CONSCEENCE GREENTATEON ANB PANEL? ENEERNC’EEGN :N KARE? ANGLESCENT SONS ‘2"? . " 5: g r m l 4309;: 2'69 ma Deqmo an M1. 9. MICHISAN STATE UNEVEKSITY Jo Anne H. Lifshén 19??) THESIS LIBRARY Michigan State University 7— This is to certify that the thesis entitled CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION AND FAMILY INTERACTION IN EARLY ADOLESCENT BOYS presented by Jo Anne H. Lifshin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ph.D. degree in pSZChOIOgy \yxtvk CM NQ L‘Q‘LCi MAM Major professorl Date March , 1 970 0-169 ABSTRACT CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION AND FAMILY INTERACTION IN EARLY ADOLESCENT BOYS BY Jo Anne H. Lifshin Previous investigations of the relationship between the child's moral judgment and parental behavior have generally yielded ambiguous results or have not supportedsuch a relationship. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964, 1967), however, found consistent relationships between parental disciplinary practices and three forms of conscience orientation which are similar to Kohlberg's (1964) stages of moral judgment. The present research was designed to investigate the relationship between the child's flexible-humanistic, rigid-conventional, or "externalized" conscience orientation and relevant family interaction variables. The subjects fer the research were 18 twelve to fourteen year old boys and their mothers and fathers from Lansing, Michigan, and two communities around Lansing which are socioeconomically heterogeneous. The conscience orientations of 82 boys were assessed from responses to hypothetical stories deve10ped by Hoffman-and Saltzstein (1964, 1968). Difficulties arose in securing the desired samples for the family inter- action assessment. Eight of 13 (62%) intact families of humanistically oriented boys, 9 of 28 (32%) intact families of conventionally oriented boys, and a single family of an "externally" oriented child chose to Jo Anne H. Lifshin participate in the family interaction assessment. The identity of the variables which contributed to the selectivity of participation is unknown. The data analyses were limited to the humanistic and conventional groups because only one subject showed a predominantly "externalized" orientation. The early adolescent boys and their parents participated in family interaction sessions, in which the relevant parental and child variables were assessed, and completed the Attribute Preference Inventory. The families role-played hypothetical situations concerning disobedience, theft, cheating and physical aggression. The response frequencies of the family interaction variables were rated independently by two raters from tape recorded responses. The findings did not directly support the author's expectation of significant differences between the frequencies with which the various family interactions occurred among the humanistic and conventional groups. The humanistic group was expected to elicit information and give expecta- tions with greater frequency than the conventional group, and the con- ventional group was expected to express disappointment and negative feeling more frequently than the humanistic group. Of the 33 variables which were expected to differentiate between the groups, only fathers' expressions of disappointment significantly (.05 level) differentiated between the humanistic and conventional subjects. This finding was in the predicted direction. Significant patterns of correlations dif- ferentiating between the humanistic and conventional groups were not sustained. Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) findings of greater frequency of use of induction and power assertion by humanistic parents than by conventional parents, and greater frequency of use of love withdrawal techniques by conventional parents than by humanistic parents, were not Jo Anne H. Lifshin supported by the data. The present results supported their report of greater flexibility in the humanistic group than in the conventional group. This lack of significant findings may be attributable to sampling problems; the unequal rates of participation of conventional and humanis- tic families may have masked actual differences or otherwise biased the results. Although the response frequencies of the family interaction variables were similar, inspection of the correlations between the family inter- action variables significant at the .05 level revealed both similarities and differences between the groups. The parental roles appear to be differentiated by the consequences of the parent's expression of negative feeling in interaction. Negative feeling expressed by the mother apparently inhibits interaction by the child, while the father's expression of nega- tive feeling was associated with the child's increased requests for infor- mation, including challenging the parent. These differences in parental roles may reflect the importance of the child's perception of the mother as nurturant and the father as the enforcer of societal standards. Interaction in the conventional group appeared to show a restricted, "fact-finding" pattern in contrast to a flexible, feeling-oriented pattern in the humanistic group. The conventional child, whose experience centers primarily around the disciplinary situation per se, may follow parental expectations or reject them. This set of alternatives seems to reduce the possibility of mutual exploration, with his parents, of the implica- tions of deviation or conformity in varying situations. Greater Oppor- tunity exists for the humanistic child to explore the conditions under which deviation is appropriate, and the humanistic parent seems to reinforce his child's experimental exPlorations of the disciplinary area. Jo Anne H. Lifshin The humanistic child may have greater opportunity than the conventional child to utilize his resources in the formation of humanistic moral judgment. The relationships cited suggest that family interaction plays at least an indirect role in conscience orientation, although interaction may be more directly reflected in other dimensions of moral deveIOpment. Jo Ann H. Lifshin References Hoffman, M. L. Personal communication, 1968. Hoffman, M. L., and Saltzstein, H. D. Techniques and processes in moral development. Report of Research, October, 1964, The Merrill-Palmer Institute, Research Grant Reference Number M-2333, National Institute of Mental Health. Hoffman, M. L., and Saltzstein, H. D. Parent discipline and the child's moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 45—57. Kohlberg, L. DeveIOpment of moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, "pp'.""""383-431 . ' CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION AND FAMILY INTERACTION IN EARLY ADOLESCENT BOYS BY Jo Anne HNILifshin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fu1fillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1970 €62.3H 744° ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author expresses her appreciation to Dr. Lucy R. Ferguson for her continued patience, support and guidance as thesis advisor. Appre- ciation is also accorded to Dr. John Hurley, Dr. Albert Rabin, and Dr. William Stellwagen for their valuable suggestions in formulating the thesis problem and in reading the thesis. The author thanks Miss Ida Zektick for her generous contributions in the development of the family interaction variables. I Mr. Tom VanDyke, Principal, Bath Junior High School, Bath, Michigan; Mr. Fred Gable, Principal, Williamston Junior High School, Williamston, Michigan; Mr. Thacker, Executive Office, Boy Scouts of America; and Mr. John Hewitt, Scoutmaster, Meryl Colt Boy Scout Troop; are thanked for their cooperation in obtaining subjects and their interpretation of the project to subject families. The author expresses her appreciation for the willing assistance and spontaneous contributions to the modification of the rating system to the following undergraduate raters: Carl Beysiegel, Ruth Drachler, Barbara Gross, and Bill Kohen. The author especially accords appreciation to those families who participated in the research. Finally, the author wishes to express appreciation to her husband, Arthur Lifshin, whose support greatly enabled the author to complete this final goal of graduate school. ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. II. III. IV. V. INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theoretical Discussion Internalized Versus "Externalized" Conscience Orientations Flexible-Humanistic and Rigid-Conventional Forms of Internalized Conscience Review of Relevant Research Experimental Modification of Moral Judgment Conclusion HYPOTHESES METHODS Pilot Study Subjects Assessment of Conscience Orientation Assessment of Parental and Child Variables from Family Interaction Situations Assessment of Attribute Preferences Analysis of Data RESULTS General Statement Results Relevant to Specific Hypotheses iii vii 13 15 16 18 18 18 20 25 31 32 33 33 fir...”- n: b“... "In L Other Relationships Among Family Interaction Variables Informational Aspects of Family Interaction Negative Responses by the Parents in Family Interaction Differential Involvement in the Disciplinary Encounter Results Relevant to Attribute Preferences Relationships Between Family Interaction Variables and Subject Variables Concluding Remarks VI. DISCUSSION Introductory Statement Predicted Relationships Between Family Interaction and Conscience Orientation Sampling Problems The Role of Negative Feeling in Interaction Group Differences in Disciplinary Interaction Theoretical Considerations Assessment of Conscience Orientation Family Interaction Concluding Statement VII. SUMMARY BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES iv 39 40 46 49 S4 59 60 62 62 62 64 67 68 70 72 73 74 76 80 82 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Reliability of Conscience Orientation Data 2. Distribution of Conscience Orientations 3. Parental and Child Variables Assessed in Interaction Situations 4. Reliability of Parents' Family Interaction Variables 5. Reliability of Children's Family Interaction Variables 6. Comparison of Parental Behavior in Humanistic and Conventional Groups 7. Comparison of the Child's Behavior in Humanistic and Conventional Groups 8. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between the Variables, Parent Elicits Information and Parent Gives Expectations 9. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between the Variables, Parent Explains, and Emphasizes Restora- tion; and Parent Shows Positive Feeling 10. Frequency of Significant (.05 Level) Pearson Product Moment Correlations in the Humanistic Group 11. Frequency of Significant (.05 Level) Pearson Product Moment Correlations in the Conventional Group 12. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' and Fathers' Informational and Related Variables 13. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' and Children's Informational Variables 14. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' and Children's Informational and Related Variables 15. Pearson Preduct Moment Correlations Between Mothers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables and Children's Highly Emotional Responses Page 23 24 28 29 30 35 36 37 38 41 41 42 43 44 47 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables and Children's Highly Emotional ReSponses Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Giving Irrelevant Information and Children's Informational Variables Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables Correlations Between Family Interaction Variables Which Illustrate a Differential Group Approach: Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' and Children's Variables Correlations Between Family Interaction Variables Which Illustrate a Differential Group Approach: Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' and Children's Variables Comparison of Attribute Preferences in Humanistic and Conventional Groups Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Preferred Attributes for a Boy and for a Girl and Parent Gives Alternatives Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Preferred Attributes for a Boy and for a Girl and Parents' Expressions of Positive Feeling vi 47 48 50 50 51 52 54 S6 58 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Form Letter to Parents Requesting Their C00peration B. Subject Variables C. Instruments for the Assessment of Conscience Orientation and Instructions for Administering Them D. Instructions for Rating Conscience Orientation Responses E. Family Interaction Situations and Instructions for Administering Them F. Illustrations of Parental and Child Variables Assessed in Family Interaction Situations G. The Attribute Preference Inventory H. Means and Standard Deviations of Response Frequencies of Family Members in Interaction Situations 1. Correlations Between Family Interaction Variables J. Correlations Between Attribute Preferences and Family Interaction Variables K. Correlations Between Family Interaction Variables and Subject.Variab1es L. Response Frequencies of Family Interaction Variables M. Raw Scores for Attribute Preferences N. Conscience Orientation Scores 0. Raw Scores of Family of "Externalized" Subject vii page 82 83 86 94 100 102 109 111 114 123 129 135 141 145 147 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Although the relationships between parental child-rearing practices and children's moral conduct and emotional concomitants have been subjected to extensive empirical investigation, the relationship between moral judgment and parental practices remains relatively unexplored. The con- cept of moral judgment as advanced by Piaget (1932) has primarily led to research following in the developmental tradition. The object of these studies has been to establish a developmental sequence, and in some instances, to relate deve10pmental sequences to such factors as intelli- . gence quotient, socioeconomic class and peer relationships. Research on relationships between children's moral conduct (i.e., resistance to temptation) and emotional concomitants (i.e., guilt) and parental prac- tices has developed primarily from the theoretical tradition of Freud and later learning theory modifications. A large body of research literature shows specific patterns of relationships between parental practices and conscience development, particularly internalization of conscience contrasted with a moral response based on fear of detection and punishment, or "externalization" of conscience. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964) investigated the relationship between moral judgment and parental reports of disciplinary practices. Rather than utilizing the stages of moral judgment as described by Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964), Hoffman and Saltzstein defined moral judgment in terms of flexible-humanistic, rigid-conventional and "externalized” approaches. These conscience orientations consist of two internalized and one "externalized" orientation. This research is designed to investigate certain relationships between the conscience orientations of early adolescent boys and selected parental variables. The conscience orientation types which will be related to parental variables are: the flexible-humanistic (humanistic), the rigid-conventional (conventional), and the "externalized" types. The quotation marks around the "externalized" form of conscience orientation differentiate this fear-based response from the conscience deriving from the superego in the humanistic and conventional forms. An attempt will be made to determine whether or not relationships exist between conscience orientation as manifested by the child and the content of verbal communication by the parent and the parent's emotional reactions to the child and the other parent. The parental variables which will be assessed have been modified from Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) interview variables. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Theoretical Discussion The investigation of moral judgment gained its impetus from the introduction of cognitive aspects of conscience development as preposed by Piaget (1932). Piaget conceives of the child as advancing in an orderly manner with increasing chronological age from a stage of moral realism in which rules are perceived as fixed, external things to a stage of moral subjectivity in which intent and effect on others is considered, and rules are perceived as instruments of human purpose and values. All children are assumed to progress through these delineated stages. Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) has subjected Piaget's view of moral development to empirical testing and has established six moral orientations at three levels of development. These are: Level I. Permoral Type 1. Punishment and obedience orientation. Type 2. Naive instrumental hedonism. Level II. Morality of Conventional Role~Conformity Type 3. Good-boy morality of maintaining good relations, approval of others. Type 4. Authority maintaining morality. Level III. Morality of Self—Accepted Moral Principles Type S. Morality of contract, of individual rights, and of democratically accepted law. Type 6. Morality of individual principles of conscience. The moral stages, according to Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) are an outgrowth of interaction with others rather than biologically or neurologically determined. The moral judgment manifested by the child may not directly represent introjection or the teaching of the parents. The child, however, must relate his values to a comprehended social order and his own goals as a social being. In reference to his moral stage analysis, Kohlherg considers that an individual predominantly manifests the characteristics of one stage, but may show thinking characteristics of a neighboring stage. Kohlberg further indicates that he does not con- sider judgment to become ”moral" until early adolescence, while morality of conduct develops earlier. Moral judgment appears as one dimension of moral deveIOpment. This predominantly c0gnitive dimension has been approached, with the exception of Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964, 1967) work, from a stage analysis point of View. In contrast to this approach, the psychoanalytic and social learning theories consider conscience to form in the early years, and it ordinarily is not expected to change in any fundamental way throughout life. Piaget's (1932) focus on cognitive aspects of conscience develop- ment does not exclude emotional factors, but Piaget assumes that behavior is consonant with moral judgment. Psychoanalytic theory asserts that conscience develops during the processes of anaclitic identification and identification with the aggres- sor (Fenichel, 1945). By conforming to the standards of the parents, the child is able to resolve his ambivalence toward the parent figures and to retain their love. The forerunners of conscience appear in the pro- cess of anaclitic identification. In this process, the very young child conforms to the socializing expectations of the mother, whom he loves but also hates for her restrictions on his autonomy, to maintain a loving relationship with her. The actual internalization of conscience develops when the child globally incorporates the standards of the same— sex parent to resolve the Oedipal conflict. The child can then maintain a loving relationship with the oppostie sex parent and with the same-sex parent who is loved but is also a hated and feared competitor for the Opposite sex parent's affection. Social learning theory, like psychoanalytic theory, stresses the importance of the early years in the development of conscience. In this view, however, anaclitic identification gains greater prominence, and reinforcement contingencies used by the family and situational differences play a crucial role in the specification of learning conditions. The child need not globally incorporate the same-sex parent's standards; either parent may serve as the controller of resources. Both psycho- analytictheory and social learning theory basically stress conscience as the internalization of societal expectations, partially due to the deveIOpment of social learning theory as a translation of psychoanalytic theory into learning theory terms. Internalized Versus "Externalized" Conscience Orientations Within psychoanalytic theory (Fenichel, 1945), reliance on fear of external detection and punishment indicates a fixation of the individual at the pre—Oedipal stage, manifesting an inadequately developed superego. Thus, when anxiety about external factors rather than superego anxiety controls the individual's moral responses, this individual does not mani- fest a conscience orientation per se. This form of moral response has been explored as an "externalized" conscience orientation, however. The ”externalized” conscience orientation is differentiated from an internalized orientation in which internal behavioral controls are utilized. Those individuals who manifest an internalized conscience maintain their internalized standards regardless of the probability of being caught and punished. The general process of internalization as conceptualized by psychoanalytic and social learning theories has been stated in the preceding section. Two views of the internalization process are preposed in social learning theory. In the operant conditioning model of social learning theory, attention has primarily focused on the role of reinforcement con- tingencies in the internalization of conscience. Bandura and Walters (1964), however, assert that direct reinforcement is not necessary for the acquisition of prosocial responses. Modeling is considered by Bandura and Walters to be at least as effective as direct reinforcement for the acquisition of new responses and inhibition of previously learned responses. The application of the modeling effect to moral judgment as investigated by Bandura and McDonald (1963) will be discussed in a later section. Dollard and Miller (1950) place greater emphasis on the unconscious conflicts that may develop in the acquisition of conscience than do Bandura and Walters. They view what is unconscious as that which cannot be verbalized, as distinguished from the psychoanalytic model. The very young child cannot verbalize anxiety, and thus, his anxieties surrounding the socialization process and development of prosocial responses may appear later as part of a neurotic pattern. According to Dollard and Miller, the primary field for the development of standards lies in toilet training. The child must learn to inhibit a natural response and conform to the parent's expectations. The possibility exists, however, that the parent's responses at this time are characteristic of their disciplinary behavior rather than this period being of primary importance in itself. The primary way in which the pattern for conformity to the parent's standards is established is through the child's desire to conform in order to maintain the parent's love. When the child does not conform, the parent withdraws love and the child must make some restitutive act to regain the lost love. The manner in which the parent obtains conformity from the child is considered by social learning theorists to be the primary determinant of the conscience orientation of the child. Physical punishment without explanation of expectations is related to an "externalized" orientation, while the psychological techniques which rely on reasoning and withdrawal of love are highly related to an internalized conscience orientation. Several explanations for these relationships between parental disci- plinary techniques and conscience orientation have been advanced. Modeling may play an important role because the model presented during the disci- plinary encounter differs.' Allinsmith and Greening (1955) emphasize the possible modeling effects when the parent who uses predominantly physical punishment openly expresses anger and when the parent who relies on psycho— logical discipline controls his anger. Disciplinary techniques cannot be considered in isolation from affective variables. Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) assert that warmth is necessary for love withdrawal to be effective. Hypothetical models for parental behavior developed from factor analyses of parental variables by Becker and Schaefer (Becker, in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) have shown control and affective factors to vary independently, and various combina- tions present very different patterns of parent behavior. Hill (1960) questions Sears, Maccoby and Levin's assertion that con- science is greater with love oriented techniques per se. He stresses the frequency of conflicting sources of reinforcement in the life of the child (primary, secondary and vicarious reinforcement). Hill proposes that the primary factor in psychological discipline as related to internalization may not be the love orientation per se but something related to it. This may be because punishment lasts until symbolic renunciation is made. Physical punishment is over quickly and deprivation spans a fixed period of time, but love withdrawal lasts until the child makes restitution, apologizes, or promises not to repeat the act. Another factor which may be important in the relationship between parental discipline and conscience orientation is the amount of informa- tion communicated. Aronfreed (1961) emphasizes the role of information in providing cognitive and behavioral resources for the child. These resources enable him to examine his actions independently and accept responsibility for them. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964, 1967) found evidence for three conscience orientations and concomitant parental patterns of disciplinary practices. The information communicated is considered by Hoffman and Saltzstein to be greater in the pattern stressing induction rather than love withdrawal per se, which stresses the behavior of the parent. Flexible-Humanistic and Rigid~Conventional Forms of Internalized Conscience The three forms of conscience orientation for which Hoffman and Saltz- stein found evidence were the "externalized" orientation, in which the individual fears detection and punishment by an external source, the flexible— humanistic orientation and the rigid-conventional orientation. The person with a humanistic conscience orientation is primarily concerned with the effects of an act on others and shows empathy toward the individual who has been harmed. The conventional conscience orientation stresses the importance of internalized standards regardless of their implications for others. The similarity between Hoffman and Saltzstein's moral orientations and Kohlberg's (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) levels of moral judgment may be noted. The theoretical views discussed suggest a causal relationship between parental disciplinary practices and the child’s moial development. While emphases on cognitive dimensions and emphases on emotional dimensions of moral development present differing perspectives of the roles of matura- tion and interaction with parents, the parent remains an important influ— ence on the form the conscience of the child will assume. Review of Relevant Research 'Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964, 1967) found consistent relationships between the child's moral development and parental disciplinary practices. These relationships appeared for moral indices of guilt, internal moral judgment, acceptance of responsibility, consideration for other children and identification. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1967) found the use of induc- tion by mothers of middle class children consistently associated with advanced moral development. Induction referred to empathy arousing tech— niques which emphasize the discomfort to others caused by the child's deviant acts. The frequent use of power assertion by the mother was con- sistently associated with weak moral development. Power assertion referred primarily to physical punishment, threats of physical punishment and deprivation. Love withdrawal was infrequently related to the moral indices. Love withdrawal referred to the withdrawal of parental love until restitution 10 was made, with emphasis on the consequences of his behavior for the actor (the child or other person producing these consequences). Few significant correlations were found between the child's moral judgment and the father's disciplinary practices or between lower class children's moral deve10pment and their mothers' reports of their disciplinary practices. Hoffman and Saltzstein's results led to these conclusions about basic cognitive and emotional factors in the disciplinary encounter. Power " -N-d' — assertion is most likely to arouse intense anger and frustrate needs for autonomy. The child may imitate a model of discharge of anger. Induction focuses the child's attention on harm done to others, while both power assertion and love withdrawal compel the child to focus on consequences of his behavior for the actor, usually himself. A high relationship was found between affection and the moral indices, a finding which led the authors to explore the existing behavioral and emotional resources of the child. Theyflespecially emphasized the greater probability of arousal of _empathy through induction techniques. Several differences in disciplinary practices appeared when Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964) compared parents of humanistically and conventionally oriented subjects. The parents of conventionally oriented children more frequently appeared to use love withdrawal, ego attack and guilt induction. Parents of the humanistic group used reasoning and expression of disappoint— ment and utilized some power assertion. These parents made more varied responses and probably presented a model of exPression of anger in an appropriately modulated manner. Parents of conventional subjects appeared to induce greater anxiety, which could result in greater need for impulse control, and avoided following up demands to avoid risking open conflict 11 with the child. When the parents' own moral orientations were assessed, only one moral judgment item differentiated the moral orientations of the humanistic group from the moral orientations of the conventional group. Hoffman (1963) and Kohlberg (1963) have reviewed the literature on - relationships among parental disciplinary practices and internalized and "externalized" conscience orientations. The precise role of parental practices in the development of moral judgment is ambiguous and the data are inconclusive. Findings from investi— gations of these relationships following the Piaget—Kohlberg tradition ’ generally do not support Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964, 1967) findings. Data from MacRae's (1954) investigation of the relationship between moral judgment of five to fourteen year old boys, using Piaget and Lerner type questions, and parental practices were inconclusive. MacRae emphasized the cognitive aspects of the Piaget-Lerner questions in contrast to the emotional aspects of violation of norms. Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) states that the moral orienta- tion of the child does not appear to be dependent on the permissiveness or democracy of the home atmosphere. He states, however, that specific pun— ishment practices may lead to the persistence of a moral ideology of pun- ishment into adolescence or adulthood although they do not appear necessary for the formation of such an ideology. There does appear to be a general consensus from research findings that moral judgment becomes more mature with increasing chronological age, independent of environmental factors. Kohlberg found the premoral form of W...“ moral judgment to decrease with age. Morality of conventional role— ”— y... .. ..——..‘ conformity increased until age thirteen and then stabilized, and morality ‘_f~,__,_1luc_ -1.. - m of self- accepted moral principles continued to increase from thirteen to - v-a—‘uuy sixteen. 12 Turiel's (1966) findings supported Kohlberg's develOpmental continuum. He found that when subjects were eXposed to the content of neighboring developmental stages, they assimilated the next higher stage more readily than a stage two levels higher or a more immature stage. Turiel considered that his findings supported Kohlberg's assertion that attainment of a stage of moral judgment involves a reorganization of the preceding modes of thought and requires integration of the preceding stages. Bandura and McDonald (1963) also found evidence of an increase in subjectivity of moral judgment although they were readily able to modify their subjects' type of moral judgment through modeling. Other deve10pmental research has supported increasing maturity of moral judgment with increasing chronological age (Dembo (1941), Durkin (1959), Grinder (1964), Gump and Kounin (1961)). There is some indication that definite relationships exist between intelligence quotient and socioeconomic class and the development of moral judgment. Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1967) findings of specific relationships between parental practices and moral judgment for their middle class sample but not for their lower class sample have been reported previously. Kaplan (1967) found lower class subjects to show more imma- ture moral judgment and found no support for hypothesized relationships between responses to frustration and moral judgment when socioeconomic class was controlled. Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) found that working class and middle class children moved at different rates through the same stages; middle class children seemed to move faster and farther. Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) reports that the level of moral thought can be clearly distinguished from general intellectual level. He reports that there is a moderate correlation between moral l3 judgment and intelligence quotient (r .31), but there is a high rela- tionship between moral judgment and age when intelligence quotient is controlled (r = .59). Pringle and Edwards (1964), however, found some evidence that brighter children showed discrimination between "right and wrong" in both simple and complex situations while less bright children showed similar discrimination only in relatively clear cut cases. Experimental Modification of Moral Judgment One issue which arises in the discussion of moral judgment is whether or not it is susceptible to experimental manipulation. If an individual's predominant mode of moral judgment can be modified readily through experi- mental manipulation, stages of moral judgment are probably not as clearly demarcated as is accepted in developmental theory. The possibility of experimental modification of moral judgment also increases the range of potential influences on level of moral judgment. Bandura and McDonald (1963) considered that their experimental evi— dence demonstrated that moral judgment is less age specific than implied by Piaget, and that children's moral judgment can be altered or even reversed by manipulation of response reinforcement contingencies and the provision of appropriate social models. One group was exposed to a model using a different stage of moral judgment from the one manifested by the child, and sUbjects were reinforced for imitation. A second group was eXposed to the model only. A third group was reinforced in an operant conditioning paradigm. Reversal from subjective to objective modes of moral judgment appeared as well as the reverse. Modeling alone was as effective as reinforcement with modeling, and both were more effective than operant conditioning alone. 14 Turiel (1966) states that Bandura and McDonald have not established reasonable doubt about Piaget's stage theory of moral development. He criticizes their conclusion on the grounds that they investigated only one dimension of moral judgment theory and modified only specific verbal responses. Turiel concluded that integration of previous stages and reor- ganization do occur when an individual approaches a new stage of moral judgment. A possibility exists that moral judgment as a cognitive dimension is susceptible to experimental manipulation while emotional aspects of moral development are less susceptible to situational modification. Grinder's (1964) data from comparison of response in a "real—life” temptation situa- tion and "moral realism” and "immanent justice” led him to conclude that conscience strength in general increases with chronological age._,Behav— ioral and cognitive dimensions, however, appear to develop independently. Kohlberg (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) states that moral conduct may become stabilized earlier than moral judgment. Ruma and Mosher (1967), however, found stages of moral judgment related to most of their indices of guilt when they attempted to draw together Piaget's concept of moral judgment and measures of guilt derived from psychoanalytic theory. Con- tent analysis of interview data was eSpecially highly related to moral judgment. The majority of research findings support the existence of stages of moral judgment which increase in maturity with increasing chronological age. Trends from analyses of data suggest that moral judgment is not com— pletely independent of behavioral indices of conscience nor of environ— mental influence. From the predominant research literature, however, it it difficult to state with Bandura and McDonald (1963) that moral judgment is a function of reinforcement contingencies and imitation. 15 Conclusion Most of the research reviewed utilized Kohlberg's (in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964) schema of moral judgment. This schema does not directly parallel Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) categorization of forms of conscience orientation which is utilized in this research. Similarities are apparent, but findings may not be directly applicable. The results of the research literature suggest that stages of moral judgment may not be as highly demarcated as Piaget and Kohlberg state nor can moral judg— ment be considered predominantly a function of reinforcement contingencies and modeling effects as social learning theory would propose. Most of the research has utilized only children's or parents' reports. The current study attempts to assess parental behavior in hypothetical situations and to relate this behavior to the child's moral judgment. Further evidence of the existence or absence of a relationship between moral judgment and parental practices should appear when the direct inter- action of the family members is considered. CHAPTER Ill HYPOTHESES Based upon theoretical eXpectations and previous research, one may hypothesize that certain parent and child interaction variables will be significantly correlated and will differentiate between families of boys who are humanistic, conventional or ”externalized" in moral orientation. The following hypotheses may be made: Hypothesis 1: There are significant differences between parents of humanistic, conventional and ”externalized” boys for the following variables: 1 - parent elicits child's View (general, discipline, other individuals) parent gives information and establishes situation 3 - parent gives expectations for child and emphasizes growth 4 - parent shows highly emotional expression of request or expectations 5 - parent explains and emphasizes restoration 6 — parent shows disappOlntment and gives adverse conse- quences to the parent N l 7 — parent gives alternatives 8 - parent uses power assertion 9 - parent shows positive feeling and support 10 - parent rejects and shows negative feeling ll - parent gives irrelevant information or avoids experimental situation Hypothesis 2: Variables l and 3 will be significantly correlated in a positive direction and will show the following pattern when humanis- tic, conventional and "externalized” groups are compared; H > C > E. Hypothesis 3: Variables S and 9 will be significantly correlated in a positive direction and will show the following pattern when humanis~ tic, conventional and ”externalized“ groups are compared: H C 2 E. 16 l7 Hypothesis 4: Variables 4 and 6 will be significantly correlated in a positive direction and will show the following pattern when humanis- tic, conventional and "externalized" groups are compared: C > H > E. Hypothesis 5: Variable 8 will show the following pattern when humanistic, conventional and "externalized" groups are compared: E > C = Hypothesis 6: Variable 10 will show the following pattern when humanistic, conventional and ”externalized” groups are compared: E > C > Variables 2, 7 and 11 showed definite trends in the pilot study. Specific hypotheses are given, however, only for theoretically based pre- dictions about the variables. Hypothesis 7: There are significant differences between humanistic, conventional and "externalized" boys for the following variables: - child requests information - child gives information child expresses moral standards - child gives reasons for deviant behavior - child reflects others' feelings or acknowledges others' pain - child confesses - child denies child suggests discipline or restores situation ~ child refuses to commit self - child minimizes or rationalizes situation mbMNr—o I O‘DWNO" I CHAPTER IV METHODS Pilot Study A pilot study, using 10 twelve to fourteen year old boys and their parents from upper middle class and middle class areas of Lansing, Michigan, was completed prior to the initiation of this study. The families who participated in the pilot study were suggested to the experi- menter by friends and colleagues, and they were contacted informally to obtain their participation in the preliminary part of the research. The pilot data were utilized in illustrating relevant variables and determining procedure. These data indicated that it would be meaningful to initiate the study. Subjects The subjects used in this research were family groups composed of twelve to fourteen year old boys and both of their parents. The boys were students at Bath Junior High School, Bath, Michigan, Williamston Junior High School, Williamston, Michigan, and members of the Meryl Colt Boy Scout Troop. The Bath and Williamston communities are heterOgeneous socio- economically, and a total p0pulation of all boys in one school class could be obtained. The Meryl Colt Boy Scout Tr00p draws its members from a middle to upper middle class area in western Lansing, Michigan. The research was limited to boys to reduce the number of variables to be analyzed. Twelve to fourteen year old boys were selected because moral 18 19 judgment appears relatively stable at that age (Kohlberg, in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964). COOperation was obtained from the principals of the Bath and Wil- liamston Junior High Schools and from the Boy Scout Executive Officer and Scoutmaster of the Meryl Colt Boy Scout Troop. Letters were sent to all families within the potential sample (See Appendix A, p. 82), and those families who did not wish to participate were asked to notify the appropriate personnel of their objections at that time. It was stressed that cooperation was not required because the principals or Boy Scout officials sanctioned the research. Conscience orientation instruments were administered to all eighth grade boys present on one day at the Bath and Williamston Junior High Schools and to members of the Meryl Colt Boy Scout Troop. The conscience orientation instruments were administered by the exPerimenter to the eighth grade boys in a group during a study hall period in their home room at Bath Junior High School. The instruments were similarly administered to the eighth grade boys in a group during a study hall period in the lunchroom at Williamston Junior High School and to the Meryl Colt Boy Scout Troop at a Boy Scout meeting in the gymnasium of the Meryl Colt School. No other adult was present during administration of the instruments at Bath or at Williamston. Adult leaders remained in a remote part of the gymnasium during administration to the Boy Scouts. The experimenter read the instructions and encouraged the boys to follow the printed instructions in their test booklets. Questions about the instructions were answered at that time. The instruments required approximately one hour to com- plete. The data were collected during one session for all subjects except ten boys at Bath JuniOr High School. These boys completed their responses during a second session the following week. 20 Eighty-two usable sets of conscience orientation responses were obtained. These boys had intact families, were within the twelve to fourteen year age limit, and their responses were completed appropriately. Although only two families initially refused to participate in the research, several parents who sanctioned their sons' participation in the assessment of conscience orientation later declined to participate in the family interaction sessions. Only eight intact families of the thirteen (62%) who were contacted from the humanistic group participated. Nine families of conventionally oriented boys of twenty-eight (32%) contacted participated. The one family of the ”externally" oriented child partici- pated in the family interaction sessions. The identity of the variables which resulted in this highly selective participation in the family inter- action phase of the research remains unknown. Each family who participated in the family interaction sessions was paid $5.00 to increase motivation to participate. The distributions of intelligence quotients, fathers' and mothers' occupations and education and ordinal position are presented in Appendix B, pp. 83-85. Intelligence quotients were obtained from the boys' schools and are primarily based upon scores from the group-administered.l Assessment of Conscience Orientation A selected part of a test battery developed by Hoffman and Saltzstein (Hoffman, private communication, 1968; Hoffman and Saltzstein, 1964) was used to assess the conscience orientations of the early adolescent subjects. 1The subjects were paid from All-University Research Grant funds awarded to Dr. Lucy R. Ferguson by Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan). 21 Four moral judgment items used in Hoffman and Saltzstein's 1964 study and two items deve10ped recently by Hoffman were used. Hoffman and Saltzstein consider the crucial indicators of differentiation between the three types of conscience orientation to be choices in moral judgment situations. They, therefore, used only moral judgment items. Nine sen- tence completion items which Hoffman and Saltzstein used for other assess- ment purposes were found to be highly correlated with the patterning of moral judgment items in the pilot study and were, therefore, used for further clarification of conscience orientation. Other instruments from the Hoffman and Saltzstein test battery were excluded after the pilot study because they were not as highly correlated with moral judgment. Permission was obtained from Dr. Hoffman to use the battery of tests. The moral judgment items are hypothetical stories in which one or more transgressions or potential transgressions are presented. The sub- ject is asked to decide which transgression is worse, whether or not the hero should have transgressed and why, or to respond to similar questions. The sentence completion items focus on the child's values and his reactions to his parents. The test booklet used for assessment of conscience orienta- tion, including moral judgment and sentence completion items and instruc- tions for their administration, is shown in Appendix C, pp. 86-93. The questions which accompany the hypothetical moral judgment stories were scored for predominance of "externalized," humanistic or conventional conscience orientation. For detailed instructions for rating moral judgment and sentence com- pletion items, refer to Appendix D, pp. 94-99. The following questions were used as major indicators of conscience orientation: 22 Story 1, questions 1 and 33; Story 11, questions 1 and 6; Story III; Story IV; Story V, question 1; Story VI, question 1. Only the questions listed above were scored; responses to the other ques- tions were used for clarification. This scoring technique follows Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964). Each of the responses to the scored questions was coded as humanistic (H), conventional (C), or "externalized" (E). Humanistic responses referred to those responses which showed humanistic principles such as concern for others' feelings, trust, and flexibility of conventional principles when extenuating circumstances arose. Conventional responses referred to those responses which showed rigid adherence to conventional moral standards. "Externalized" responses referred to those responses which showed concern with the deviant person's chances of being caught and punished. When the responses showed a definite (H), (C), or (E) orientation, three points were assigned for that orientation. The three conscience orientations, however, are not mutually exclusive. When responses showed a predominant orientation and a secondary orientation, two points were assigned for the predominant orientation, and one point was assigned for the secondary orientation. Some responses could not be coded. Sentence completion items were rated in the same manner as the moral judgment items. Items 2, 6 and 7 were not scored because they seldom reflected the conscience orientations of the subjects. Three advanced undergraduate students enrolled in Psychology 490, Special Problems, at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan, were trained by the experimenter to rate conscience orientation responses 23 in the manner described above. The pilot study data were utilized to train raters. Reliability was estimated through comparisons of the ratings of the students and the exPerimenter for six subjects, using the Intraclass _Oprrelation method (Guilford, 1954). The Intraclass Correlation method enables an estimate of the intercorrelations of ratings of §_persons from all possible pairs of raters. The method provides an estimate of the level at which one rater's ratings correlate with those of other raters, and the average intercorrelation for all raters. Responses from boys who could not be included in the final sample because they were older than the selected page limit of fourteen years comprised the data used to estimate reliability. The reliabilities are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Reliability of Conscience Orientation Data i_:-_ - Conscience orientation Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" Reliability for one rater .95 .96 .97 Average reliability of four raters .99 .99 .99 i=6 The responses of each subject in the final sample were rated by two of the undergraduate raters. In view of the high estimate of reliability, the raters reached agreement on items that they coded differently when they rated them independently. The final scores were the result of joint agree- ment reached in collaboration between the two raters. 24 The distribution of the conscience orientations assessed for the 82 boys whose responses were usable is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Distribution of Conscience Orientations l Manner of assessment Total response Number of . ' u ' Moral judgment (Moral judgment 5 bjects and sentence completion) Humanistic Humanistic 10 Humanistic Conventional 5 Predominant conscience Conventional Conventional 53 orientation Conventional Humanistic 10 Conventional "Externalized" 3 "Externalized" "Externalized" l The conscience orientation groups were primarily formed by selecting subjects whose responses consistently showed the greatest discrepancies between their predominant conscience orientation and their expressions of other orientations. The original selection criterion, a consistent prea dominant conscience orientation score which exceeded a subject's expressions of other orientations by a factor of >l—1/2, was modified. Moral judgment is considered to be the primary indicator of conscience orientation (Hoff— man and Saltzstein, 1964), and the moral judgment scores were weighted in 'group selection to increase the size of the groups. Thirteen subjects were selected for the humanistic group, and 28 subjects were selected for the 25 conventional group. Most of these subjects showed predominant conscience orientation scores which exceeded their expressions of other orientations by a factor of >l-l/2 on the moral judgment items. The remaining subjects showed a predominant conscience orientation consistently, and in one case, showed a very high discrepancy between the predominant conscience orienta- tion and secondary orientation for sentence completion and total response scores. The thirteen boys forming the humanistic group were matched with conventional subjects for intelligence quotients, and fathers' and mothers occupations and educations. The conscience orientation scores of the sub- jects whose families participated in the family interaction situations are shown in Appendix N, pp. 145-146. The scores of the family of the "exter- nalized" subject for the various assessment procedures are shown in Appendix 0, pp. 147-149. The data analyses were limited to investigation of the humanistic and conventional groups because only one subject showed an "externalized" orientation. Assessment of Parental and Child Variables from Family Interaction Situations Parental and child variables relevant to the study were assessed from tape recorded responses obtained from standardized situations in which the early adolescent boys interacted with their parents. Five standard hypothetical situations which involved a deviation or a possible deviation were developed to obtain family interaction data. The situations optimally required the family to confront each other and resolve a disciplinary issue. One of the hypothetical situations was used for Hig‘ orienting families to role-playing and was not coded. The four situations which were coded focused on disobedience, theft, cheating, and physical C 26 aggression. Four Situations which were used in the pilot study were rejected because they were either inapprOpriate for the age selected or were regarded as too threatening to parents. The hypothetical situations and instructions for the interaction ses- sions are shown in Appendix E, pp. 100-101. The interaction data were collected from all families in the same Psychological Clinic room over a period of three months. The families' memories were refreshed about the general objectives of the research and the use of tape recordings and observation of the session through the one- way mirror. Family members were asked to wait to ask questions about the research that might influence reSponses until after the session. Most families completed the interaction sessions in about 45 minutes. Inter- action relevant to each hypothetical situation was limited to five minutes since the pilot study results indicated that there was extensive variation in verbosity of families and that the additional productivity of extended discussion was minimal. Families were asked to state that they were finished if they completed role~playing prior to the five minute limit. The standard instructions were read to the family group. These instruc- tions requested the families to say and do as much as possible what they would say and do at home in a similar situation. Interaction between the boy and his parents was initiated. The experimenter remained in the clinic room during role-playing of the warm-up situation to encourage interaction when necessary. After the first situation to be coded was read, the experi— menter went to the observation booth where she observed the interaction. The experimenter returned only to read the three remaining hypothetical situations. At the end of the interaction session, family members completed the Attribute Preference Inventory, and discussion about the session was initiated when it appeared appr0priate. 27 Each statement of the interaction about each hypothetical situation was coded into one of the variables listed below. Statements were usually defined as one sentence, although a compound sentence sometimes included more than one unitary statement. The variables which were scored are shown in Table 3. Illustrations of these variables are shown in Appendix F, pp. 102-108. These variables parallel, to a great extent, the dimensions of induc- tion, love—withdrawal and power assertion. Some of them were drawn from the research literature, and some were developed from exploration of the pilot study data by the experimenter and Miss Ida Zektick, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan). Further modifications were made during training sessions with the undergraduate raters. These modifications included the addition of the variables: parent reflects feeling, parent moralizes and child gives highly emotional response. Two undergraduate students enrolled in Psychology 490, Special Pro- blems, at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan), were trained by the experimenter to code statements into the designated categories. Tape- recorded data from the pilot study were used for training raters. One of the raters, however, was unable to complete the ratings although this was not known until it was too late to obtain another undergraduate rater. The experimenter and one student completed the ratings. Although the experi- menter was familiar with the conscience orientations of the boys, the high reliabilities for the variables seem to indicate that this familiarity influenced the ratings minimally. Reliability was estimated through com- parison of the ratings of the student and eXperimenter for six families, using the Intraclass Correlation method (Guilford, 1954). These reliabili- ties are shown in Tables 4 and 5. 23 Table 3 Parental and Child Variables Assessed in Interaction Situations Family member A Mother and father Child Variable 10 ll 12 13 elicits child s viefr gives information gives eXpectations and emphasizes growth shows highly emotional response explains, emphasizes restoration shows disappointment, adverse consequences for parent gives alternatives uses power aSsertion shows positive feeling shows negative feeling gives irrelevant infor— mation or avoids situa- tion reflects feeling moralizes ‘d 10 11 requests information gives information expresses moral standard gives reasons reflects feeling confesses denies suggests discipline, restores situation refuses to commit self minimizes, rationalizes shows highly emotional reSponse 29 o u.m Hm. mm. oo.H oo.H mcuflamuoz oo.H oo.H oo.fi oo.H mcflfiomm muoufimma oo.H oo.H mm. hm. :ofipmsufim mvfio>m.uo coaumenomcfl ucm>oaonnfi mo>wu am. an. mm. ow. ashamed o>fipeuoe mzoam oo.H oo.H mm. mm. mcfidomm o>uuumoa macaw mm. mm. oo.H oo.~ :Owuuommw Hosea mom: mm. mm. mm. mm. mo>fiuwchouau mo>flo ow. mm. mm. mm. panned Ham moocoswomcou mmnm>um .ucoaucflommwmflv mzogm em. mm. om. no. cofiomnoumou monemmnmao .mcflmamxm we. Hm. oo oo mmcommou Hmcofiooao xasuw: macaw mm. «A. mm. om. gusoau. moafimwgmso paw mnofiuwuoomxo mo>flu mm. om. mm. Hm. :ofiumsuomcw mo>wo om. , em. mm. mm. 3mfl> m.v~wno muflofifim mucosa oz» mo noun» one muouwn ozu mo Hogan oco zufiafiaafiaon 90 Ana a «a o xpwafinufifion nom xuaaanuaflox omwao><. m .H.n .H m ommue>< . . . manuwuw> panama Magoo: moaamfium> cofluownoucH xHfiEam .muconem mo xufiafinwflfiom v 0H nah. 30 o u.m oo.H oo.H omaommon Hmcofluoao xflnmfln mzogw mm. mm. mmuaaanoflumn .moNHchflz oo.H oo.H mfiom.ufleaao ow nonsmom mm. om. :oflumSHHm monoummu .oawaawumwv mumouusm em. mm. moficoo mm. mm. . monmcmcoo on. em. mcfluoom muuoamom Hm. mm. mnemmou mo>wu no. we. uumvcaum fiance mommonmxm mm. om. cofiuoauomnfi mo>fio oo.~ co.~ coauaauomcw «panacea muoumu 03» mo suuaunuufieu ouuho>< .HQ HdH mfio Mom Auwawnflwaom modauwha> m.fiouvawgu moflpefinm> ecuuueaoueH sflfiaam m.aoueflugu mo sofififiaauflmm m 03$ 31 The variables, parent shows highly emotional response, child exPresses moral standard, and child reflects feeling, were drOpped because of their low rating reliabilities. Assessment of Attribute Preferences Each member of the family groups completed the Attribute Preference Inventory (Randolph and Hurley, 1968) independently following the family interaction session. The Attribute Preference Inventory, which required about five minutes to complete, contains ten attributes which are ranked from the most desirable to the least desirable for a boy and for a girl of a certain age. The family members ranked the attributes for a child the same age as the boy who participated in the research. The Attribute Preference Inventory is shown in Appendix G, pp. 109- 110. The predominant attribute preferences, ranging from highly expressive to highly conventional,we11:obtained by summing the rankings for expressive dimensions: curious, assertive and self-reliant, and imaginative and creative; and subtracting the rankings of the conventional dimensions: neat and clean, considerate and cooperative, and respectful toward adults. A subject can obtain a score ranging from +21 if the expressive dimension is fully dominant to -21 if the conventional dimension is fully dominant. The correlations between two forms of the Attribute Preference Inven- tory were shown by Randolph and Hurley (1968) to be significant at the .05 level (£_= .70 for preferences for a boy and r_= .66 for preferences for a girl). The consistency betweentwo forms of the scale and demonstrated validity of the measure indicate that preferred attributes are reliably measured by this scale. 32 Analysis of Data The first step in the analysis of the data from the interaction situa- tions was the computation of.the total frequency of statements for each variable for each family member for each hypothetical situation. These totals represented the mean of the frequencies scored independently by the two raters. The mean range of these total frequencies was typically from 0 to 5. Because of the small total frequencies and the large number of variables, it was decided to sum across situations. To obtain a constant frequency of total response, these data were then converted to percentages of the total frequency for each family member. No significant differences appeared between the total response frequencies of humanistic and conven- tional family members, which indicates that the conversion of data does not mask important differences. The humanistic and conventional groups‘ response frequencies of the family interaction variables and AttributePreference Inventory scores were compared by analysis of variance tests. The §_values from the analysis of variance tests were converted to t_va1ues (Walker and Lev, 1953) for greater convenience in completion of the data analyses. The variables were then correlated, using Pearson Product Moment correlations, to determine existing relationships among them. A factor analysis would have been desirable. A factor analysis was inappr0priate in this case, however, because the small number of subjects and large number of variables yielded an underdetermined matrix. The data were analyzed using the CDC 3600 computer at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan). Analysis of variance and correla- tion programs from the Michigan State University Computer Library were used. CHAPTER V RESULTS General Statement The predicted differences in family interaction of humanistic and conventional subjects were generally unsupported, although some differen- tial patterns of correlations emerged. Certain variables were expected to differentiate primarily between the two internalized groups and the "externalized" group. The absence of an "externalized" group prevented these comparisons. Results Relevantfitp Specific Hypothesesv Hypotheses l and 7: Hypotheses l and 7 predicted significant dif- ferences between the conscience orientation groups for the family inter- action variables. On the basis of the findings, the null hypotheses of no significant differences between the groups could not be rejected. The only variable which significantly differentiated between the humanistic and conventional groups at the .05 level was, father shows disappointment, where conventional fathers exceeded humanistic fathers as was predicted in Hypothesis 4. Only the variable, child requests information, showed a trend (p.< .10) toward differentiation between the groups. Humanistic boys exceeded conventional boys on this variable. These findings provide a very tenuous basis for discussion because they were the only two, of 33 comparisons, which reached or tended toward the determined significance level. 33 34 The findings indicate that the frequencies of these responses were similar for the two groups. All of the family interaction variables were expected to differentiate between the humanistic and conventional groups except for the following: parent eXplains, and emphasizes restoration; parent shows positive feeling; and parent uses power assertion. These variables were expected to differentiate only between "externalized" and internalized subjects, and therefore, similar response frequencies for the humanistic and conventional groups for these variables supported Hypothesis 1. The results of the comparisons between the humanistic and conventional groups for the family interaction variables are shown in Tables 6 and 7. The means and standard deviations of the groups for these variables are shown in Appendix H,1nnlll-113, and the raw scores upon which the statisti- cal tests were based are shown in Appendix L, pp. 135-140. Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 2 predicted a significant positive relation- ship among and significant differences between groups for the variables: parent elicits information, and parent_gives expectations. On the basis of the findings, the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the _groups could not be rejected, and the predicted positive correlation was not confirmed. Neither of these variables differentiated between the humanistic and conventional groups. The only definite relationship between them was a significant negative correlation for fathers in the conventional group. The correlations between these variables are shown in Table 8. Hypothesis 3: A positive relationship between parent explains, and emphasizes restoration; and parent shows positive feeling was predicted in Hypothesis 3. These variables were expected to differentiate only between the internalized and the "externalized" groups, and the lack of 35 Table 6 Comparison of Parental Behavior in Humanistic and Conventional Groups Mother Father Variable t_value t_va1ue Parent elicits child's view 0.35 0.89 gives information 0.53 1.18 gives expectations and emphasizes growth 0.45 0.79 explains, emphasizes restoration 0.26 0.17 shows disappointment, adverse consequences to parent 0.94 1.91* gives alternatives 0.88 0.71 uses power assertion 1.55 0.10 shows positive feeling 0.85 0.14 shows negative feeling 0.17 0.32 ‘gives irrelevant information or avoids situation 1.06 1.10 reflects feeling 0,24 1.17 moralizes . 1.03 0.36 _f §_= 8 for humanistic group and M_= 9 for conventional group. * p.< .05. 36 Table 7 Comparison of the Child's Behavior in Humanistic and Conventional Groups Child Variable r—~—————— t_value Child requests information 1.94 gives information 0.87 _gives reasons 1.04 confesses 0.14 denies 1.59 suggests discipline, restores situation 0.80 refuses to commit self 0.44 minimizes, rationalizes 0.96 shows a highly emotional response 0.66 §.= 8 for humanistic group and §.= 9 for conven- tional group. Table 8 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between the Variables, Parent Elicits Information and Parent Gives Expectations Parent elicits information Mother Father Ha cb Ha Cb Mother «08 27 27 -29 Parent gives expectations Father 33 -27 -37 -90** :Humanistic group. Conventional group. §.= 8 in humanistic group “p < .01. and N = 9 in conventional group. 38 significant differences between humanistic and conventional groups is in accordance with Hypothesis 3. The significant correlation between father explains, and emphasizes restoration; and mother shows positive feeling in the humanistic group supported Hypothesis 3. The correlations between these variables were predominantly positive in the humanistic group, but most of the correlations were too low to draw definite conclusions from them. The variables seemed independent in the conventional group. The correlations between these variables are shown in Table 9. Table 9 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between the Variables, Parent Explains, and Emphasizes Restoration; and Parent Shows Positive Feeling Parent explains and emphasizes restoration Mother Father Ha cb Ha Cb Mother 08 00 65* -01 Parent shows positive feeling Father 21 -42 18 -04 aHumanistic group. Conventional group. §_= 8 in humanistic group and §_= 9 in conventional group. *p_< .05. Hypothesis 4: Hypothesis 4, which predicted a positive relationship between parent gives a highly emotional response, and parent shows disappoint- ment, and significant differences between groups for these variables, was only partially testable. The low rating reliability of the variable, parent 39 gives a highly emotional response, prevented valid correlations of the two variables. The data supported the hypothesized differentiation between groups for father shows disappointment, and the null hypothesis of no signi- ficant difference between the groups was rejected. The data did not support the hypothesized differentiation for mother shows disappointment, however, and the null hypothesis could not be rejected for this comparison. The finding of greater frequency of disappointment responses by conventional fathers was the only significant finding among several comparisons. Hypothesis 5: Hypothesis 5 predicted that the variable, parent gives alternatives, would differentiate between the internalized and "externalized” ,groups. The lack of significant differentiation between humanistic and con- ventional groups for this variable is, therefore, in accordance with Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6: Hypothesis 6 predicted significant differences between ,groups for the variable, parent rejects, and shows negative feeling. The null hypothesis of no significant difference between the groups could not be rejected on the basis of the data. The response frequencies of rejection and negative feeling were similar for both mothers and fathers in the two . groups. Other Relationships Among Family Interaction Variables Several correlations between variables for which specific hypotheses were not formulated were significant at the .05 level. These relationships, which focused on informational-aspects of interaction, parents' negative responses, and the flexibility of the child's involvement in the disciplinary process, are reported in the following sections. The correlations between all family interaction variables are shown in Appendix I, pp. 114-122. 40 Although there were few significant correlations, more were obtained than would be eXpected by chance. A tabulation of these correlations is shown in Tables 10 and 11. It can be seen from Tables 10 and 11 that in all cases except the child-child and father-father correlations in the humanistic group, the number of significant values was equal to or greater than 5% of the total. Five per cent of the correlations would be expected to be significant by chance alone in accordance with the .05 probability significance level used. The significant correlations formed different clusters in the two groups. This indicates that there are some differences in the patterns of interaction of humanistic and conventional families in hypothetical disci- plinary situations, although the actual frequencies of responses do not differ and no predicted relationships were found. The small number of significant correlations, however, requires that the inferences drawn from these relationships must remain tentative. Informational Aspects of Family Interaction The informational aspects of family interaction formed one of the central clusters which differentiated between the humanistic and conventional groups. The correlations which are included in this cluster are all possible correlations between eliciting information and giving information, and those correlations between informational variables and other variables which were significant at the .05 level in at least one of the groups. Eliciting information and giving information were significantly correlated for one family member and between family members in several cases. The correlations of informational variables are shown in Tables 12 through 14. Differences appeared between the groups, and between the mother—child relationship and the father-child relationship. Greater similarity appears 0 cm m c moH o «H on mH oHHnu NH 00 w o eeH m nonumm w co m Macao: Hemonacme mam m.u . HemonHcmHm mum m.“ osmonchHm m.m. m.u . . pcoonHcmHm unmonHcmHm - unmonHcmHm w Hooch . w Hmpoe . s HmpOH mo nonasz mo Honesz mo honasz yogic: eHHau assume assoc: aHHaaa Rename xHHamw macho HmCOHuco>cou may CH mcoHanoaaou peoEoz uospoad someone Hwo>oH mc.v HemonHcme mo Hucosvonm HH oHQmH 1 4. m on H m moH m m on w vHng m we H w weH HH museum m co m Hague: II mom . III mum . v . ‘4 ll m—IHI unmoHMHcmHm “w“ ucuoHMHeuHm u:MUHmHemHm MW“ ueuonHanm pcmoHWHcmHm MW“ pamonchHm * H H mo nonesz w H a mo Honadz a H a mo Honasz noose: eHHeu become Hosea: xHHaua menses xHHsmm “NWT. H" .Ill NW ran bl ,HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH macaw oHpmHemsdm on» :H m=0HpmHoHHou ecoEoz pooponm eompmom HHo>mH mo.v HemonHcmHm mo xoeosconm OH QHQMH Table 12 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' and Fathers' Informational and Related Variables Fathers' variables Mothers' variables E1}C1ts Gives . Gives child's . . irrelevant . information . . View information Ha cb Ha Cb Ha Cb Elicits child's view 53 24 ~82* 44 Gives information -56 ~10 73* -15 -10 85** Conventional group. _.= 8 in humanistic group and H_= 9 in conventional group. *p_< .05. **p < .01. :Humanistic group. N 43 Table 15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' and Children's Informational Variables Children's variables Requests Gives Mothers' variables information information Ha Cb Ha Cb Elicits child's view ~67 ~76* ~13 74* Gives information 22 82** 42 ~63 aHumanistic group. Conventional group. §_= 8 in humanistic group and H.= 9 in conventional group. *p'< .05. **E < .01. 44 Table 14 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Informational and Related Variables and Children's Children's variables Suggests . Requests Gives discipline Refuses to i , Fathers variables information information restores commit self situation Ha Cb Ha Cb Ha Cb Ha Cb Elicits child's view ~75* ~05 ~01 ~40 29 67* 21 73* Gives information 76* ~27 21 45 Shows negative feeling 51 76* 17 ~70* Gives irrelevant information 60 98** aHumanistic group. Conventional group. N = 8 for humanistic group and H_= 9 for conventional group. 7' < .05. **p_ < .01. 45 between the information responses of mothers and fathers in the humanistic group than in the conventional group. Mothers' and fathers' eliciting information is positively related, and their giving information is posi- tively related. Mothers' eliciting information, however, is negatively related to fathers' giving information, and fathers' eliciting information is negatively related to mothers' giving information. There are similari- ties in the mother—child and father~child correlations in the humanistic group, although these relationships were not significant in most cases. Major differences appeared between the mother-child and father-child relationships in the conventional group. The mother's eliciting informa- tion is negatively related to the child's requesting information, and positively related to the child's giving information. Her giving informa- tion is positively related to the child's eliciting information and nega- tively related to his giving information. With the exception of the eliciting information-requesting information correlation, these relation— ships are reversed for the father-child relationship. More definite relationships between information variables appeared for mothers and sons in the conventional group and for fathers and sons in the humanistic group. For mothers and sons in the conventional group, there is a definite pattern of a positive relationship between eliciting information and giving information. For fathers and sons in the humanistic group, the father's eliciting information and the child's requests for information are significantly positively related to the child's requests for information. Within the conventnioal group, however, the son's information responses were more strongly related to the father's negative feeling and giving irrelevant information than to giving and eliciting relevant information. The father's information responses were more strongly related to the child's suggestion 46 of discipline and refusal to commit himself than to the child's informa- tion responses in the conventional group. It may be noted that the father's giving irrelevant information was significantly positively related to the mother's_giving infermation in the conventional group, while in the humanis- tic group, the mother's giving infOrmation was related to the father's giving relevant information. Hggative_Re§ponses by the Parents in Family Interaction Parental rejection and negative feeling is central to the second clus- ter of significant correlations. The correlations which are included in this cluster are primarily those which showed significant (.05 level) rela- tionships between negative feeling and other family interaction variables for one parent in at least one group. In a few cases, nonsignificant corre~ lations between variables which were both significantly related to negative feeling are shown. These correlations are shown in Tables 15 through 17. The variables, mother rejects and shows negative feeling, mother gives irrelevant information, and mother moralizes, were all highly positively related to child gives a highly emotional response in both groups. In most cases, these relationships were significant. The fathers' similar responses were, with the exception of father moralizes, positively related to child .gives a highly emotional response. The only significant correlation in this set was between father gives irrelevant information and child gives a highly emotional response. The father's negative feeling and irrelevant information were more highly correlated with the child's information responses than with the child's highly emotional reSponses. The variables, mother shows negative feeling, mother gives irrelevant information and mother moralizes, are all positively correlated in both 4/ Table 15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables and Children's Highly Emotional Responses m —=: if 1:):— Children's highly emotional responses Mothers' variables ~ ~—— Humanistic group Conventional group Shows negative feeling 96** 86** Gives irrelevant information 86** 95** Moralizes 71* 50 H_= 8 for humanistic group and H_= 9 for conventional group. *p_< .05. * < .01. Table 16 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables and Children's Highly Emotional ReSponses —:—_ L Children's highly emotional reSponses Fathers' variables ‘ Humanistic group Conventional group Shows negative feeling 43 60 Gives irrelevant information 90** 46 Moralizes ~13 50 y- = **E 8 for humanistic group and H_= 9 for conventional group. < .01. 48 Table 17 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Giving Irrelevant Information and Children's Informational Variables —~—‘ ———: ‘1— v Children's variables Fathers' variables Requests information Gives information Ha Cb Ha Cb Shows negative feeling 51 76* 17 ~70* Gives irrelevant information 60 98** :Humanistic group. Conventional group. H_= 8 for humanistic group and §_= 9 for conventional group. *p_< .05, **p < .01. 49 groups. The relationships are more ambiguous for the fathers. These cor- relations are shown in Tables 18 and 19. Differential Invoiygmpnt in the Disciplinary Encounter The clusters of significant correlations for the humanistic and con- ventional groups indicate that parental responses elicit different child responses or child responses elicit different parental responses in the groups. These differences appear although both groups use the same responses with equal frequency in their approaches to disciplinary situations. The clusters of significant correlations in the information area show differ- ences between the two groups. The parental negative feeling cluster, how~ ever, was similar for both groups. The manner in which certain parental approach responses are related to child responses shows different patterns of relationships in the groups. The correlations illustrating these rela— tionships primarily include those which were significant (.05 level) in at least one group. In two cases, correlations were included which showed trends toward significance (p_< .10) in one group which were highly dis- crepant from the correlations in the other group. These correlations are shown in Tables 20 and 21. The configuration of the significant relationships between mothers' and children's reSponses seems to indicate a "fact-finding" approach to the disciplinary situation in the conventional group. The mother's requests for information and giving of alternatives are positively related to the (child's giving information. In the humanistic group, a trend appears for a positive relationship between maternal requests for information and child gives reasons. The conventional mother's giving of information is posi- tively related to the child's requests for information and minimization of the situation. The mother's power assertion is also positively related to 50 Table 18 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Mothers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables Humanistic group Variable Variable + . Gives Shows negative irrelevant Moralizes feeling . . information Shows negative feeling -- 74* 84** ngzentional Gives irrelevant g p information 76* -- 37 Moralizes 47 41 —- §_= 8 for humanistic group and 5.: 9 for conventional group. *p_< .05. "P. < .01 . Table 19 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Fathers' Negative Feeling and Related Variables Humanistic group Variable Variable *. v . Gives Shows negative irrelevant Moralizes feeling . . - information Shows negative Conventional feeling -’ 12 47 group Gives irrelevant information 74* -- -18 Moralizes 40 ~03 -- §’= 8 for humanistic group and §_= 9 for conventional group. * p_< .05. 51 .Ho. V.N«« _ .l .mo. v.NW .msoum Hmcofluco>coo How m u 2 use macaw ofipmwcmssn now w u z .mbonu Hmcowuco>sou .msoum uflumflemasmm i«vm mm- me- stew mcfifloom muooamom as- ice ma no i meuflmom o>mpflmoa macaw ..Nm em- ion mm- eompnumma eased mom: ten mo- mo>fipmcuopam mo>wu «me man umoauewommmmwn macaw item no- . mammamxm inn- tom mcofluuuooQXo mo>fiu aimm om- mo- tmm i «mm mm coaumanomcw mo>flu ov- me see man h 3ofl> m.vawnu muwuaam no a: no a: no a: 40 am no i m: gym a: . no a: S i 5 e f . m n n $3” _m.u m n. u .m .m meagmwum> .muonuoz 8.1 S 5.1 S o e t s.t W 2 m a. t a an a s r a .. a .m 0 8.1 6.1 O a e S S m w m .1.1 u m 2.C.t u .1 e e O u 0 n.t f. apc.q.+. n v v.r air .1 a e O u..1 e .1 e .1 .1 n e n Mur. punt “a.a rls nu nu nu.i., .K.i 8335, 35.635 moflnmwnm> m.:onvaflsu can .mnoguoz noozuom mcofiumfimuuou Macao: Hammond command ugomonmm< macho Hmfiuaouommfio < oumupmaaflH coax: moanmfium> coauomuoucH xafiswm coozuom mcoflumfionuou ON 0238 52 .msouw Hmcoflwam>coo How a .m use macaw aflumfiqmas: How m n 2 .HO. v “.3. .mo. v.mi .msoum Hanowuco>cou moanmfinm> m.couvflflno .msoum ufipmfiqmeazm eon e«om , mm>flumcnoufim mo>wu _ . mo ..ow memaamxm mm- ion eOMumsnomcfl mm>flu «mm am the mm mo- imp- 3oH> m.vfifisu muflufiam nu a: no «I no «x no a: no a: a r. . n :2 0...... e m awn _t % s.m s m s.t wofinmfium> .muozumm 28 S tlei ta .1“. 8t Sprt 5 5m m0 5.1 8.108 e e .1.1 u m E.c t u .1 u 0 nt f 0585?. n 0.2.. .1a- 90 “418.1 9 en Mur. _K c no.6 r S no .R.1 moflnmmua> m.eouefiueu eem .mnonpmm coozuom mcofipmamnuou unmaoz poscoam comamom ugquHmm< macho Hmwpcohommfia < oumnumSHHH seas: moanmfinm> cofiuomnoch Aaflamm :oozpmm mcoflpmaonhou Hm QHQMH 53 the child's requests for information and minimization in the conventional 'group, but is not significantly relatedto any child variable in the human— istic group. The mother's explanation and emphasis on restoration in the conventional group is related to the child's suggestion of discipline. This relationship does not appear in the humanistic group. In the humanistic group, the child's information responses are more related to the mother's feeling re5ponses than to direct, authoritative responses, and the interaction seems to be a more subtle one. The child's _giving of information in the humanistic group is positively related to the mother's positive feeling and reflection of feeling, although the mother's positive feeling and the child's giving information are not significantly correlated. This pattern differs from the relationship between the child's giving information and maternal requests for information and giving alterna- tives in the conventional group, The child's refusal to commit himself is positively related to the mother's reflection of feeling in the conventional group. The child's denial in the humanistic group is positively related to maternal giving of information and positive feeling, while in the conven- tional group, this child response is related to maternal disappointment. The child's minimization in the humanistic group is related to mother's giving expectations, while it is related to mother's giving information and power assertion in the conventional group. These findings did not appear for the father—son relationships. The conventional fathers' requests for information, however, were positively related to the child's suggestion of discipline and refusal to commit him- self. These findings tend to appear within the "fact-finding" framework of the mother-child relationship within the conventional group. The relation- ships among the father~son responses in the humanistic group do not contra- dict the configuration of the mother-son relationships, although they do 54 not provide direct support for it. The "fact-finding" pattern does not appear in the humanistic father-son relationships. The father's giving of information is positively related to the child's requests for information. His explanations and emphases on restoration are positively related to the child's denial, and his giving of alternatives is related to the child's minimization. Some similarities appear between the conventional mother-son relationships and the humanistic father—son relationship, but these simi- larities are based on minimal data. Results Relevant to Attribute Preferences The Attribute Preference Inventory, which assesses individuals' pre- ferences for predominantly expressive or predominantly conventional characteristics of children, was expected to differentiate between human- istic and conventional groups. No significant differences appeared between the two groups for mothers', fathers' or boys' attribute preferences as is shown in Table 22. Table 22 Comparison of Attribute Preferences in Humanistic and Conventional Groups Attribute preferences Attribute Preferences Family member forfia boy fl“ for a girl .F. value §_ value Mother 0.98 0.09 Father 0.01 0.01 Child 0.95 0.00 1 f §'= 8 for humanistic group and §.= 9 for conventional group. 55 The correlations between the Attribute Preference Inventory scores and the family interaction variables are shown in Appendix J, pp.123-128. The attribute preference scores are shown in Appendix M, pp.l4l ~144. Positive correlations are indicative of high expressive attribute preference scores when the frequency of the relevant family interaction variable is high. Negative correlations are indicative of high conventional attribute pre- ference scores when the frequency of the relevant family interaction variable is high. In the humanistic group, 4% (4 of 99) of the correlations between family interaction variables and attribute preferences for a boy were significant, and 5%(5 of 99) of the correlations between family interaction variables and attribute preferences for a girl were significant. In the conventional group, only 2% (2 of 99) of the correlations between family interaction variables and attribute preferences for a boy were significant, and 2% (2 of 99) of the correlations between family interaction variables and attribute preferences for a girl were significant. The small number of significant (.05 level) correlations between preferred attributes and family interaction variables requires that any conclusions about them must remain tentative. More than half of the significant correlations emerged between pre- ferred attributes and mothers' expressions of positive feeling and parental exPressions of alternatives. The frequency with which these interaction responses were significantly related to preferred attributes suggests that these findings are nonrandom. The correlations between fathers' and mothers' giving alternatives and preferred attributes are shown in Table 23. 56 Table 23 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Preferred Attributes for a Boy and for a Girl and Parent Gives Alternatives Variable f Preferred attributes —w— r Humanistic group Conventional group —v Mother Father Child Mother Father Child Mother gives alternatives Father gives alternatives 85** (86**)a 32 (46) —29 (-17) -41 (-41) -23 {—02) -08 (-29) 63 (75*) ' 37 (52) -31 (-30) 41 (28) -05 (-22) 04 (05) aBracketed items refer to preferences for a girl. *E< .05. **p < .01. The correlations between parents' expressions of alternatives and pre— ferred attributes lend support to the differential patterning of correlations found among family interaction variables. Differential consequences of expressions of alternatives by humanistic and conventional parents appear to be related to their expressive or conventional attribute preferences. The similarities found between humanistic mothers' and fathers' patterning of correlations among family interaction variables emerged for the correla— tions between eXpressions of alternatives and preferred attributes. In the conventional group, mothers and fathers differed. In the humanistic group, mothers' eXpressions of alternatives were significantly positively related only to fathers' giving alternatives. Fathers' giving alternatives was also significantly positively related to mothers' giving expectations and children's minimization of the situation. The expressive or conventional nature of family interaction is not explicit in these correlations. 57 In the conventional group, mothers' eXpressions of alternatives had a higher relationship to their conventional preferences than to their eXpressive preferences. These correlations were moderate (r_= ~41). Fathers' expressions of alternatives were related to mothers' expressive preferences (£_= 41 for preferences for a boy and r_= 28 for preferences for a girl). In the conventional group, the ”fact-finding” pattern which emerged in family interaction included giving of alternatives. Mothers' expressions of alternatives were significantly positively related to their requests for information and to fathers' and children's giving information, and negatively related to fathers' expressions of negative feeling. Reflec- tion of feeling was significantly positively related to expressions of alternatives by fathers in the conventional group. The "fact-finding" pattern of interaction is consistent with conventional preferences, although the correlations between giving alternatives and preferred attributes did not achieve significance in the conventional group. The relationship between expressive preferences and giving alternatives in the humanistic group may indicate that expressive preferences are consistent with a flexible approach. The consequences of giving alternatives appear to differ in the two groups. In the humanistic group, the eXpreSSions of alternatives may encourage the child to view expressive characteristics positively, or the mother's positive view of expressive characteristics may enable her to give alternatives within a framework of exploratory exPression by the child. Alternatives may be viewed within a more rigid framework in which the child is restricted to parentally determined alternative forms of behavior in the conventional group. The correlations between mothers' and fathers' expressions of positive feeling and preferred attributes are shown in Table 24. 58 Table 24 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between Preferred Attributes for a Boy and for a Girl and Parents' Expressions of Positive Feeling Preferred attributes Variable Humanistic group Conventional group Mother Father Child Mother Father Child Mother shows positive a feeling —28 (-44) ~52 (-60) S9 (19) 69* (67*) 68* (SS) 53 (70*) Father shows positive feeling -13 (00) -O4 (-12) S7 (34) 03 (04) -OS (18) 39 (24) aBracketed items refer to preferences for a girl. *p_< .05. **p < .01. The correlations between mothers' expressions of positive feeling and preferred attributes appear to be isolated from the interrelationships between the family interaction variables. Mothers' eXpressions of posi— tive feeling were not significantly correlated with any other family inter- action variable. The finding that expressive preferences are related to expressions of positive feeling in the conventional group, but not in the humanistic group, warrants further study. An investigation of this phe- nomenon may be especially fruitful in clarifying the consequences of parental expressions of emotion for child behavior. There is a suggestion that both mothers' and fathers' expressions of positive feeling are related to the children's expressive preferences in both groups. These findings suggest that preferred attributes are not independ- ent of family interaction. The results suggest that further investigation 59 of the relationship between the parents' emotional responses and conse- quences of these responses for children's behaviors and preferred charac- teristics would be fruitful. Relationships Between Family Interaction Variables and Subject Variables The correlations between family interaction variables and subject variables are presented in Appendix K, pp. 129-134. The following findings are of interest. The child's highly emotional reSponse and mothers' and fathers' giving irrelevant information were all significantly (.05 level) positively related to fathers' occupations in the humanistic group. When the father's occupation tended toward the professional end of the continuum, the response frequencies of these variables were high, and lower reSponse frequencies were associated with less skilled occupations. I The following family interaction variables were significantly posi- tively correlated with the child's ordinal position in the humanistic group: mother gives alternatives, father gives alternatives, father reflects feeling, and child minimizes. In the conventional group, trends in the positive direction appeared for the relationships between ordinal position, and mother gives alternatives and child minimizes. Trends in the negative direction appeared in the conventional group for father gives alternatives and father reflects feeling and ordinal position. Ordinal position and the variable, father gives information, were significantly positively related in the conventional group. A trend in the negative direction appeared for this relationship in the humanistic group. The positive cor- relations indicate that the response frequencies of the relevant variables increase as the child's position in the family changes from first born to youngest in the family. 60 Mother's education was significantly positively related to child's suggestion of discipline for the humanistic group, and to mother's posi- tive feeling and father's reflection of feeling for the conventional group. The positive correlations indicate that more advanced educational status by the mother is associated with higher reSponse frequencies of the rele- vant variables. Less advanced educational status by the mother was asso- ciated with lower response frequencies. The child's intelligence quotient was significantly negatively related to the mother's giving alternatives for the humanistic group. The preceding report of the significant correlations between subject variables and family interaction variables indicates that the expression of certain family interaction responses is probably associated with demo- graphic factors. The large number (21%) of significant correlations between family interaction variables and ordinal position suggests that parents use differing responses with children who occupy different positions in the family, and that children in differing positions in the family use differing responses. This demographic variable was not controlled in this study, but the findings suggest that the relationship between ordinal position and family interaction would be a fruitful area for further research. The family interaction variables which were related to father's occupation all appeared in the parental negative feeling cluster, and the findings suggest that these relationships may be affected by the occupational status of the father. Concluding‘Remarks The results showed an absence of significant findings between the fre- quencies with which the various family interactions occurred among the humanistic and conventional groups. The predicted relationships were 61 _generally unsupported. In some cases, the predictions were untestable because of the absence of an "externalized" group. Some clusters of significant relationships appeared from inspection of the correlations between the family interaction variables. These clusters indicated that the informational aspects of interaction and the areas of involvement of the family members in the disciplinary situation were differently patterned in the groups. The consequences of expressions of negative feeling are similar for mothers of both groups and for fathers of both groups, although the child's pattern of response differs for mother's and father's expres- sions of negative feeling. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Introductory,Statement The data do not appear to differentiate distinctly between the inter- action characteristics of humanistically and conventionally oriented families. It can be concluded from these findings that conscience orienta- tion, as defined, isindependent of family interaction. This conclusion, however, appears to be unwarranted in view of the differences in correla- tions between the humanistic and conventional grOups. Although these dif- ferences were limited in number, they were related to previous research and formed specific patterns. The humanistic child appears to be involved differently in the family interaction than does the conventional child. A "fact-finding" type of interaction appears in the conventional group, whereas in the humanistic group, the interaction appears to be more subtle and involves feeling responses. Similar patterns do appear, however, for the use of the parent's negative responses in the two groups. Although both groups appeared to use a predominantly psychological approach to the dis- ciplinary situation, there appear to be possibilities of differential reinforcement contingencies or authority patterns in the family. Predicted Relationships Between Family Interaction and Conscience Orientation The data indicate that the relationship between family interaction and conscience orientation is more complex than originally predicted. The response frequencies of the family interaction variables did not differentiate 62 63 between the groups. Several factors may account for this lack of dif- ferentiation. These factors will be discussed in detail later in the chapter. It is probable that the response frequencies of the relevant variables are similar for families who use psychological disciplinary techniques. Some parental responses, however, may elicit different child responses, or the child responses may elicit different parental responses in the two groups. For example, the lack of differentiation between groups and lack of correla- tion between the variables, parent elicits information and parent gives expectations, indicate that they are used with equal frequency in both groups. In the humanistic group, these variables appear to be used to elicit the child's general view or are used in general discussion. In the conventional _group, these same variables seem to be used in a more dominant manner by the parents than in the humanistic group. Power assertion appears more directly related to the child's informational responses in the conventional group than in the humanistic group, although these variables did not differentiate directly between the groups. Negative feeling, however, was used with equal frequency in both groups, and this response appeared to operate similarly in the two groups in rela- tionship to the arousal of highly emotional re5ponses by the child. Other factors which may have accounted for the lack of differentiation between groups are the following. A subject's responses to the cognitive moral judgment items may bear little relationship to his behavior or to verbal statements concerning behavior in interaction with his parents. The groups may need to be at the extreme ends of the humanistic-conventional continuum to elicit differences in family interaction. The small number of subjects may have obscured actual differences. Real differences which might have 64 appeared if two-person interactions between mothers and sons and fathers and sons had been assessed may have been nullified in the three-person inter- actions. Other family interaction situations might have been developed which would have elicited more differentiation between humanistic and con- ventional groups, i.e., subjects could have been instructed to decide between humanistic and conventional approaches. Sampling:Problems One of the major difficulties in the study was the small number of subjects, which may have obscured group differences or otherwise biased the results. It was difficult throughout the study to obtain a large sample. The schools hesitate to participate in a study which may be highly threat- ening to the parents. The Bath and Williamston schools were extremely cooperative, but they carefully reviewed the assessment materials for potential threat to parents. Situations with greater power than those used were dr0pped because of their potentially threatening effect on schools and parents. 'Although it was stated clearly in preliminary communication that parents were not required to cooperate because the schools did, some parents misunderstood the initial letter, and they drOpped out of the study when they learned that the schools did not demand their participation. No differences in the demographic data were found between those fami— lies who participated in the family interaction portion of the study and those who refused to do so. The majority of refusals were overtly due to the families being too busy, or part of the family being away from home during the data collection period. Many of these subjects, however, were probably threatened by the possibility of disclosing information which they felt was private. The payment of subjects for their participation seemed 65 to have little effect on their motivation. It is possible that payment would have affected the motivation of “externalized" subjects. The subjects who did participate in the family interaction assess— ment constituted a selective sample of highly cooperative subjects. Eight of 13 (62%) of the families contacted in the humanistic group participated in the family interaction sessions as compared to 9 of 28 (32%) in the conventional group. This difference in willingness to c00perate may be inherent in the groups. The characteristics of the humanistic orientation may result in greater readiness to assist in socially productive research. The conventional families, who seemed more oriented toward authority in their interaction than the humanistic families, may have been less willing to be observed and potentially evaluated in relationship to other families. The role the schools played in sanctioning the research and making initial contact with the families may have aroused anxiety in many families. It is likely that the small number of subjects obscured real differ- ences between groups in family interaction. Several £_tests and correla- tions which tended toward significance and showed large differences in group means would probably have been significant with a larger group of subjects. Increased degrees of freedom and reduced variance would be eXpected with an increased sample size, and would contribute toward significance in more of the cases where real differences probably existed. The differences which did appear between groups suggest that there are actual differences in humanistic and conventional subjects which would be clarified with greater numbers of subjects. Further research including subjects who were unwilling to participate in the present research is necessary to confirm or negate the current findings and speculations. 66 The parent-child situations were not papular with the boys. This may reflect the surge for independence by the early adolescent boys. This lack of interest, however, was in contrast to the interest of the boys in the pilot study. These boys were from the East Lansing area, and they and their parents were generally acquainted with research at Michigan State University, although their parents were not all in the academic professions. It also appeared that some Bath and Williamston parents utilized their sons' objections rather than eXpressing their own feelings about participa- tion. Several mothers would have participated in the study if their hus- bands had been available or interested. An optimally large sample could have been obtained more easily by using only upper-middle class, aCademically oriented families, or by restricting interaction to mothers and sons. Socioeconomic class did not account for the differential findings in this research, but a considerable amount of data would have been lost by restricting socioeconomic class or eliminating the father from family interaction. As in most research of this type, it was impossible to control all desirable variables. Variables such as ordinal position, which was related to several family interaction variables, might have been controlled with a large number of subjects. The absence of "externalized" subjects presented difficulties. Several variables which were expected to differentiate between internalized and "externalized" subjects were untestable due to this. It is probable that the original number of subjects was too small to form optimally sized groups, especially the "externalized" group. It is also probable that some subjects, who showed conventional or humanistic moral judgment, may respond in an "externalized" manner to an actual deviation situation. Junior high school 67 boys are generally aware of societal eXpectations, and although the experi- menter did not interact with them consistently as an authority figure, she was probably perceived as an authority figure by the boys. More internalized responses may have been given to the experimenter than would be given in a group of their peers. It is possible that ”externalized" judgments would have been more characteristic of boys who refused to complete their assess- ment materials or were too old or otherwise drOpped from the study than those who remained. Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) data were collected over ten years ago. The societal patterns have probably moved toward a more humanistic approach to others. The "externalized" pattern, in the developmental framework, would be expected to move also. It would probably move toward a more conventional approach. It is also possible that with greater exPosure to child psychology, parents may be using more psychological techniques in disciplinary inter- actions with their children. The extremes of the conscience orientation groups, especially the "externalized" group, may be needed to find gross differences in family interaction. Subjects who would definitely be "externalized" should be obtained for further research. Subjects might be obtained from sources such as the courts. The Role of Negative Feelingrin Interaction Disciplinary interaction appears to be affected by the expression of negative feeling by the parents. The use of these responses has similar effects in both of the groups. The effects of the exPression of negative feeling by the mother, however, differs from that of the father. The mother's expression of negative feeling is positively related to her giving irrelevant information and moralizing. These responses are 68 associated with the arousal of highly emotional responses in the child, and they seem to inhibit interaction by the child regardless of the child's conscience orientation. When the father manifests negative feeling, however, the child appears to be stimulated to ask questions and challenge the parents in a relatively calm manner. The differentiation of roles of the father and mother in the inter- action is more clearly seen in reference to negative feeling than in regard to any other variable. The inhibition of response by the child in response to the mother's expression of negative feeling supports Hoffman and Saltz- stein's (1967) Speculation that love withdrawal techniques may produce highly emotional reSponses in the child, inhibiting his use of more con- structive resources and producing higher levels of guilt. More resources can be utilized by the child when the father manifests negative feeling than when the mother does so. The role of the mother as the nurturant parent may be threatened by her expression of negative feeling, leading the child to attempt to obtain restoration of love, whereas the child is more likely to confront the father in the presence of similar responses. This is probably due to the child's perception of the mother as nurturant and the father as a societal Spokesman. The possibility of resurgence of an Oedipal conflict at the particular age of the boys in this study should also be considered. Group Differences in the Disciplinary Interaction The data indicate that the humanistic group is more flexible in its approach to disciplinary situations than the conventional group. In the humanistic group, the parents seem to function similarly. The child's responses appear more closely related to the responses of the parent which are feeling oriented rather than to the parent's direct elicitation of 69 information or demands for restitution. Humanistic subjects appear to approach the disciplinary process within a broader framework than the con- ventional group. Humanistic parents tended to give more irrelevant infor- mation than conventional parents, although the differentiation was not significant, and while this may indicate greater avoidance of the situation by humanistic parents, it also may indicate greater breadth of exploration with the child. The relationships among responses in the conventional group suggest a parentally dominated, "fact-finding” type of approach to disciplinary encounters. An assertive approach by the mother is suggested by the simi- larity of relationships between her use of power assertion and giving information, and the child's responses. There appears to be greater role division between the parents in the conventional group than in the human- istic group. The mother appears to elicit information and provide the pattern for the determination of apprOpriate discipline, while the father supports the mother by providing reinforcement through negative feeling. The differences which appeared in the parent-child relationships sup- port the flexible orientation of humanistic subjects and rigid approach of conventional subjects found by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964). The data, however, did not support the pattern of their findings of greater use of reasoning, disappointment and power assertion by parents of humanistic subjects, and greater use of love withdrawal, ego attack and guilt induc- tion by parents of conventional subjects. It should be noted, however, that the variables; disappointment, power assertion, and reasoning; were viewed differently in this research than in Hoffman and Saltzstein's study. Disappointment was combined with parents' giving of adverse consequences to self and was considered to be both theoretically, and from the pilot study 70 data, more characteristic of conventional subjects. Power assertion and reasoning were not considered to differentiate between the groups. The group differences suggest that the conventional child is more restricted in his interaction than the humanistic child. The conventional child, whose experience centers primarily around the disciplinary situa- tion per se, may follow parental expectations or reject them. In doing so he excludes exploration, with his parents, of the implications of deviation or conformity in varying situations. The humanistic child has an Oppor- tunity fer greater exploration of conditions under which deviation is appropriate. The humanistic parents seem to reinforce the child's experi- mental explorations of the disciplinary area. The humanistic child may also have greater freedom to utilize his resources and to develop his moral judgment through lack of restriction of the discussion by the parents. The conventional child appears to be reinforced for restricting his exploration to the immediate situation and to restoration. There is also an indication that he uses the parental pattern in the interaction with them as a model. The greater flexibility of the humanistic group may provide a greater opportunity for the humanistic child to move cognitively toward a humanis- tic mode or moral judgment than for the conventional child. The data do not indicate whether or not their moral behavior would differ, but indicates that more situational factors may be considered by the humanistic child than the conventional child. Theoretical Considerations The data did not support the prediction from social learning theory that interaction responses would be used with differential frequency by humanistic and conventional groups. Differences did appear, however, in 71 the flexibility of the approaches of the groups. The pattern of interaction in the conventional group, which appeared to be more restricted and "fact- finding," can be more readily explained by specific reinforcement of responses than can the interaction of the humanistic group. A combination of reinforcement and modeling is probably the dominant mechanism involved in the response patterns which differentiated between the groups. Modeling of the parents' flexibility or restriction may have provided a basis for the child's eventual humanistic or conventional cogni- tive behavior. Viewing the results in terms of modeling provides a broader basis for identification of important factors in the social learning process, and the limitation of predictions to specific variables seems to neglect important asPects of the social learning process. One of the major diffi- culties of a modeling explanation in this study, however, is that the criti- cal modeling may have occurred at an earlier period of the child's life. The variables which reinforce the situation specific responses pre- dominant in the child's interaction in the conventional group are more readily identifiable than the reinforcing agents for the exploratory responses predominant in the child's interaction in the humanistic group. It appears, however, that positive feeling and reflection of feeling are the reinforcing agents for the child's exploratory responses in the human- istic group. In the absence of reinforcement, the exploratory responses may extinguish in the conventional group, and the situation Specific responses may extinguish in the humanistic group. A possible psychoanalytic explanation cannot be excluded on the basis of the data. The extent of punitiveness of the parents at the time of the formation of the superego, and the extent to which they influenced the degree of protectiveness and reassurance of the superego, could be 72 reflected in the child's conscience orientation. The possibility of explanation of the findings of the research by either psychoanalytic or social learning theory is expected because many of the hypotheses of social learning theory are based on psychoanalytic statements. Social learning theory, however, seems to provide a more specific framework through which the differences between the "fact-finding" interaction of the conventional group and the exploratory interaction of the humanistic group can be exPlained. The distinction between the nurturant role of the mother and the role of the father in teaching societal expectations appears in the data. The children in both groups seem to challenge the father in the presence of his negative feeling. This differentiation in the parental roles may reflect a resurgence of the Oedipal conflict. It may also reflect specific reinforcement contingencies developed to accommodate the child's increasing independence. The similarities between groups are in accordance with expected characteristics of families of individuals with an internalized conscience. These characteristics are explained globally in psychoanalytic theory and in greater detail in social learning theory. Developmental trends were not assessed since the subjects were selected from one age group at which moral judgment should be relatively stable. The data tend to show that conscience orientation, as assessed, is not entirely the product of a fixed develOpmental process. Comparison of the data with data from other age groups might show, however, that family interaction interacts with a developmental process. Assessment of Conscience Orientation The moral judgment items used for the assessment of conscience orienta- tion (Hoffman and Saltzstein, 1964) were develOped for a study in which a 73 much larger original group of subjects was available than in the present study. The original selection criterion required that the subject's pre- dominant conscience orientation score consistently exceed his expressions of other orientations by a factor of >l-l/2. This criterion was modified; moral judgment scores were weighted to increase the size of the groups. Almost all internalized boys gave both humanistic and conventional responses to conscience orientation stories. A subject's predominant orientation, however, often appeared more distinct from inspection of the responses than his scores indicated. Specific instructions for ratings were develOped for the undergraduate raters, in contrast to Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) global ratings, and the conscience orientations were rated with high reliability. The conscience orientation instruments were paper and pencil tasks. It would be important in future research to explore moral judgment in terms of statements in a group of peers and decisions in experimental situations. The moral judgment items appear valid for differentiation of conscience orientation types if subjects are available whose responses are almost exclusively within one orientation. It might be more practical to deter- mine the conditions under which individuals are more likely to stress humanistic and conventional tendencies. Family Interactipn_ Assessment of direct interaction appears to be a promising method for the investigation of family process. Interview data, such as Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964) used, may show patterns of discipline relevant at pre- vious periods that are unavailable in direct interaction. Clues about the effect of affective factors and interrelations between family members cannot be directly determined in interview procedures. For example, a 74 highly emotional ego attack can appear in an interaction situation, but it is not likely to be reported by the parent. The number of variables necessary to describe the interaction process can become awkward, and further work could be done to weight certain variables or combine them. Video-taping would provide more specific data than reliance on verbal communication of the subjects. More correspondence between the conscience orientation stories and family interaction situations would have provided important data. If subjects had been required to decide between a humanistic and conventional' approach in the interaction situations, a more direct comparison with the conscience orientation responses would have been possible. Twoeperson interactions between mother and son and father and son could have been compared beneficially to the three-person interactions. The differentiation between parental roles in the conventional group and similarity of parental responses in the humanistic group could have been tested in this manner. It is plausible that one parent may predominate in influencing the child's tendency toward humanistic or conventional moral judgment. ConcludingStatement Although sampling problems prevented making all intended comparisons, the data showed both similarities and a major area of differentiation in the humanistic and conventional groups. The parental roles appear to be differentiated, and the child responds to the mother's nurturance and the father's expectations for societal behavior. These similarities form a picture of an early adolescent child in accordance with a resurgence of the Oedipal conflict or asserting his independence. The groups were dif— ferentiated by a flexible approach in the humanistic group as compared 75 to restriction of interaction in the conventional group to the disci- plinary process per se. Modeling and reinforcement patterns appear to account for these differences. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY A stage analysis approach to moral judgment (Kohlberg, in Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964; Piaget, 1932), the cognitive dimension of moral development, has shown children to progress from a stage of moral realism to a stage of moral subjectivity. The behavioral and emotional dimensions of moral development, approached from hypotheses develoPed from psycho- analytic and social learning theories, show systematic relationships with the disciplinary practices of the parents. Although moral judgment is considered to be influenced by interaction with others, previous investi- gations of the relationship between the child's moral judgment and parental behavior have generally yielded ambiguous results or have not supported such a relationship. Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964, 1967), however, found consistent relationships between parental disciplinary practices and three forms of conscience orientation which are similar to Kohlberg's (in Hoff- man and Hoffman, 1964) stages of moral judgment. The present research was designed to investigate the relationship between the child's flexible- humanistic, rigid-conventional, or "externalized" conscience orientation and relevant family interaction variables. The subjects for the research were 18 twelve to fourteen year old boys and their mothers and fathers from Lansing, Michigan and two communi- ties around Lansing which are socioeconomically heterogeneous. The conscience orientations of 82 boys were assessed from responses to hypothetical stories developed by Hoffman and Saltzstein (1964, 1968). 76 77 Subjects were asked to determine which of two deviations was worse or whether or not the hero should have deviated and why. Difficulties arose in securing the desired samples for the family interaction assessment. Eight of 13 (62%) intact families of humanistically oriented boys, 9 of 28 (32%) intact families of conventionally oriented boys, and a single family of an "externally" oriented child chose to participate in the family interaction assessment. The identity of the variables which con- tributed to the selectivity of participation is unknown. The data analyses were limited to the humanistic and conventional groups because only one subject showed a predominantly "externalized" orientation. Humanistic subjects were matched with conventional subjects for intelli- . gence quotients and socioeconomic class. The early adolescent boys and their parents participated in family interaction sessions, in which the relevant parental and child variables were assessed, and completed the Attribute Preference Inventory. The families role-played hypothetical situations concerning disobedience, theft, cheating and physical aggression in a manner as similaras possible to their typical style of spontaneous interaction. The response frequencies of the family interaction variables were rated independently by two raters from tape recorded responses. The findings did not directly support the author's expectation of significant differences between the frequencies with which the various family interactions occurred among the humanistic and conventional groups. The humanistic group was expected to elicit information and give expecta- tions with greater frequency than the conventional group, and the conven- tional group was expected to express disappointment and negative feeling more frequently than the humanistic group. 0f the 33 variables which were 78 expected to differentiate between the groups, only fathers' expressions of disappointment significantly (.05 level) differentiated between the humanistic and conventional subjects. This finding was in the predicted direction. Significant patterns of correlations differentiating between the humanistic and conventional groups were not sustained. Hoffman and Saltzstein's (1964) findings of greater frequency of use of induction and power assertion by humanistic parents than by conventional parents, and greater frequency of use of love withdrawal techniques by conventional parents than by humanistic parents, were not supported by the data. The present results supported their report of greater flexibility in the humanistic group than in the conventional group. This lack of signifi- cant findings may be attributable to sampling problems; the unequal rates of participation of conventional and humanistic families may have masked actual differences or otherwise biased the results. Although the response frequencies of the family interaction variables were similar, inspection of the correlations between the family interaction variables significant at the .05 level revealed both similarities and differences between the groups. The parental roles appear to be differen- tiated by the consequences of the parent's expression of negative feeling in interaction. Negative feeling expressed by the mother apparently inhibits interaction by the child, while the father's expression of negative feeling was associated with the child's increased requests for information, including challenging the parent. These differences in parental roles may reflect the importance of the child's perception of the mother as nurturant and the father as the enforcer of societal standards. Interaction in the conventional group appeared to show a restricted, "fact-finding" pattern in contrast to a flexible, feeling-oriented pattern 79 in the humanistic group. The conventional child, whose experience centers primarily around the disciplinary situation per se, may follow parental expectations or reject them. This set of alternatives seems to reduce the possibility of mutual exploration, with his parents, of the implications of deviation or conformity in varying situations. Greater Opportunity exists for the humanistic child to explore the conditions under which deviation is appropriate, and the humanistic parent seems to reinforce his child's exPerimental explorations of the disciplinary area. The humanistic child may have greater opportunity than the conventional child to utilize his resources in the formation of humanistic moral judgment. The relationships cited suggest that family interaction plays at least an indirect role in conscience orientation, although interaction may be more directly reflected in other dimensions of moral development. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allinsmith, W., and Greening, T. C. Guilt over anger as predicted from parental discipline: A study of superego development. American Psychologist, 1955, 10, 320. Aronfreed, J. The nature, variety and social patterning of moral responses to transgression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 223-240. Bandura, A. A., 8 McDonald, F. J. Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children's moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 274-281. Bandura, A., G Walters, R. H. Social learnin and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart G Winston, 1964: Becker, W. C.‘ Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline.’ In M. L. Hoffman a L. W. Hoffman (Bds.), Review of child development research. Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Pp. 169-208. Dembo, T. Recent studies in moral conflict at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station. Psycholggical Bulletin, 1941, 38, 733. Dollard, J., G Miller, N. E. Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Durkin, D. Children's concepts of justice: A comparison with the Piaget data. Child Develgpment, 1959, 30, 59-67. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton, 1945. Grinder, R. E. Relations between behavioral and cognitive dimensions of conscience in middle childhood. Child Development, 1964, 35, 881- 891. Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Gump, P. V., 8 Kounin, J. S. Milieu influences in children's concepts of misconduct. Child Developmgnt, 1961, 32, 711-720. Hill, W. F. Learning theory and the acquisition of values. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 317—331. 80 81 Hoffman, M. L. Childrearing practices and moral deve10pment: Generaliza- tions from empirical research. Child Develppment, 1963, 34, 295-318. Hoffman, M. L. Personal communication, 1968. Hoffman, M. L., and Saltzstein, H. D. Techniques and processes in moral development. Report of Research, October, 1964, The Merrill- Palmer Institute, Research Grant Reference Number M-2333, National Institute of Mental Health. Hoffman, M. L., 8 Saltzstein, H. 0. Parent discipline and the child's moral deve10pment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 45-57. Kaplan, L. J. The relationship between the child's responses to frustra- tion and his moral judgment. Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 27-88, 2859-2860. Kohlberg, L. Moral development and identification. In H. W. Stevenson (Ed.), Child psychology, the 62nd yearbook of the National Society for the Study of E ucation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. '7 Kohlberg, L. Development of Moral character and moral ideology. In M. L. Hoffman 8 L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Pp. 383-431. MacRae, D., Jr. A test of Piaget's theories of moral development. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, l4-l8. Piaget, J. The moral_judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1932. ’7 Pringle, M. L. K., 6 Edwards, J. B. Some moral concepts and judgments of junior school children. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1964, 3, 196-215. Randolph, C. C., G Hurley, J. R. Preferred qualities in eight-year-olds: The Attribute Preference Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Michi- gan State University, 1968. Ruma, E. H., 6 Mosher, D. L. Relationship between moral judgment and guilt in delinquent boys. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72, 122-127. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., 8 Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing: Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson, 1957. Turiel, E. An experimental test of the sequentiality of developmental stages in the child's_moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 611-618. Walker, H. M., 8 Lev, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart G Winston, 1953. - APPENDICES APPENDIX A FORM LETTER TO PARENTS REQUESTING THEIR COOPERATION 82 FORM LETTER TO PARENTS REQUESTING THEIR COOPERATION To: Parents of Junior High School Boys at - Junior High School I am interested in how junior high school age boys view rules and am planning a research project to study the ways boys view rules as they apply in social situations and how their parents communicate rules to them. In this study I will be asking your son to complete stories about some generally accepted rule, to rank the importance of some areas of life to him, and to complete other similar tasks. I will then ask some of the boys' parents to participate in one one-half hour session. In these sessions, I will present several hypothetical situations and ask you and your son to say to each other what you would say if these situa- tions happened in your family. I am not interested in judging the best way to view rules or to communicate them, but I am interested in the different ways families view and communicate rules. I am planning to begin the study during the week of April 15 and to finish it by June 1. Each child who participates will participate only for approximately one hour in school, and some families will be asked to participate in the additional session to be scheduled at your convenience. I would like to stress that all necessary measures will be taken to insure the privacy of each family who participates. The records will be kept confidential. I am interested, however, in talking about the Study with families who participate and will send you a letter describing the general findings when the study is finished. The research has been planned with the full authorization and coopera- tion of Mr. Tom VanDyke, Principal, Junior High School, with the understanding that any parents who do ndt wish their son to partici- pate should so instruct us. I do hOpe your son will be able to participate. Please call me if you have any questions about the study or instruc- tions about your child's participation. Sincerely, Jo Anne Lifshin Psychology Graduate Student Michigan State University Home phone: 489-4115 APPENDIX B SUBJECT VARIABLES Distribution of Intelligence Quotients 83 SUBJECT VARIABLES fi ‘ Number of subjects Intelligence - . - —— quotient Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" group group subject > 130 0 2 120-129 4 3 110-119 1 1 100-109 2 1 1 90- 99 0 2 Unknown Distribution of Ordinal Positions ~ Number of subjects Ordinal -:_ , _ iii - __ _ position Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" group group subject let 3 1 1 2nd 1 4 3rd 2 1 4th 1 3 5th 1 0 Distribution of Mother's Education Number of subjects Mother's education Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" group group subject High school graduate 5 S 1 Some college 2 2 College graduate 1 1 Unknown 0 1 Distribution of Mother's Occupation Number of subjects Mother's occupation Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" group _ group subject Housewife 5 5 1 Skilled laborer 2 2 Office worker I 2 85 Distribution of Father's Education ’— Number of subjects Father's 1 education Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" ‘ group group subject Some high school 4 2 High school graduate 0 4 1 Some college 3 0 College graduate 1 3 Distribution of Father's Occupation Number of subjects Father's occupation Humanistic Conventional "Externalized" ’ group 'group subject Unskilled laborer l 1 Skilled laborer 4 6 1 Office worker 2 0 Professional 1 2 APPENDIX C INSTRUMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THEM 86 INSTRUMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THEM Number Name of School or Boy Scout Troop What is your father's occupation? What is your mother's occupation? How much education did your father and mother have? Father Mother W . . . Grammar school only . . . . . . Some high school but didn't finish A . . . High school graduate . . . Some college but didn't finish . . . Graduated from college HHH I . . . . . . Other (please describe in a few words any ‘ other kind of schooling or training your father or mother had.) How many brothers do you have? How old are they? How many sisters do you have? How old are they? _____ " Are you a member of the Boy Scouts of America? Yes No How old are you? When is your birthdate? ___ Number Name of School or Boy Scout trooP Name p_‘__ First Last Father's name Address _‘__ Phone number 87 Questions About Storig§_ On the next few pages are some stories and some questions about them for you to answer. We are interested in the different ways kids answer the questions. This is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers. So please do your own work and don't look at anyone's paper. Then there will be many different answers and that is what we'hant. PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THE BEST WAY YOU KNOW HOW. DON'T WORRY ABOUT SPELLING OR GRAMMAR. NO ONE AT SCHOOL WILL SEE YOUR PAPER. PLEASE DON'T TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. IF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, YOU MAY RAISE YOUR HAND. NOW PLEASE TURN THE PAGE AND BEGIN. READ THE STORIES AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM. (Questions about stories items and Sentences to finish items from Hoffman, 1964.) 88 I. Two young men, A1 and Joe, were in trouble. They were secretly leaving town in a hurry and needed money. A1 broke into a store and stole $500. Joe went to a man who was known to help people in town. Joe told the man that he was very sick and needed $500 to pay for an operation.) Really he wasn't-sick at all and he had no intention of paying the man back. Although the man didn't know Joe very well, he loaned him the money. 50 Al and Joe skipped town, each with $500. I. If you had to decide who did worse, Al who broke into the store and stole $500 or Joe who borrowed $500 with no intention of pay- ing it back, which one would you say did worse? Why do you think he did worse? 2. Which would you feel worse doing, stealing the money like Al or borrowing it and not paying it back like Joe? Why? 3. a. Why shouldn't someone steal from a store anyway? . What harm do you think it does when someone steals from aistore? c. If Al got caught for stealing, what punishment do you think he should get? 4. Who would feel worse, the store owner who was robbed or the man who was cheated out of the loan? Why? 5. What do you think of the man who loaned Joe the money? (Now please turn the page and continue) 89 II. In EurOpe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging over twice what the drug cost to make. He paid $800 for the radium needed to make the drug and charged $1800 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Lawrence, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money. He also went to banks and loan companies. But he could only get together about $900 which is half of what the drug cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell the drug cheaper, or to let him pay the rest later. But the druggist said, "I'm sorry, but I discovered the drug and it's only fair that I make money from it." So Lawrence got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. 1. Do you think Lawrence was right or wrong to do that? Why? 2. If you were Lawrence, do you think you would have done the same thing? 3. Do you think a good husband would think it was his duty to steal the drug if he were in Lawrence's place? Why? 4. Lawrence was arrested for stealing. If you were the judge, do you think you would punish him or let him go free? 5. If the judge decided to punish him, what do you think should be the punishment? (Now please turn the page and continue) 90 Now let's continue the story about Lawrence. Lawrence was arrested and the judge sentenced him to ten years in jail for breaking in and stealing the medicine. But after four years, he escaped from the prison and went to live in another part of the country under a new name. He worked hard, saved his money, and slowly built up a big factory. He gave his workers high wages and used most of his profits to build a hospital for work in curing cancer. Twenty years later a salesman passing through the town recognized the factory owner as being Lawrence, the escaped convict whom the police had been looking for back in his home town. 6. Do you think it would be right or wrong if the salesman kept it secret and did not report Lawrence to the police? Why? 7. If you were the salesman, do you think you would keep it secret or report Lawrence to the police? 8. Suppose the salesman had been a good friend of Lawrence's. Do you think he should keep it secret or report it to the police? 9. Do you think the judge and jury ought to send Lawrence back to jail? 10. Do you think you would like a person like Lawrence? Why? (Now please turn the page and continue) 91 III. One day about 11 o'clock in the morning, Mr. Jones was backing out of a large parking lot. He banged into a parked car, denting its fender badly and scraping off a lot of paint. Mr. Jones took one look at the damage and drove off in a hurry. Did he do the right thing or the wrong thing by driving off like that? Why did he do the right or wrong thing? IV. Johnny's class was taking a tesr one day. He couldn't answer some of the questions. So he cepied the answers from Mark who always did well on tests. Was Johnny right or wrong to cheat on the test? Why was he right or wrong to cheat on the test? (Now please turn the page and continue) 92 THESE TWO STORIES ARE ABOUT KIDS YOUR OWN AGE. V. One day Fred's friend says to him, ”Fred, I have a secret I want to tell you. I just bought a pair of ice skates with money I've been saving. My parents won't allow me to have skates because they're afraid I might get hurt. So I'm hiding them in my room." On his way to school the next day Fred sees his friend's mother. They say "Hello” to each other. Fred thinks to himself, "It's my duty to tell her about the skates." So he tells her and she takes the skates away from his friend. 1. Do you think Fred was right or wrong to tell his friend's mother about the skates? Why? 2. If you were in Fred's place, do you think you would tell the friend's mother about the skates? 3. Do you think you would like a boy like Fred? VI. Jim is the best bowler of all his friends. His average score is 155. One day some of the boys are teasing his friend, Bobby, about how poorly he bowled the day before. They keep saying Bobby doesn't know how to bowl and never did. Bobby isn't smiling at all. Finally he says, "I didn't bowl very well last night, but once I bowled 145." The other boys don't believe him. They just laugh. Jim never saw Bobby bowl 145. But he says, "It's true what Bobby says. I was there when he bowled 145. I saw him myself." 1. Do you think Jim was right or wrong to say that? Why? 2. Do you think you would say that if you were in Jim's place? Would you be tempted to say it? 3. Do you think you would like a boy like Jim? (Now please turn the page and continue) 93 Sentences to Finish Here are some sentences for you to finish. Try to finish each of them with the first thought that comes to your mind. Don't worry about Spelling or grammar. This is not a test. No one at school will see your paper. '_—"—-'_ If you can't finish a sentence, put a circle around the number and go on to the next one. If you have time at the end, you may go back and try to finish the sentences you left out. 1. What kids my age need most is 2. I sometimes feel bad when I 3. The main thing about my mother is 4. The main thing about my father is S. If parents made less rules 6. I feel angry when 7. Kids my age are often afraid that 8. If I got a hundred dollars I would 9. Because of father I 10. If someone says "I don't agree with you" I 11. Because of mother I 12. The most important thing parents should do is 94 INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION RESPONSES The purpose of rating moral judgment (questions about stories) and sentence completion items for this research is to differentiate junior high school boys' responses into the following three cate— . gories. Humanistic -1.57 2.18 moralizes 2.14 3.17 2.67 ’ 3.01 N_= 8 for humanistic group and N_= 9 for conventional group 113 Means and Standard Deviations of Response Frequencies of Child's Behaviors in Family Interaction Situations L 1 Humanistic Conventional group group Variable Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Child requests information 4.00 3.40 1.30 2-30 _gives information 60.04 13.09 65.73 13.89 _gives reasons 5.49 3.35 4.07 2.24 Confesses 1.91 1.38 2.08 2.75 denies 3.78 4.16 1.49 1.17 suggests discipline, . restores situation 8.20 7.20 10.76 5.93 refuses to commit self 2.35 2.72 2.96 2.98 minimizes, rationalizes 6.95 7.78 3.41 7.35 shows highly emotional response 0.85 1.42 2.29 6.02 N_= 8 for humanistic group and N_= 9 for conventional group APPENDIX I CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY INTERACTION VARIABLES 114 .Ho. v Nag. . .l . .mo. V NH. .mdoaw Hmcoauco>nou now m n 2 van macaw oaumanmasn pom m u z -- so- as as No- mm- mm mm em- Ne em- mo- ago moaaflaaoz ma -- Ha- Ha ae em- mm- mo mm we Ha. Ha. ago message mouoamom am em- -- .ea co- ea- on- es- mm- as so em- any acapaaaomea une>oaouha mo>ao ..ew ea- .ea -- an mm- mo- as am. Na an. as- 1 flag mqaamom asaeeuoe macaw ma- we mm- mm- -- an- mo- as- oo em mm- as- arc measuam o>aoamoa macaw ae am an- om co -- He- em- mm .ma- ..om . me. Aug eoaoaomma wagon mam: macaw , Hwnowuno>cou mm- Ha- me. am. mm- mm- -- Hm ae- as em- .oa may mosaoaeaoaaa ma>au am an am. am as me mm- -- Ho- am . we- we Amy usaaoeaodaamae macaw em- Ho om as- we mm. mm mm- -- OH- mo , ao- flow mcaaadxm ma- mo- . ea- an- om- NH- me as. as -- no- . am mug meowoauuaaxa ma>au em- as ea- Ne- ..mm co- ma- ea- mm am- -- .ma- amv :oaoaauomea masau mm- em- we- oe- on- so we «a- em. as. om- -- a :owuowhoucH waaam coozuom mcoaumaouuou noose: pounced manhood H mamas. 115 .HO. V.Na¥ .4. .mo. V .msonm Hmcoauco>eoo How m aim use macaw oapmanmas: new w u.m - am mo- oe eo- eH- mH mm mo HH- no- SH HHS moNHHaaoz ec- - SH- ao- Ne Hm- e.ae mm em ao- Hm- HH-. Hey mcHHoaH muoaHmom mH- mH- - .ea em- eo- aH mm- mo MH- wm- eo- Hey eoHoaaaomeH H§>0HOHHM mm>fi0 ae mH- NH -- mm- am no ma- ma am- .ae- Ha HHV meHHooH e>Hoamo= macaw mH em- mm- we- -- an- oe .ao eo- .aa mH ..om- sz meHHoom m>HHHmoa macaw mm- oa- an- we NH - me. No mm oa- mm- co moo :oHHaomme Hosea mom: macaw . Hmcoauco>=ou HH- am om- mH- SH me- -- mm mm HH- oe- eH- Hag mo>HuecomoHa mosHu ac ee wH- em mm- HH mH- - mm an em. em- Hmv HemaueHoddemee macaw mm. mm. em- em- mH mH- mo- we- - oH- .ma- eo- Hog maHadem oe SH- wH- ao- .Na mo- eH om- so -- mH .-om- Hug meoHHeHooaxo mmsHu ma- mo- oe Ha mo- NH mo- om- ee mo - mo- Hmv aoHoasaomeH mosHo ae- Hm mm- me. no- on- co mo- eo an- oa- - Hey soH> m.eHHHu mHHoHHm H H e H m u a m a o m < manuane> oHnmaam> macaw oaumanwasz mHOSHmm How moanaaam> :oapomuoucH Aaflswm coozuom macapmaoanou pause: Huston; cemweom N mqmcoo new a u.m new macaw oaumaewasn www mvwmm - oH- eH- me- on- mH- ae- ao- Hm HHU e253,...H Hmaoauoeo xanwan m mzosm ao - mH- oH me- am Hm .ma- .ma Hmv mmNHHaeoHHaw .moNHaHeaz am aN - ee am He mo- ee- om- auv HHom HHasou on momsmoe No eo- mH- - we mm am- mm- HN- Hag :oHuasuHm mmaoumoa .onaamaomwe mumomwzm macaw aH- we- mm- eH- - eH em- eo mm- Hmv maaeeo Hanoaoeoseou oo ,-aa- oH- so am - mm «ma- am Hey mommomaou HH- Ho- NH- me se. me- - aH- Ho- Hug mnemaoe mosHu am. we- ma- so. mm mm He- - He- Hag eoHHeauoeeH mosHu mm mm mH an- ac. mm- mH- ma- - H acauumnoudH AHflaam zoozuom macauaHouhou pause: nonvoum nomwaom m mama? 117 .Ho. v Nee .mo. v.uw .m u 2 am- ma ee mm H.am- ma- oe- em eH- om- oH mo HHS muNHHeaoz 0H mH- mm- ea ae- mm mm- an an om- ca eH- HHS meHHeom mouoHHee NH- ow- i.em mH HH- mm- mH- on- on- Ho- He cm- Hag :oHHaaaoHeH uca>oaoaha mo>au SH- oH .ma we we- aH- on- em ee- ee- HH oo- HHH ucHHoeH o>Huauae macaw mm mm- MN- ao ao mm He- mo me aH me we- Hmv ueHHoem osHuHmoa macaw em- em mm- oH- em- mm- em- Hm em aa- mH- oe Hug :oHHwomma Hosea mom: mH me eo- mm- Hm mm- ..Hw Ho- eH- eH am. No- Hay ma>HHaeaouHa mosHu em ca om- we .mm- mm NH- .aa Na- Hm- we- oH- HHS HeaaueHoaaaMHe macaw no- em- em am- HN eH- aH .aa- mm ma- om co Hos maHaHaxm me. me mH- ma- eo- Hm- ..ew om- Ho- em- co- am Hug maoHoauooaxo masHu co mm- oH- OH- am mH mH- on- .ma mm .ma em- Hmv :oHoeauomeH mosHu am om oo- mH- ee aH me on mm- mm .mm. mm Hey zeHs m.eHHeu mHHuHHm H H n H m o a m a u m < moaneammHH . manage..— moHamaHa> .muonuoz macho owumwnmasm any :a moHauHHm> :oHuomuouaH xHaaam .muonumm new .muonuo: coozuom meoHueHoHHoo noose: uozeoum :omhmoa w mauled. 118 .HO. v New. .3. v Nu- .S u z eS aH So- So- HS oN- eo .SS SN- SS oH- oS- HHS SSNHHeNoz eS aH SN- oN eN- SN- So- ao- HH eo- Ne- SS on SSHHSSH SHSSHHSS ee ao HS HS oH- eH SH So- SH- ao- oS- So- Hoo eoHHSaHoHSH H§>OHOHHH m0>w0 oS ao HH SS eo- eo NH- So- Se- oH So- NH- HHS SSHHSSS S>HSSSSS SsogS No oH SS- So- SN eo- SH. SH. Ho- SS So SS- Hmo SSHHSSS SSHSHSSS SSSHS SN- SH- .aS NS oS- oN No- HH- SS aH- oS- eo Hoo SSHHNSSSS HSSSS SSS: eN- So- SS- ..SS- SS HN- SH- NS ae- NS .Ha oS- HHS SosHSSSNSHHS SS>HS Ne oe NS- oe- SS So So ..HS So So SH- aH- Hmo SooaoaHoSSSSHS SsoSS oH HH aH- aH Ne- NN So Ho .oa SS- NS- Se Hoo SSHSHSxS SS Se SS- SS- SS SN- SN SS Ho- SS aH- SN- Huo SSSHSSSSSSNS SS>HS SN- HN- e.SSw ae So- NN- SH SN- NH eo SH- SH. HSS eoHoaaaoHSH SS>HS HN- No .ea- i.SS- Ho eN So- So NH- aN- ee eN H S.SHHSS SHHSHHS H S. H. H HH S .H m o o S < SSHSSHNE .Saofioz Somaeanm> .Saocumm macho Hmaoauao>nou one ca SeHamHHm> coauompoch AHHESH .mnoguwm van .Saoguoz :oo3uom Sacaueaoaaou pause: Suspend newsman m mamas-H. 119 .HO. v Nan. .mo. v.NW .S u 2 .Ha SH- .Sa aN- So ee SS- SH SH SSNHHSHoz SH- Se- SS- Se- aN SS NS- «.eS SH- SSHHSSH SHSSHHSS ..SS NN SS aH eo- SN- eH Se- SS :oHHSaHoHSH uqm>oHoHHH mo>flu ..SS No- aS Ho SH- eH SH- SH- oe SSHHSSH S>HSSSSS SSSSS oS- SS- NS- oS- .Sa oS SS- aS eo- SSHHSSH S>HSHSSS Szogm No- eN- NS NS- eS NS aS- SS SS- SSHHHSSSS Hosea SSS: SN- SS SS- eS SS- Se- NN SS- ao SosHHSSHSHHS SS>HS oN eN- oS ae- SH- SS Se- SS No- SeoaoeHoSSSSHS SSSSS So SN Se- ao- SN SH- NN- Ho- HS SSHSHSSS SH- .oS oo ao- Se- Se- SH- NS- SH SSSHHSHSSSaS SS>HS oS- SN- HS- SS- .NS oN SS- Ne NN SSHHSSHSHSH SSSHS eS- eH- So NS SS- NH- SS SH- aS- 3SH> S.SHHSS SHHSHHS .5 .1 8 CT 5 Y 5 50 n 1 e f it 0 D n h 32 01 d5 5 0 0 061 5.1 te en 5 a .1 .1 .186 81 S SIO e 6 t St bus 23 S t .1 S r 8 t3 on in er. 3 at S S m Sm $.1 O m o 5.1 e e a e e S s r e SSS. SS SS SSS S .S S SS SS S SS S. S S S S we. S S S SS S... ass... is... SSHSSHHS> S.SSHSHHSS macho oHumflnmazm may :H SSHQSHHS> :oHuumHoucH SHHESH S.:oHpHHAU tam .mhoaooz coozuom maoflumHoHHou “nose: Honponm denuded o mqmoaonhw So>wu .-SS SS- So- oS- So- So- SN- ao SH SSHHSSH S>HHSSS= SSSHS HH- eS- So SS- aH- eN HS SH aS- SSHHSSH S>HHHSSS SsoSS oH- -.NS SN- SN SS- oS SH SS- .oa :oHHHSSSS Hosea SSS: SN- SS- SH- SN- NN .ea- So- .ea HS- SS>HHS=HSHHS SS>HS oo eS- oo eo .Na eN- NS- SS NS- HeSsHSHoSSSSHS SsoSS aS- NN SS -SS He oS ao Se- SH- SSHSHSSS eo .aa- SN SN- ae oN- eH- Ne oS- ScoHHSSuSSxS SoaHS eo- ..SS SN- ao- SS- Ne oe SS- ..NS ooHHSaHoHSH SS>HS eN- .Ha- So oS Se SS- oe- .ea .Sa- 3SH> S.SHHSS SHHSHHS .5 .1 e C... 5 Va 5 50 n 1 e f .1...» O n n h 32 01 d5 S O 0 31 5.1 te en 5 a .1 .1 iae 61 S SIO e e t 5t bus 28 S .r. .1 S r a ta on .1n 8.... Sat 5 S S 5.1 0 m 0 5.1 e e a e e S 5 m e m Saw. mm mm mum .m .m S SS... w..." .n m e .1 a e o u.i.i e o .1 .i n e n SSHSSHHS> .Suosooz HS 6 r “M r .K C HS v.5 nu PS nu Hb.1 HR.1 SoHnnSHm> S.:oHvHHsu macaw Heaofluao>cou ecu :H SoHanHm> coauomhoucH SHHESH m.convaflgu can .muozpoz coozuom ScoHumHoHHou pcoaoz poopoad :omhwom n m4moHoHHS So>Ho Se Ho eS Se- SS- NN- Ho- aH. HS SSHHSSH S>HHSSSS SSSSS SS- So SS- eS eH SS- aS SN- SH- SSHHSSH S>HHHSoS SSSHS eH- Se- NS- Se- SH- So- SS NS No- SSHNHSSSS Nosed SSS: SN- ..oS Ho- HH Ne- SS- No- oS- SN SosHoSSHSSHS SS>HS NH SN- SH SH NS- SS So- SH aN- HemaHSHoSSSSHS SzosS ee- NN- ae- SN- ..SS ee aS- Se SH- SSHSHSSS SS- So SH- NN SN SS- ae SS- So SeoHSSSSSSxS SS>HS SN oH SH- SS- oS SH- He- HN .Sa eoHHSaHoHeH SosHS eN- So- HN SN aH- HS Ho Ho- .Sa- 3SH> S.SHHSS SHHSHHS .5 .18 CI 5 V; 5 50 n 1 e :1 .1t 0 n n h :2 01 .05 S O 0 31-. 5.1 te en 5 a .1 .1 .1 a e 6.1 S S r 0 e e t S t Runs 23 S t .1 S r 8 ta 0 n .1 n e t 5 31L .5 5 m S m 5.1 O m 0 5.1 e e a e e 5 S 6 NS S. .S...... S S SSS S .m S SS SS. .n m e .1 a e o u.l.1 e o .1 .1 n e n moanmaum> m.Ho:umm Ser Mr RC SP5 D C G 6.1 R1 SSHSSHHSS Palomino gnome oSHSHnmad: may :a moHanHm> cowuomnoucH NAHHENW mHGOHVHflfi USN .mHQSHmm G003umm mGOfiHNHQHHOU “GO—:02 HUSfiO-Hm GOmeom w mqmoHoHuH mo>Hu oS Se oH So SN- Se SH- .oa- .Sa SSHHSSH S>HHSSSS SzoSS SH- SN- eS- SS- HH- oS- HN eS SN- SSHHSSH S>HHHSSS SzoSS a NH- NN- ee So- SN- oS- SH Ho- SSHHHSSSS Hosea SSS: No- eo- SN- Ho- So SH SN- oN So SS>HHSSHSSHS SS>HS eo- SN- oS- ao- SS aH- SS- SN SN- HoSeHSHoSSSSHS SzooS SN- NH oH- NS So aN NH- SH- No- . SSHSHSSS ao- eH- He- SS- Se- SH- HS SN HH- SeoHHSHSSSxS SS>HS SN- SH- SH- SS- SN- NS- SS Se aN- SSHSSSHSHSH SS>HS So- So .Sa .aS Se HS eS- oe- So- 2SH> S.SHHSu SHHSHHS HS .16 CI m .w.) fl :1 .mm 0 n n h :2 01.. d5 5 0 O 81 5.1 t6 en 5 a .1 .1 .136 el 5 SIO e 6 t St bus 28 S t .1 S r 3 t3 . on in 6.... S at 5 5 m 5m Sum. mm S... ”HMS .m .m S So mo 0 o s n t fm 8.1 t n n v vf a.f SSHSHSHHSHH Rhone-Sm hme .18 BO u.1.1 e o .1 in en 36?. Mr RC SP5 D C G 6.1 R1 1,- SSHSSHHSS S.SSHSHHSS Ill‘ 1’ macho Hmsofluco>cou man :a moHanNm> noHHomaoucH AHHESH S.coHpHH:u paw .mnogpmm coozpom ScowumHoHHou ucoaoz uospoam :oSHmoa m mamfiw APPENDIX J CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCES AND FAMILY INTERACTION VARIABLES 123 .8. v at. . . v .maonw Hmcofluco>cou How m n.m u:m.msonm oNumflqmasn HMW w LAW eo ae- Ne- SN- ao- eH- SSSHHSaoz So- Ho- Se eH- HS- ao- SSHHSSH SHSSHHSS SN- oH- oo So aS SH :oHHSaNoHSH HSS>SHSHHH SS>HS oH- oo So- SS- NS oH SeHHSSH o>HHSSSe SeoHS SS .SS .SS SS NS- SN- SSHHSSH SsHHHSoS SSSHS eN So SH- No oS- He- :oHoaoSSS Nazca SSS: So- SN- He- SN- NS .«SS SS>HNSSNSHHS SS>HS SN NS- . Ne- NS- SH- So- HSSSHSHSSSSSHS SSSHS NN aH NS oN ee SH SSHSHSNS So aH- oN eS- SS NS SeoHHSuuedxo SS>HS ao- HH- mo- Sma om- mm: :owumenomcfi mo>Hu SH- So eH- SS. HS- SN- 3SH> S.SHHHS SSHSHHS SHHHS HSSHSS Hosea: SHHHS HSSHSS Hague: Asoka HanoHuco>cou .muonm owumfinnaam SoHanHm> :oNuomhouaH .L AHHsmm .mhonuoz [ Sea a you moozonomonm ounnflnpu< moanwfinw> :oHuomHoucH AHNESH .mnonuoz paw xom a Mom Smoconomonm opsnanuu< :oezuom ScowueHoNHou ueoaoz Husband nomenon a.mqmcou How m u.% unm macaw uflumflcmasz you w u 2 .HO. v Na..." .mo. v Nu SN- SS- So- So- SN- oN SSNSSSSoz SN So- SS SS- SS- NS ScSSoom SuuoSSSS SN- NS- oS- So- SS NS :oSSSsaoqu pca>oSouuS SS>SS So- No SS SS- SN No- SSSSSSS o>SSSSo= Szonm SS So- So SS So- SS- maSSSSm S>SSSSom Szogm SS SS So- So- NS SS- coSSSoSSS Susan SSS: So mo- SS SS- SS So mm>SpmcnmuSm mm>wo SS NN- SN- SS- SS- SN SaoaucSoSSSSSS Szoam NS NS SS SS SS- SN- SSSSSSxm SS SN NS SS SN- SS- ScoSuSuoomxo SS>SS SN- No SN- SS oS NS- :oSuSaSomcS SS>SS SS- SS- So- SN- SN- SS- zoS> S.SSSSu SSSuSSm SSSSS SSSSSS “Sago: SSSSS SSSSSS “Sago: macaw Smcofipnm>nou macaw owumflcaasz zen a now mmuconomonm ounnfinup< moflnuflnm> :oHuuwHounw Sawadm .mnmnumm moSnmSHm> :oSuomnoucS xSwamm .muogumm wad xom N HOW mGOCOHOMOHm QHSDfiHHH" CGOZHQQ mGOflHdHOHHOU “£0302 HUQVOHQ Gomfimom N mamcoo How a u.m Sam macaw uSSSScmszz Sow S u.% SN- SN- SN- oS- SS NN «ScoSSoS SmcoSposS SSSSSS SzoSS So- SS- SS- SS- SS SS SSNSSacoSSSS .SSNSaScSz SS- SN- SS SS- SS SS- SSSS SSaaou on Sumnmmm So- mo So So- oS- Sm :oauasufim Souopmmu .mcflSmHumSv mpmommsm SS- SS- SS- SSSS oS- SS- SoSnon SS So SS SS SSN- SN- SSSSSmcou om NS ov me mm Son Snowman mm>Su SS SN So SS oS- Sm- :oSumauomcS mo>So oN SN- SN- oo SS SN coSSSanomaS SSSSSSSS SSSSS SSSSSS Segue: SSSSU SSSSSS “Sago: macaw Smcofiuno>=ou msoum uSpmSnmaaz Son a Mom Smoconommnm ousnwuuu< moSnmSHu> :ofluomamucS SSSSS 3:83 S5 SoSnuSnm> noSuumnmucS SSSamm m.convSS:u Sam xom N How mQUGOaflwMQHm mun—DwkuudS Govt—“Om mQOMHdHOHHOU HGOEOZ “ODE-Hm GOWHNGQ m mqmcou.uom S n 2 Sam .So. v.m.* . .So. v.wn macaw uwumwnmas: you w u z So SN- SS- So- So SS- SSNSSano: NS SN- SS oS- SS- SS- SnSSooS SSSSSSSS NS: om- mm: mm SS SN cofiumsuomcfi pnm>oSoHHS mo>wu oS So- SN- oN SS So SSSSSSS o>SSSSm= SzoSS «oS SS SSS SS oS- SS- ScSSoum o>SpSSoS macaw SS SS 00 SS- ov- SS- coaunomma H0309 mom: SN- No- SS- SS- SS .SSS SS>SSSSHSSSS So>Su SN SS- NS- SN- SN- 1 SS- ScosunSoSSSSSS SzoSS SS! So SS NN- SS No- SSSSSSxm SS SN- So SS- SS SS ScoSpauuonm So>So So- No- So SN SS- NS- coapaanownS mo>So on- So SS: So- Nv- oS- 3mw> m.vSH:u mufiuwflm SSSSS HSSSSS Hague: SSSSS SSSSSS Sonya: muchu Smsowpao>noo macaw uSumwsmawm SOSMMmmmw WMWMMHMMHQS Sham a how moonoaomonm evapwhuu< H moSawSHm> :oSuumHounS SSSamm .mhmnuo: and Shaw a How moucohmmmnm ouznfihuu< nomzuom ScoSumSmhnou ucoaoz nonwoum comhmom v mgmcou Mom S u.m Sam macaw USumScmasn nwm wvwflw SS Sm- mS- Nm mS- NN moNSSmHoz SS NN- SN SS- SS SS SSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SS- SS- SS- SS NS SN :oSumanomcS unm>oSoHHS mo>So SS So- So SS No- No SSSSSSS o>SSSSon SzoSS SN SS So SS NS- oo mnSSoom o>SuSmom Szonm NS mm So mm NS- Sm- :oSuHommm H0309 mum: mo NN- SN om- Nm SSS So>SumcuouSa mo>So SN So- oN- So- SS- oN SsosucSoSSSSSS Szoam SN SS oS SN- SN- oS- SSSSSSSS NS SS oN SS SS- SS ScoSpmuoono SS>SS SS- SS SN- SS SN wS- :OSuwanomnS mo>So wm- SS: mo- «SS: Sou SS- 30S> S.SSS:0 SSSUSSm SSSSS SSSSSS Segue: SSSSS SSSSSS Hague: macaw SmcoSpco>cou macaw uSumSawSWr woSmwmmmm wmwwmmmwqu SSSS a How muonouommum ousnSHuu< SoSSSSHm> :oSuumSoucS SSSamm .Saozumm Sam SHSS a How moonwaomoam SSSSSHSS< noozuom ScoSumSonuou Hausa: Susuoum :oSHSSS m mSmcou How 2 Sam macaw oSuSScmsss Mom S n.m So- SN- SS- NS NS SS SSSoSSoS SmaoSSoao SSSSSS SzoSS No- So- So- SS- SSS oS SSNSSSSoSSaS .SoSSaScSz SS- SS- SS oo SS So SSSS “Saaou op Somamom SN- So- SN SS So SS :oSumsuSS Sonoummn .mcSSmSumSS manommsm So SS- SS- SS SS- SS- SuScoS om SS- SS SN- OS- SS- Sommowcou SN SS Sm om So SS madmmou mo>Su oS- oS So- SN- SS- .SS- coSumauomcS So>Su oS- SS- SN- SS SS SS :oSuSanomaS Sumosuou SSSSS SSSSSS Rogue: SSSSu SSSSSS “Sago: macaw SacoSucm>cou macaw SSumSnuadz SSSS d How Soucoummonm mudSSnuu< SSSSSSHS> :oSuomumuaS SS Seam S . :83 S6 moSSmSHS> :oSuumhmucS SSSamm m.:ouSSSSu Sam SHSU N HON WQOGOHQMOHQ 0U3n—MHHH4 G®O3H®m mGOflHNHQHHOU 9.30302 #UDUOHQ GOWHNQQ S mqmcoo How S u 2 Saw macaw uSumSnmadn Ham S u z 00 SN- oS- SS mmNSSmHoz NN- SS SS- oS SnSSoom SuuoSmoS SS- SS So SS- :oSumaHomaS ucm>oSonHS mm>So SS- SN oo SS mcSSomm o>SumSuz mzoam oS- SS SS- SS maSSooS o>SuSSom Szonm SN No- oS- , Sm :oSuuommm Hmzom mom: SS SS- SSS SSS- SS>SSSSSSSSS So>SS SS- oS- SS- SS unusuaSoSSmSSS SzoSS SN- So So- SS- SSSSSSSS SS- So SS SS- m:0Suwuoomxm mo>Su SS So NS- SS :oSumauomnS mo>So SS- SN- So . SS- 3SS> S.SSSSu SSSSSSS :oSpSmom unmSuosc :SSSSSOS unmSuosc SmnSSHo mucoSSSSopcS SmcSSuo munmSSSSmucS SSSSSSHS> :oSuumHmucS m.SSSSu S.SSSSU m.SSSSU S.SSSSU SSSESS .mnmnuoz macaw Smcowucm>cou macaw uSumSnmasz -IH :oSSSSoS SSSSSSS S.SSSSS SSS pcoSuoso SSSSSSSSoch S.SSSSS Sea SSSSSSHS> :oSuumuoucS SSSESS .Snonuoz nomzumm ScoSumSoanou Sumac: puswonm comnmmm S mS-Smdd- 130 Inc. v Na; . -. _ .So. v.mu .msonm SmaoSucm>cou Sow S u 2 Saw macaw oSumSnmasn ASS S u 2 OS- So- So: So- SSNSSmHoz SS- So- SoS NS- SSSSSSS SSSSSSSS So SS SS SS- :oSumauomcS uqa>oSmHHS So>Su oS- NS oN- SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SzoSS No So- No- SS- SSSSSSS S>SSSSoS SzoSS SS- SS SSS- SS :oSuSommm meson mum: mS- So «SSS NN- So>SuunhouSa,mu>Su SN- SN- SS SS ScuaunSoSSSSSS SzoSS SS- SS SN- SN SSSSSSSS SN SN So So SaoSSSSoonu So>SS SoS SN- SS- SS :oSuSauomcS So>SS So- SN- SS SS- 3mS> S.SSSSu SSSSSSS GOSSSSOS ucoSuosc :oSuSSom pamSvosc wacSSHo mucoSSSSoucS SSGSSSO monouSSSoucS SSSSSSHS> :oSuumnoucS .SSSSU S.SSSSU m.SSSSu S.SSSAU ASSESS .muogumm macaw SacoSu=m>cou macaw uSumSamaam SSSSSSHS> :oSuumHoucS SSSESS .mnonumm cmozuom mnoSumSanuou pause: Sosvoum comhmom I 4 :oSSSSoS SSSSSSo S.SSSSS Sam SSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSS S.SSSSo SSS N mg 92. 131 .maoaw SmcoSu=m>noo Mom m u.m wag .Ho. V Ni: . .So. v.mn ASOHS uSumwnmass_Hpm S u z SN- SS no we omnommon SmcoSuoao SSnwwn mzogm mv oS- «on So mmSSSmnoSuuu .moawaflcS: So- NS- SN SS mSom uSaaou op mmmnmom cm. can om SSS- aoSSSSSSm mmuoummn .quSmSumSS mumomwsm «S. SS. NS: NS mownoa eon mo hm: SS mammomsou cm Sm So no- maomaou mu>Su NN- So «SS- SS :oSumauownS mo>SS SS mo SS Sm anumaHomnS mumvscom :oSuSmom unmSuosv aoSuSmom unoSvosc SSS-S SSS- SSSSSSS ASSN-.- mag-2a? SSSaam m.anSSSSu macaw SmcoSunc>=ou macaw oSuqumasz lw coSuSmoS SSSSSno m.SSSSu Sea SgoSuoso SocoSSSSmucS S.SSSSS Sam moSnnSHa> :oSuumHoucS SSSaum m.SSS:u noozucm mcoSuwSmHHou pause: Sunbeam nomad»; m mamnou Mom m u.m_vna macaw uSuquqasg How S u.m SS- SS- SN- So- SN So SSNSSSuo: SS SS SN SS- SS- SS- SnSSoom SpooSSoS SS- mo SS SN 7 SSSS NS :oSumauomnS unm>oSonuS mm>Su So So Sm mo SS om SnSSoom 0>Summon mzozm «SS SS SS SN SS- So ScSSoom o>SuSSoSS SzoSSS SS- SS- SS- oS- SS- SS- aoSuSoSSS Sagan Sum: SS- Sm- NS- SN SS SS So>SumnnouSm mu>Su So SS- NS- NS- SS- SS- SnoauqSoSSuSSS SzoSS SS SS oS- So SN SS SSSSSSSS SS NN So- SS- SS 8 Scoflmuoomxo S35 SS- So So SN SS- SN :oSpSauSSSS SS>SS SS- NN- NS- SS- SS- SS- zoS> S_SSSSS SSSuSSS :oSumosvo :oSpwmdouo :oSumusfio :oSumosvm :oSummduuo :oSumusva MSHOSHOZ mtnvnmumm MSHQAHNR mtnmfioz MSHOSHNSS m.H0—.~Hmm moan—NME “Owuudhoafiw macaw SmnoSunm>nou mach» 0Sumwnmasm SSSamS .Suonua: I! M'- congonvm .maoguoz Sam :oSuamfiuuo Sam aoSuSosvm moSSSSHm> :OSuumHounS xSwamm .mnogpoz zmozumS mnoSumSonuou unmaoz uu=S0Hm nomumom v mafia. .mnonumm Snm 133 .8. v m: .msoaw SaccSuno>scu aom m u.m can macaw USumSnuaus amw SvLmW SN SS NN NS NN- SS- SoNSSSSoz -SS SS SN SS No- SS SSSSSSS SuuoSSoS SS- So- SS SS .SSS SS :oSSSanoSSS SSS>SSSSSS So>SS So- SN SS SS- SS SS- SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SzoSS SS So- SS- SS SS- No- ScSSSoS S>SSSSoS Szoam SS- SS- So SS- SN- SS- :oSSSSSSS Sosom Son: SS SS SN NS- SS SN SS>SSSSSSSSS So>SS SS SN- SS- SS SN- SN- SnoaSSSoSSSSSS SzoSS SN SS So SN SS- SN SSSSSSxm SN So- SS- SN So- So ScoSSSSuono SS>SS SS- SS- SS- So- SN SS coSSSaSomcS So>SS So- SS 7 SS So- SN- NN- zoS> S.SSSSS SSSuSSS :oSumosfic :cSuamnuoc :cSpaonfic :oSumuswo :cSuSmsuuo SOSumozwc m.ao:ucz m.ao:uam m.am:umm m.aonuoz m.ao;umm m.aogumm moSSuSam> :cSuumamuaw macaw SmacSunc>ncu macaw USHSSnwasz :cSuSusvm .maoauoz Sam :oSuSmsuoo Sam :cSumunem .maccumm vac moSSuSam> :oSuumaounS SSSamm Smacnumm somzuoS mnoSumSoaaco ucoaoz pusvoam comamom m mSmcou aow m n.m Saw macaw 0Sumwnuasn-amm vamm SN- SS- SS SS -SS SS SSSSSSS S2333 SSSSSSS SEES SN- SS- So- SN- om NS mouSSmccSuwa .moNSawcfiz om am So SS- SS mS- mSmm “Saaco ca nonsmom oo SS SS- «SS NN SS :cSpazaSm Scaoumoa .mcSSmSomSv mumowwdm Sm mo om- SS SS- Sm moSnoa SS Sm Sm SS Sm- So mummcmaou mm mm mo So SN mN- m:0mmoa mu>wu So S SS- mS- mm- SS- SS- :cSumsaomcS mc>Su SS- 2. SN 2. SS SS ESSSEoSSSS S3263. ccSuwunto :oSumumbuuc :cSuuosvc :cSpmosvc :oSpamsuuo :cSumunvo m.am:uc: S.ao:umm m.ao:umm m.aoauoz S.am:umm m.ao:umm moSamSaS> :cSuumaoucS mncaw SancSuao>ncu macaw uSumScmazz SS Seam S. SSSSSSSSS :cSkuswm .ma05uoz Sam :oSummsuuo Sam :oSumosbm SoSSuSaS> :cSuumacucS SSSaSm S.SSSSU coozuom maoSumSoaaou paoaoz Suzuoam :omamum S mSmoSoaaS mo>So SS NS SS SS SN SS So NS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SaoSS SS SS SS SS No SS SS So SSSSSSS o>SSSSoS SzoSS oo NS So SS SS So So So aoSSSSSSS Susan SSS: So SS NS SS SS . SS NS S SS SS>SSSSHSSSS SS>SS SS SS SS So So so So SS ScoauaSoSSSSSS SzoSS So. SS SS SS SS SS SS SN SSSSSSSS Sc SS So SS SS SS SS So S ScoSuSuoonu SS>SS SS SS SS So SS SS SS NN :oSSSaHoSSS SSSSS SN SN SS NS NS SS SS SS zoS> S.SSSSS SSSSSSS S S S S S S N S - SSSSSSS> SSSSSSS macaw oSumSnmanm on» :S maonumm So ScSSuSaS> :cSuuSacunS SSSaSm mo SoSoccscoam uncommom S mamSSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SS NS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SzoSS SS NS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSS SSSSS SSS: SS NS SS NS SS SS. SS SS SS SS>SSSSSSSSS SS>SS SS NS SS NS NS SS SS SS SS SSSaSSSoSSSSSS SSSSS SS SS SS SS NS SS NS SS SN SSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS NS SS SS SS, SS SSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSS SS NS SS SS SS SS NS SS NS SSSSSaSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SN SS NS SS SS SS SS zoS> S.SSSSS SuSuSSS S S N S S S S N S SSSSSHSS SuSSSSS \munnunl macaw SwnoSunm>coo map :S mumzumm mo mmmSamSHm> :oSuoSHoucS SSSaSm mo moSucosconm mmcommom N mamfiw 137 .mcoSuusuSm :oSuumHoan SSSENM SSS Mom pommnbm mo mmcommmn mo Sunmsconm Sumo» mo » :S damn“ SN SS SNS SS SS SS SS NS SSSSSSSS So NSSSSSSSS SSSSS SS SS NS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSoz SS SS NS NS SS NS NS SS SSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SN SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSaSoSSS SSS>SSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SS SS SS SS NS SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSS= SSSSS SS NS NS SS SS SS SS SN SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SSSSS SS SS NS SS SS SS SS NS SSSSSSSSS SozoS SSS: SS SS SS SS NS SS SS NS SS>SSSSSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SS NS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS mxoSS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSS NS SS SS SS SS SS SN SS SSSSSSSSSSSS SS>SS NS SS SS SS SS SS SS SN SSSSSSNSSSS SS>SS NS NS NS SS SS SS SS . SS 3SS> S.SSSSu SSSSSSS S N S S S S N S SSSSSSSSS SSSSSSS macho oSumSnwasm may nS Shanna: mo mmoSnaSHa> :oSuoaHoqu SSSaam mo mmSunozcmSm mmcommmm m mgm¢H 138 SSGOSpmapSm :oSuumuoucS SSSaam SSS Mom uuomnum mo omcommon mo Sucoacoum Sago» mo « :S manna SS NS NS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSS So NSSSSSSNS SSSSS SS SS SS SS SS NS SS NS SS SSSSSSSoz SS SS NS SS NS SS SS NS SS SSSSSSS SSSSSSSS SS SS SS SS NS SS 8 SS SS :oSuSauomnS S§>SS9ES S36 NS SS SN SS SS SS SS NS SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SSSSS NS SS SS SS NS SS SS NS SS SSSSSSS S>SSSSSS SzoSS SS SS NS SS SS SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSS Susan SSS: SS SS NS SS NS SS SS SS SS SS>SSSSSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SS SS SS SS NS NS SS SSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSS SS SS SS SS NS NS NS SS SS SSSSSSSS SS SS SS So SS SS SS SS SS Scoflmuummxo S38 SS SN SS SS SN SS SS SS SS SSSSSSSSSSS SS>SS SS SS SN SN SS SN SS SS SS 2SS> S.SSSSu SSSSSSS S S N S S S S N S SSSSSSSS SSSSSSS macho SmnoSu=o>cou 0:9 :S mumnuoz mo «moSnSSHm> aoSuumuoqu SSSawm mo moSoaoscmSm omnommom v mamSu SS Sm NS SS S SS SS mv SS :oSumaHomaS m¢>Su SS SS So SS Sc SS SG V SS :oSumahomcS mumuscmm S S S m S m N S SSSSSSSS SSSSSSS macho uSuquwazm may SS SSSSSSSS So SmoSSmSHm> coSuumumucS SSSESS mo mmSono=donm omcommom m m4mSo SS SS NS Nm SS SS SS Sm SS aoSuaahowaS mo>So SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS :oSuSaNomnS SSSSSSSS m S S S m S m N S SSSSSSSSS SSSnSSS a ll macho Sm:0Su:m>:ou may :S :SHSSSAU mo SSSSSSSS> coSuumNmucS SSSaam mo moSuzoscoSm «Scommmm S mqm<9 APPENDIX M RAW SCORES FOR ATTRIBUTE PREFERENCES Raw Scores for Attribute Preferences for a Boy in the Humanistio Groupa 1-=:: Family Member Subject Mother Father Child 1 9 7 23 2 25 29 7 3 10 22 11 4 15 21 8 5 23 9 14 6 11 11 7 7 7 19 20 8 20 31 12 aPossible range of scores from 1 to 43, where 1 represents the highest possible conventional score and 43 represents the highest possible expressive score. 142 TABLE 2 Raw Scores for Attribute Preferences for a Boy in the Conventional GrouPa Family Member Subject . Mother Father Child 1 18 30 16 2 13 7 6 3 13 11 13 4 21 25 15 5 34 24 8 6 32 25 13 7 13 14 8 8 14 15 10 9 11 14 4 aPossible range of scores from 1 to 43, where 1 represents the highest possible conventional score and 43 represents the highest possible expressive score. 143 TABLE 3 Raw Scores for Attribute Preferences for a Girl in the Humanistic Groupa f . Family Member Subject . _. Mother . " Father, Child 1 9 7 10 2 25 29 7 3 9 16 8 4 14 11 13 5 23 9 12 6 14 ll 7 7 14 12 16 8 20 31 14 aPossible range of scores from 1 to 43, where 1 represents the highest possible conventional score and 43 represents the highest possible expressive score. 144 TABLE 4 Raw Scores for Attribute Preferences for a Girl in the Conventional Groupa Family Member Subject Mother Father Child 1 20 29 12 2 13 5 5 3 11 11 13 4 21 27 15 S 30 15 6 6 3O 16 20 7 6 11 11 8 16 15 10 9 7 9 5 aPossible range of scores from 1 to 43, where 1 represents the highest possible conventional score and 43 represents the highest possible eXpressive score. APPENDIX N CONSCIENCE ORIENTATION SCORES 145 TABLE 1 Conscience Orientation Scores in the Humanistic Group —J:; Manner of assessment Subject Moral judgment Sentence completion Total response Ha Cb ”ENC A27 er T ”ENC Ha Cb "fine 1 09 12 03 15 03 03 24 15 O6 2 15 09 00 09 06 00 24 15 00 3 16 08 00 06 15 00 22 23 00 4 12 03 O6 12 03 06 24 06 12 5 12 08 04 06 06 O6 18 14 10 6 15 09 00 03 09 03 18 24 03 7 13 07 04 06 12 O3 19 19 07 8 12 03 03 00 12 06 12 OS 09 aHumanistic score. Conventional score. "Externalized" score. 146 TABLE 2 Conscience Orientation Scores in the Conventional Group Manner of assessment Subject Moral judgment Sentence completion Total response Ha Cb "ENC Ha Cb ”ENC Ha Cb "E”c 1 10 13 01 06 08 07 16 21 O8 2 O7 11 06 00 09 06 07 20 12 3 O7 15 02 09 09 03 16 24 05 4 04 18 02 O6 03 09 10 21 11 5 O6 15 00 06 09 O6 12 24 O6 6 06 11 07 03 12 O3 09 23 10 7 01 19 O4 06 06 09 O7 25 13 8 O4 17 O3 06 00 03 10 17 O6 9 O4 18 02 00 O3 06 O4 21 08 aHumanistic score. cConventional score. "Externalized" score. APPENDIX 0 RAW SCORES OF FAMILY OF ”EXTERNALIZED" SUBJECT Conscience Orientation Scores of "Externalized" Subject 147 TABLE 1 1 Manner of assessment Moral judgment Sentence completion Total response Ha Cb "ENC Ha Cb ”ENC Ha Cb ”ENC O4 08 12 O6 09 V7 06 10 17 18 aHumanistic score. Conventional score. "Externalized" score. TABLE 2 Attribute Preference Scores for Family of "Externalized" Subject Family Member Mother Father Child 11 a (08)b 11 a (lolb 12 (lob aPreferred attributes for a boy. Preferred attributes for a girl. 148 TABLE 3 Family Interaction Responses of Parents of "Externalized” Subjecta Variable 3‘ Mother Father Elicits child's view 52 35 Gives information ’ 14 17 Gives expectations 04 07 Explains 10 15 Shows disappointment 08 00 Gives alternatives 00 O4 Uses power assertion 00 11 Shows positive feeling 02 00 Shows negative feeling 02 ll Gives irrelevant information 01 00 Reflects feeling 02 00 Moralizes 00 00 Total frequency of response 40 41 8Data in % of total frequency of response of subject for all family interaction situations. 149 TABLE 4 Family Interaction Responses of ”Externalized” Child J. ‘— Variable ‘ Score Child requests information 00 gives information , 79 gives reasons 02 confesses 02 denies 00 suggests discipline, restores situation 10 refuses to commit self 00 minimizes, rationalizes 00 shows highly emotional response 00 total frequency of response 41 aData in % of total frequency of response of subject for all family interaction situations. "Ili‘llllllllll‘lllllifills