoom Hoow mumnuo

.oo mH umSmom ecu NH Ho .oouu uo>oo mH nuance «no HH mmmmm_oHouHo
.mHHn3m oH mono mono mH uomaoumum mnu NH mmmmmmmmm_mHouHo

.oaHu mnu Ho umoa mono mH uaosoumum on» HH.mmmmm.oHuuHo

.uaHu mnu mo HHm mayo mH oomsoumum onu HH.MNmmmM uHouHo

.uH uoonm onHooH umooon
o>Hm umshlluomaoumum sumo usonm NGOH OOu onnu u.:on .hHoHdmu xuos .mauuH
on .monnu mmmnu uoonm Hoom so» so: m3o£m noHna uo3mom may mHouHu mono pom
comm .muwamom moons no uanu on one muonu .mmuwm uoo on mHnood moon .mma

 

one has moo mem mHnomn oaom noHsa no muomaoumum each was when "mnOHuuoan

 

ZCHH<DH<>N mHmm m.QHHmo

92

93

m>m3H< no>oz moEHuoEom omumo

no>oz mmaHuoaom soumo mhm3H<

moaHuoaom dunno ohm3H< no>oz

:wumo mhmaH< nm>oz mmaHumaom
m>m3H< nm>mz moEHumaom omuuo
nm>oz mmaHuoaom ooumo mmm3H<

mmaHumaom amumo m>m3H< nm>oz

omumo mmm3H< nm>oz mmaHuoaom

ohmBH< no>mz moaHuoaom omuwo

no>mz moaHuoaom souwo ohm3H<

moaHuoaom nmuwo mhm3H< no>oz
ooumo mmm3H< no>mz moaHuoaom

whoaHs nm>mz mmaHumaom omumo
no>oz mmaHuoaom oouwo mmm3H<
nm>mz mmaHuoaom omuwo mhm3H<

moEHumEom couwo mhm3H< nm>mz

.mHaoma zuH3
umooos on on mH onnu nomunoasH once one

.ammu m mo onuamo
no doonw m mo nuommH vmuomHm coon m>mn H

.30: 30oz H noon >no> one on H

.mpomnno can
on no nmnHon Boon m we ammono noon m>ms H

.aoon ecu no use oH nonuoou onu sons onxnoa
no om coo 0:3 moonu Ho moo an H .Hoonum oH

.na oxmB H Gena no .moco hHoo poHHmu
cons no HUOHo aanm am nuHa «Hooks an a: now H

.08 so hHmn emu mHnoom

.hoaoa women
H hm3 man soHa poHHmHumm onm muoonmm h:

.Hoonom now mumH am H

.onoomHa osu mo once
on mHeomm nozuo umH H .asonm m oH xnoa H cons

.maHu momma H
.omaoa mnu mesons on On one“ answmn o>m£ H

.NHnHmHos monounu
monn oHdooa nonuo mom H saga ooonmuooo am H

.pmn onon
now HdeooHnn man on noon coon o>m£ H .Hoonum oH

.mnoon Hmnm>om
no« moon mac: waHmmum Ho «Hammad an H

.oommmn
ooow m m>m£ u.coo H coca Hoonom aonm moan hmum H

.NN

.oN

.mN

.eN

.mN

.NN

.HN

.ON

.¢H_

.mHm
.NH.

.oH

.mH

.QHM

.mH

.NHM

94

omuNo ohm3H< no>oz moEHumaom

ohmst no>mz

moEHuoEom omuNo

nm>oz mmaHumEom couNo mam3H<

moaHuoaom oouNo mmm3H< no>mz

omuNo mhm3H< nm>mz moaHumaom

mxm3H< nm>mz moaHumaom amuNo
no>oz mmeHuoaom omuNo mNm3H<
mmEHumaom couNo ohmBH< nm>oz

couNo mmm3H< no>oz mmaHuoaom

mNm3H< no>mz moEHumEow amuNo
nouNo m>m3H< no>oz muaHuoaom

mmm3H< nm>mz moaHumaom couNo
nm>mz moaHuoEom couNo mhm3H<
moEHumaom souNo ohm3H< no>oz

souNo mmm3H< nm>oz mmaHumEom

.osN onm umnu mwcHnu
onoo mnonn monnu hnmmmmuoo on On nonunOQEH m.uH

.50h nON onnuoEom mmov on NH mHao noncwHoo
naom noN meHsumaom on On oHon poow m mH uH

.ocoo on one uH ooh m on on oH monouHa ooozno>o NH

.huHo no oaou mHs
onaHon oaHu oaom woman vHaonm conned mno>m

.monnu ouHommno Ou oxHH H

.ma No onsuosom
muuoexo on cons maov oaoHnN m uoH oHooa H

.NHomha noN xnoa ou mH uH
cmnu ammo onu nON xnos ou oomunonaH onoa m.uH

.omso: man masons mm: H mmcHnu NE
Noam use On 08 ooHamn on m>mn hHHmoms muomnmm A:

.ouo> cu m>mn u.opHp mHnomn pom mGOHuoon
m>m£ u.ooHo m3 NH NNo nmuumn on pHsos hnunooo nso

.moomHnN ha uoHomnmmHo cu m>m£ H sons can HmmN H
.umw mesa um£3 m>nummv «Hmoom

.uao anon mwanu
mos ago do mononoNNHo m moxma ouo> m.oomnod moo

.omoHo one
now: NHosz emmx on pmvoHaon on on m>m£ H

.anma aenn
pHooo H .NUHo owomnum m pH umOH mambo: H NH

.xnoa Na
:mHoHN u.:ov H monsoon monHdaou nonomou NZ

.Nq

.Hc.

.oe

.am

.mm

.Nmm

.om«

.mm.

.qmm
.mm

.Nm«

.HNk

.omm

.mN

.mNm

95

mhm3H< no>oz moaHuoaom :ouNo
nm>mz mmaHumaom :muNo m>m3H<

moaHumaom :wuNo mmm3H< no>mz

:ouNo m%m3H< nm>mz moaHuoEom

mNm3H< nm>oz mmEHumaom :muNo

no>oz mmaHuoaom :ouNo who3H<
moaHuoaom :uuNo ohm3H< no>oz

:oUNo mhm3H< no>mz moaHuoaom
m>m3H< no>mz moaHuoEOm :muNo

nm>oz moaHuoaom :muNo mhm3H<

moaHumaom :muNo mmm3H< no>mz

.vonoom mmnm>mn onm3 mamuH omens.
.onom chu noN onoom Hmuou can :H o003H0:H no: onm3 mamuH omoshe

.mmmon H mm mo:m30HHm he 0:0:m :mu H
.00 on um£3 30:3 HHH3 H .ponofi:H ono3 0:0HnN : NH

.noum3 ovmcnou m mH
onosu 0:: 0:0Ho 080: a: H NH 00 cu ums3 30:3 H

.moo:onoN:oo nonomohlu:mnmm o:muum mu:mnm: h:

.w:0H: mace nouumn 00 cu oxHH H
mw:H£u NH :m3m uH on onum H .00 on ooh : :m>Hw :onz

.uH o>nomop u.:00 hosu :mg3 omsmH::e new :onoHHsu
.Hoonom um muumfiona HmHooam n0N noou:0Ho> H

.30: we 30:: mnmnuo
m>ms :mzu nmzumn NHmmha n0N uao mw:Hnu Mn03 H

.pHo on:
Nona :un3 mu:onma n50» No mnmu oxmu oHsosm so»

.m30:x m:o 0: NH uann HHm NH mumou :0 w:Hu:o£o
.unwam on:

50% NH uH 0v 0» omHo 0:0oaom now On Nnu HHH3 so»
.00 cu monounsm on: 90% w:H:uoaom oxHH u.:0o 50% :mnz

.mms

.Nm

.Hm

.owe

.me
.me«

.Ne

.oe

.nw

.qu

.mqm

96

monw< mmnmmmHn

.Hoonom noN a: now HHH3

 

onmxmn onONon moaHu Hmnm>om oHHno ha HHmo ou m>mn NHHmsm: H .mH«~
monwmmHn mmnw< .:0HuomNmHumm me On mm:0a mowm:ma oHHnu A: .NH
monwmmHn monm: .mmoon mnu 0::0n: manoNno: m:m\o£
mxmmu on» nuHB wou00::0o on no: 0H30£m mo:m30HHm n.0Hch < .HH
monwmmHa mmnw< .owm mnooN Hmnm>mm
mnm3 mono :mnu oHnHm:onmon mmoH on: :manHno mHoa3 man :0 .OH
oonw< monwmmHa .w:H0w on: keno mnmn3 0::
w:Hoo on: :onoHHSU um53 N0 xomnu 000w coax 0u u:muno:aH m.uH .m
monwmmHn mmnw< .n0H m gmH:HN
on no£\aH: now on oHHso he nmuNm hHHmo:Hu:ou on On o>mn H 0:HN H .m«.
oonw< omnwmmHn .ou:m30HH: answon : meow oHHno A: .N
oonm: omnwmmHn .u:munomaH hHoamnuxu mH mo:mo:muum Hoonom .N
oonwmmHn ounw: .munmum on umn3 moan:HN hHHmom: 0HH£0 A: .n«
monwmmHa ounw: .xmmu oHNHoodm m mudeaoo
on w:HHHoN noN oHHao m m:HH:HomHv\£mH::d ou u:munoeaH mH uH .q
oonw< monmmmHn .:manH:u m:HH:HomH0
\SmHoam on hm3 poow m mH mason onu 0:30nm xn03 mnuxo w:H:mem< .m
omnmmmHn monw: .omson man o:=0nm w:H:Hm£ :mnu :onoHHno n0N u:mun0:aH
ends on: .on35 no moHumHnum m: £03m .mmHuH3Huom anooHnnoolmnuxu .N
omnwmmHn omnw< .omoon man 0::onm on On mach anowmn :m>Hm on: :manHno a: .H
.nmnuo some w:HuHam:00
usozuH3 .u:uaou:um 30mm upon: w:HHomN nHmnu ommmmnmwo umon 30Hn3 om:0:mon man oHunHu
on poxmm ono3 mu:onmm .:on0HH:o nHmnu No HH: no: 0HH£0 nosuo:m no: .mu:uaoumum man on
w:Ho:0:mon :mn3 pHHnu Hm00N osu NH:0 0:HB :H o>m£ ou m:0Huo:num:H Hmnno> :o>Hw mnm3 mu:mnmm "muoz

 

oHHno N0 :0HumsHm>m u:onmm

97

.H00:0m EonN :80: w:H%mum noN momsoxm mo:HN :ouNo pHH:0 a:
.Hoo:um u: mH::0nu :H nw:\aH: mumm mHHm:0Hmm000 n0H>m:m: n.0HH:0 N:

.m:0NHuH0 0H:Hm:o:mmn
06000: On :0n0HH:0 w:H:0mmu :H m>HuomNNo mH H00:um nso

.mummnmuaH :30 nHm:u
moons: cu ounN on: :mnoHH:o :m:3 maHu m o: oH:0:m 000:0HH:0

.0HH:0 Na noN pnm: mama: 03H: :0 0Hnmu m:u ou w:Huuou
.HHmu onoo: :m:3 mmwmmmma 0:0:nuHou ma 03H» 0n muownoN pHH:0 a:

.NHHEmN 0:: :H nm:uoa\oNH3 m:u N0 NuHHH:Hm:0:mmn
0:» o: :05: known: 0H00:m :oHumnmnon: Home no 0:: xn3oompom

.aHm: can: on «new an unseen
o:m\m: u:mpHN:oo a.H .huHo ow:mnum m :H umOH 08:00: 0HH:0 NE NH

.huH>Huo: umowmom no: 00
muHsom :0:3 0: on w:H:umaom w:Ho:HN maHu vnm: m o>m: :mnuHH:0 N:

.00HH00 m:Ho: u:0:uH3 H00:0m noN a: snow pHH:0 z:
.:on0HH:0 p00:n0::mHo: nm:u0 :uH3 HHo3 m:0Hm mumw 0HH:0 z:
.mnmmmmom: NH mHmoa :30 mH: unmeun: 0n oH:m mH oHH:u A:

.moHuH>Huom anoannso mnuxo :H moquHoHunm: oHH:u z:
.080: 0:: ovauso w:H:n03 h: hm:0a mnuxm m:nmo hHHm:0Hmmuuo 0HH:0 a:

.0m: memo o:u :mnoHH:0
nm:u0 :m:u mnouma mnoa memo: nmu:wsmp\:om m: %:m 0H:03 H

.mmso: o:u meson:
om:memm mxmmu muoH:300 0n VHH:0 he 0:Hamn 0a 03:: H

.oaHu m u: mnao:
Hono>0m noN NHmmaH: h: zoom on u:mum:aou mH 0HH:0 he HuoN H

.om*.

.mN*_

.wN

.NN
.oNgm

.mNa.

.QN

.mNs

.NNs_
.HNe
.ON
.NH:
.NH:

.NH

.NHs

.NHem

.qHa

98

00nw:0HQ 00nw<
00nw< 00nw:0Hn

00nw< 00nw:0Hn

00nw00Ha 00nm<

00nw< 00nw:0HQ

00nw:mHn 00nw<

00nw< 00nw00Hn

00nw00Ha 00nw<

00nw< 00nw00Hn

00nw< 00nw00Hn

00nw00Hn 00nw<

00nm< 00nw:mHn

00nw< 00nw:0Hn

00nw:0Hn 00nw<

.00n00: 0mn030n 0n03 080uH 000:9.
.0H000 0H:u noN 0n000 : 0u::800 0o 00H:u0u 080uH 0m0:u 3H:o«

.08n0Nn0: 0:0\0: 0:0:u ou 00u:H0n 0H 00::30HH: 0.0HH:0 NZ
.00n:H:H 0n03 0:0HnN : NH 00 on 0::3 30:: 0H:03 0HH:0 N:

.0:0H: 080: NH
:ou:3 00::n0u : No 00:0 :H 00 0a u::3 30:: 0Hoo3 0HH:0 A:

.0n:0 NH00 0:: .008Hu00: .mH:08 noN 0Hn00:0:
n:H:w0n : :0 :0n0HH:o :00: 00 mu:0n:: noN u::un0:8H m.uH

.080H:0n: :30 n0:\0H: w:H3H00 u: 03Huo0NN0 huu0n: 0H 0HH:0 >8 H00N H

.xn03 0n:m n0 00:0: :oaa noN :0
00HH0n 0: 0n w::0> uH: : HHHuo 0n: 00:nw :uNHN 0:u :H :0n0HH:o

.0n:0 0:: 0n:> 0:u 0» w:H:H:un0: :n03 00 0N0:\:08 0::
:n030000: 00 :0803\0HnHw 03:: :0:8 huu0n: HHHum 03 .080: n30 :H

.8H: 0:HH:H00H0\:0H::: HHH3 NHH::u:030 up: 0HH:3 :
noN 0:00:: 003:0H 0HH:0 >8 0m:H:u m:Hno:wH N0 uH::: : 03:: H

.8n0Nn0: 0Hoo:0 mn0:808
hHH80N H::0H3H0:H 0:0“ u::3 u:0:: 00:H:u 03:: 03 .hHH8:N : 0<

.00::30HH: n:H:w0n : w:H3Hw :::u n0:u:n
uH 0000: 0:0\0: 0: 0HH:0 n00 on >0:08 0:0 03H» 0: n0N0n: 08

.:0mn0: w:Hn:0
0 0: 00:Hn0000 0: 0H000 0HH:0 >8 .0NHH n0:\0H: :H u:H0: 0H:u u<

.:n038:0u :00Hu00n: 0:: :H :030HH0: AHH80N n00

.m00:0n0N:00 H00:00 on on H :0:3
>00 00 0:: n0:u:0u 0.0HH:0 m8 0::3 w:Hn:0: 0n 0n:3noN :00H H

.08Hu N0 uoH : :0u0:3 0HH:0 N:

.00

.me«

.Nqs

.H0

.00«

.mm

.mm

.Nm

.om

.mm

.cms

.mm

.Nm

.Hme:

99

 

m c m N H
08H0
03H0:000: 03H0:000: 03H0:000: 03H0:000::H 0:0 N0 0008
8n0> 3HH::0= 8H000n00oz 0: 00 00:08 03H0:000::H

NH00:00 :H 0HH:0 0H:0 0H 03H0:000: 30: .m
H N m 0 m
w:0n3 0:0 0H
:H :0:3 0n0:00 :00: 00:: 0H:HH: 000:0:0 n0N 80HHH:H0
0080H: 8H00H:HN0Q 00 00Hn8 008H0080m 00::8 800H0m I:0:00n 00::8

N0000 0:0 n0 0: 00:3 noN huHHH:H0:0:00n 0::0 0:\0 0000 HH03 30m .0
m n 0 N H

08000H::0n0 8n03 a: 03Hw 0::8 0H::0n0 0H00HH
m:H:08:: N0 00H:0 0H 0H :0:3 :0H 00 0H: : : 0:: 0:\0 8HH000
:H m: 03H» 0.:03 : 00 0:0H0m 00Hsv 00:08 :0:3 :0 003Hu 8n03 :0 003HU
N:0:0 : 0: 00H0n0: 0:\0 0000 HH03 30: .m

H N m e m
0:HH 0H 0:\0 NH00 080:: 00:H0: 000w
00:3 N0 0n:3: 0n000 0:0 30:: 0H00HH:0n NH00 000:: 0H0 0:: 00H::N
1:: 8H000H8800 00 8000 0.:0009 0::3080m 10HH00n thH08 :30 030::

N0:\0 0H 0H00HH00n 30: .N«
n 0 m N H
0:0HH00xm 000w 0w:n03< nH:m noom

“0H 0:08000n0: H:n0:0w 0.0HH:0 0H:0 .:0H:H:0 88 :H .H«

.800H 0::0 noN 0HH:0 0:0 N0 w:H0:n nsoh 00 00:0:00nn00
0::0 00:n:: n0 0n03 0:0 N0 n0:8:: 0:0 00Hn3 .800H :00: N0 0N0H 0:0 00 0:HH 0:0 :0 «0:0H000n00:H

 

ennao no nonsaana>0 nmnuamn

 

100

m

00:0HH0:
10Hna: .0000H:
00 0:0Hx:: 008

H

0n0: 8HH000
8n03 .8:0:08

00:08

N

mnnnxmnnan
.0000:

H

sunaunnnna
0000:wHH0
00 :H0: 0:00m

0
0000H:

00 803
N0 0:0 0000

m
H0n0:00

0000H 008H0
I080: .0Nom

0:03n0z

N

0:00H 30: 00
0:00: 00 30Hm

0:00:0009

m
0000::0n

0H:H0:00
00 000nw<

m

80:0
0Hon0:00 0::
0w:HH00N 0::

H N
03H00H00n 0H00
.8n0n0 00:3 N0 00H:
I:00 :00No 10::0 000:

N0:\0 0H 0::HH:800 30:

N 0

0n:: 00 0n0:
.03H0H0:00:H

00:0NN0
w:H:00: . :w008

N000n0: 0H:0 0H 03H0H0:00:H\03H0H0:00 30:

0

0:08
i00Hox0 n00N:
:300 00H000m

m

0n0:0o 0000n0n
100ww00 0H:
IH0:00 00:08

a

snag

0:000 :0:0
00:00 nnnxm
:30 000:

m N

00x0H0:
N0HH:0 0H:0 0H 0000 00 :0:8.30m

03H000m

0 H

:00H0 0:0 000:00HN:H
:0H3 0NHn0: n0 00H
00 00:08 8HH000 3n0>

nannau 0:80 an mnanxmnn 3o:

m m

:30 :0 :008
8n03 080H:

0:00:0800:H Ion: 00H:008

N:00n0: 0H:0 0H 0:00:0000 30:

.OH

.m«

.N«

101

0000Hm800
800H00 :n03

H
:0 000::00 0:

00 0H:0 002

0n0:00 H0n0:00
00 0000: .8000:

H

00H0H3H000
:H 0n::
00:00 n030z

H
m:Hn:0:: .03H0

1H0:00:H .000n00
1H0:00:H G03

.0H000 0H:0 n0N 0n000 0 00::800 00 00H0000 00: 0n03 0800H 000:8«

N m
000n0000:H

0000H0800 008H00800
:0:3 0:00 0:: 0000HQ800
8HH::0H0 :n03 8HH000: :n03

0

OUQHOUUQ

0:: 0000H:800

8HH000: :n03

m

0000H:800
0803H0
MHH0N 0:0:0H3

N0000H8800 00:08:mH00: 00H0000 0n: :00N0 30:

N m

:0 000::00 0: 0H:00::0000
00 0H:0 800H0m NHH000:
N m

n0000H 0HHH:0 :0H0300

0 w:H0: 00 0000:

:H 000n00:H 0:: w:H000H
0: M03H0008 :H 00000n00:H

0
0H:00::0000

08:3H0 0008H<

m
anpmnnmn
snawnm

800080 0:80 an annannon so:

0

0HHH:0
:H:0n0000H
w:H:0H0300

0000n00:080n

m

:00N0 :H:0
In0000H 03H0
IHmoa 000H30nm

NQH:0n0000H 0.:00n0: 0H:0 000n :08 0H:03_3om

N m
n0000H

:::0 n030HH0N
:00N0 0n08
0:: 003H03:H

UU>HO>§fi
EOUHQm

0

n0000H 0: :0

I00:0 008H00800
003H03:H 8HnH0m

m

n0000H 0 00
:000:0 :00N0
.03H000 8n0>

N00H0H3H000 n0H00Hnn0010n0x0 :H 0:\0 0H 003H03:H 30:

N m
0000: 0n0:00

03H0H0:00:H 00 03H0H0:00:H
:00No 008H0080m

e

0000:
0n0:00 00 03H0
IH0:00 >HH000=

n

Humans:
.000n00H0
3:00 8n0>

N00008000H0 N0 0HH:0 0H:0 0H 000n00H0:00 30:

.NH

.0H

.NH

.NH

.HH

102

Locus of Control Scale

 

Directions: For each number there are two statements.

Please circle 'a' 2; 'b' to show which of the
statements in each pair you most agree with.

 

*5.

o°|0

IU‘

Many unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.

. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.

. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized

no matter how hard he tries.

Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.

Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken

advantage of their opportunities.

Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little

or nothing to do with it.

Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the
right time.

The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.

This world is run by the few people in power, and there is
not much the little guy can do.

. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.

It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things
turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow;

In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to
do with luck.

. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping

a coin.

Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough
to be in the right place first.

Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability,
luck has little or nothing to do with it.

As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are victims
of forces we can neither understand, nor control.

By taking an active part in political and social affairs the
people can control world events.

*10.

11.

*12.

13.

103

Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives
are controlled by accidental happenings.

. There is really no such thing as "luck."

It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are.
Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the
grades they give.

There is a direct connection between how hard I study and

the grades I get.

Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things
that happen to me.

. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays

an important role in my life.

*These items were deleted from the scoring after factor analysis.

_The underlined letter indicates the statement considered to represent
the external locus of control position.

104

.00:H00n0 8H0:H3H0 .:0H000H00:H 00n000 0 0H 8HH80N 0:8 .0 m N H

.:08 n03o
80Hno:0:0 No 0:0H0H00: :H :0803 000H: 00 H0n:0:::: 30:0800 0H 0H .8 m N H

.00Hnn08 0n03 80:0 0n0N0: 0:0H00H0n H0ox00 0:: 03::
80:0 NH :0803 0 noN 000:00n 03:: 00 00000880 0: 00: 0H:0:0 :08 < .o m N H

.80:0 noN 000:00n 000H HHH3 0: 00H0
no .0000n0: 0H: 00 :00: :H00 00 003oHH0 0: n0>00 0Hao:0 0HH:0 0 .m m N H

.:0H0H:80 w:H3Hn0 0 0:0
:0H00:H8n0000 0n: :08 H00n 0 N0 00H0HH000 0::0n088H 0008 0:8 .0 m N H

.0NH3 0 0: 00 0:008 0H 00:3 0:000n00:: 0.:00
00H3n00 0N0Hnn08 0:0 80nN 80:0 0n03 0:0 03080n 00 0:03 0:3 :0803 .m m N H

.0H :0H3 w:H0:08Hn0:x0 :H n0N 000
0w 00 8H0:HH 0n: 80:0 .800 000:: :008 000 0H00 0n: :0n0HH:0 NH .N m N H

.0n00008 8HH80N :H 00:8:0 :H08 0:0 03:: 00 0:»:0 0:0:00:
0:0 0wn0H 0:: 8: 0:: .w:H:0 000w 0 0H 0N0Hnn08 :H 80HH0000 080m .H m N H

nm> Om

G

o H N m
o H N m
o H N m
o H N m
o H N m
o H N m
o H N m
o H N m

z < <w <m>

 

.000H000:0 no H0n0a0z u z

.00nw00Ho + a .00nw: u <

.00nm00H0 8Hm:0n0m I am .00nw: 8Hm:0n0m I :m
.00nw00H0 8Hw:on00 8n0> u :03 .00nw0 8Hw:0n00 8n0> n <03

.30H0: 00:H:H:x0 0:
.800H 00:0 00 00:0:00n n008 0000H0:H 00 800H :000 N0 0:0nN :H n0:8:: 0:0 0H0nHo

 

0H00m 03H000Hn0:0:<\::Hn00Hn0:0:<

"0:0H008n00:H

105

.00n00:000 H0n08
n00 0300 00 w:H0w 0n: 03 NH 0H:00: w:008 :0 n00n0: :300 :00n0 00
030: HHH3 03 00:0 30:0 80HH0n088H H0nx00 0:: 08Hn0 :0 0000N 0:8

.00:0n0: 0H: noN 000:00n 0:0 0000H00nw .030H 000nm
0 H00N 00: 0000 0:3 :00n0: 0 :::0 n030H w:H:08:: 8H0n0: 0H 0n0:8

.:0n0HH:0 n0:0o 0:HH 0n08 0:
00 8H: 00w 0H:0:0 00:0n0: 0H: .803 8:: :H H000::0 0H 0HH:0 : NH

.n0:008 0 00 00H000 n0:
:H 00HH0N 00: 8030n no 80008 HH0 0: 0n: :0n0HH:0 000:3 :0803 0

.NH

.HH

.0H

.m

Qm> Gm

4m

<m>