“1TH . 1"." 1.1.5411 1“ 111.1311 < " '1 2 ~ 27. - : ' "1["1'11. ‘.1:..\ f1: $11'.'111'1'111r1’1""1“' (11:53“ 1 $1211; .%I:- If.“ 1‘1' ‘ . . .I ‘37 III “PI/2111 .2 . 1.111. .2... 4.1. II $7411 311111.51! ' '11:;1152 "-1 111.“? ””1 " gm?" 211. , 12.21111 u“ " 1.1783513, :_ ;:— ,2 11-211 ’ :13? '1‘; " .w 1' ?1' ’r1 . '. 2' 2 . 1119111111 5111Jy'1 U 11'11'F11;1:1'1 kajfi' .".}'1-11"‘I {1.151"T$21 121111“ ' '~ 13:123.. '1' '11121’)’ 1511 1 2,. £211": 1: . 21 Irkl :. 2 -2. - "125'.“ .111. {J‘I '1“ M ‘Mfg. .9222: ":7; u . 1‘: 1-52 121.153.113.1111'1’14 22132222 154‘ - 9.".3‘ . )1 2 . _- . ‘ 2 ”:2- _ . ‘l 1 1'34"»: 1"1’11'13111. 2:1" ' $21. .21h:1.(15,1":;7\;‘>1fi8 2: . .., .5 - - . I. H | 1 1' 4‘N1' "1' '1 51":31H \" n '11."- f 1 ~ .’ ‘ " . .'.- \J H: . . A ,. - 2 I 10.\§(y| .1. H 2 i. '0‘". . 1gb 12-; _,‘ ,- : . . - :1 1,134.)? 1 ‘1' n I "t "I '3 I 2 1 .) 1 I . . ' W ""—£‘.‘ .’Q .,.l. .. 2;“ 212;? .21 1 112.1155. 12221.3“ .1 a‘. .2. .1111 :‘1 .1111. " 1 [11'1"m’1 ' "13311415 . 111121111 1511111 .1 .11. .2. .g. 211 I15 11’1“ '1 111111I 2.112)) ' 1' 1'1"“ .1111, .1. '12 . 11“1'I' 1'11'1'1 ‘1'”1'1111" "1 ” 2 1.3... . I I 2‘. .' ‘. ":5 .- 5,.2 apt m _. n’- ‘- ”I 1'1'1:I>5 i 5’I.21;1;5:' .1I-'.::.II r.,.1I-‘.25".~1.‘- "" 1' ‘I"I . I, . 1 2. "I:|:'5.p1--. vL'1. a. .. --.~ ' . ._... ' "J. v .«n . .-. _ 4- , ~< .— v- .— .~ - .L. __ > ‘:._.._ _':, 4‘ r.- a..' 3.“;- -_..- '33.? ‘4‘... we. *0 I :2. I. L .z , y,2_..1’21,1.‘:'1 ..I. 32222.. .,..~ ”1.3.32.9“ 1:1'1'1-."..'.'1:1'3 11"11g'11'1""'1"3:1uL.5 .~.' ’ 111' 5 L» 1 1"."1"-’-'1‘-‘.T15'2;’z."1'.I 1:11.1331115‘11111 1131‘: ',2 In;.1'1'111221.1W11m2 13.11111 .11 II “1'11?"“1h'fil. .52. 11.214.53.15 'Fi 22:3“ {:1'1-‘1 1.24 Ifi1§11fi4‘ I. :‘ ‘ . 2I . -. H '... 1"1'111 1' ...... .1 11.111. ‘11‘1"11'11"‘1Lr"1r"9F1111111‘1‘111’le 3.11.. 11 1511 111.2“. 1‘1" “‘1‘ . .. 1111.1".1 1'... 13111151...11 '1'... g "\ 1"" 211-2152 1.: a I 2 '12:. 51. . ' .11 1 ".«1'11' .I‘1’111'1"“ 11"‘113’11 1. 311?! #11" 101' .uJ 2 ‘ . ' 2; "5‘" "I1" ...- . I '55; "My”. ""1111“ 1.. '1“! “If" ‘1112‘111211'11‘11""71%1'1’1’ 3.0112125 « 5.12.1... 1527 2 '2'211 21;, 1'11"? H.1'I21I1111112112 :2. :2111525. .21.I‘2¢’1’.‘.522225 15143111 ‘ 5 1 ‘ 1 ' '11' ' 1‘ I kl. -.12'1")1."' '111'1' '111::' 212152. ::.1 2155.. :21“ 5221/1: 213:5. V1112, 11'1”], 1.11 1ffll‘ff' I {22'25‘2212225151‘22 '1' .. 221' 55;)“ .1IIIJI-1'1 . .1'" 21.1 212 “1.1.1.2....“ 1121511.- 1w. 1 2 122259521vn‘ww pi2-. 2t. '1' "'1'22151. . """'111 .555 22212222105111 '1 2 H: I- 2 , ,2 _ ‘1 ‘ ' 2. .'.' =: 1 "j: 1‘7 5.1.27") ”.12'" 12.152.111.51 ~15 :fkw'1'211-316121. .-1' .- 1'1’122'12 “WWI. 15‘21' 2 0 2‘ 22“ 1 ‘2 21”., r... 2.11:2 '1:11»!1.12.1'1,11“§1i'l1151112 11 . ' ""1511 1"5'112'1'5111 .11: I11 31'9'1'1'111‘C111.111311. 1 ""- "f." a. 1'1 11'1'14-11'n'.‘ I1:11.1111.11111111112141"111111111 ' 1'1"“ '1'111' ' This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECTS OF FAMILIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS 0N BLACK MOTHERS' CHILDREARING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AND ON THEIR CHILDREN'S COMPETENCE presented by Carol Ann Trufant has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Psychology EQ V Major professor Date ///762 / / 0-7639 LIB R A D ‘1' Michigan State University HAY 20825512., ' r K D 143 04 2.1beng 36}, :V PL&“!Q'_2;% 4 _ . .uv my , z" THE EFFECTS OF FAMILIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS ON BLACK MOTHERS' CHILDREARING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AND ON THEIR CHILDREN'S COMPETENCE By Carol Ann Trufant A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1977 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF FAMILIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS ON BLACK MOTHERS' CHILDREARING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS AND ON THEIR CHILDREN'S COMPETENCE By Carol Ann Trufant This study was concerned with familial support systems, Black mother's childrearing attitudes and behaviors, and children's compe- tence. Mother's attitudinal variables were (1) Positive View of the Parent Child Relationship, and (2) Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility. Mothers' childrearing behavioral variables consisted of (l) Firm vs. Lax Control, (2) High vs. Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress, (3) High vs. Low Self-Confidence, (4) Encouragement of Autonomy vs. Dependency, and (5) Mothers' Autonomy vs. Dependency. Children's competence variables consisted of the following (l) High vs. Low Tolerance of Stress, (2) High vs. Low Self-Confidence, (3)Achieve- ment Oriented vs. Non-Achievement Oriented, (4) Approach vs. Withdrawn, (5) Autonomous vs. Suggestible, (6) Rebellious vs. Dependable with Adults, (7) Destructive vs. Constructive, and (8) Alienated vs. Trusting. Carol Ann Trufant Hypotheses were (l) Husband/stable males in the simple nuclear family system will have a more positive effect on the mothers' socialization behaviors towards the child than will the mother alone in the attenu— ated nuclear type or the siblings in the extended family type. (2) Husbands/stable males and grandmothers as caretaking supports, respectively, will have more positive effects on the child's mastery and socialization in school than will sibling supports or no support systems. (3) Grandmothers and siblings as caretaking supports will have a more positive effect on mothers' attitudes towards childrearing than mothers alone as caretakers. iSubjects consisted of 53 Black mothers, with children aged 4 and 5 years old, between the ages of 22 and 40 years old. All mothers were in the lower income bracket, many of whom were on welfare, and their children attended either Head Start or one of two Day Care centers in South Central Los Angeles. Mothers (l) were interviewed and asked questions regarding childrearing behaviors and views of the men in their lives, (2) completed Q-sorts to convey their childrearing attitudes, and (3) completed a Fact Sheet questionnaire which requested information about family structure, caretakers, job and marital status, etc. Teachers rated children's social and individual competence at school using a Q-sort. Carol Ann Trufant Results indicated that simple nuclear family structure affected mothers' autonomy. No other significant results were found fornwthers' childrearing behaviors. Husbands/stable males and mothers alone as caretakers fostered less than Optimal behaviors in children whereas grandmothers and Others consisting mostly of parent siblings and friends as caretakers fostered more constructive behaviors. Others, e.g., siblings as caregivers, fostered self-confidence in children whereas mothers alone and husbands fostered more fearfulness in chil- dren. Grandmother and Others as caretakers did not have any effect on mothers' childrearing attitudes but educational level did. Mothers with some college, business/trade school, and one or more years of college encouraged independence in their child more than mothers with the lowest educational attainment (llth grade or below). Trends * indicated that mothers who completed high school handled financial stress related to children's special needs better than mothers with some college, and, attenuated mothers had a tendency to view parent- . child relations more positively than mothers in extended families. The results also suggested that, generally, single mothers choose their men according to how well they felt the men would get along with the child, then according to how much her social and emo- tional needs were satisfied. Financial needs were low in priority- Carol Ann Trufant Others are important positive caretaking supports because they foster self-confidence and constructive behaviors ' As a result of positive caretaking, self-confident children are less destructive and more cooperative and facilitive with peers, friendly, rebellious and trusting. Mothers more positively View parent-child relations and encourage autonomy if they themselves are essentially more autono- mous. That attenuated mothers view parent—child relations more positively than extended mothers indicates the former feel more confident as mothers. DEDICATION To “Miss Jackson" who is still "making it” and quite well I might add, and To my parents from whom I inherited my strength and because of whom I learned to utilize it, and To all my friends who gave numerous moments of their time in supporting me in my efforts during the past ll years, and finally To myself for a job well done. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Dr. Bernice Eiduson for invaluable help with ideas for instrument devel0pment while she was my research advisor during my pre-doctoral internship at NPI--UCLAU To Dr. Joel Aronoff for reading my work, raising thought- provoking questions and making helpful comments, and for writing his book in 1967. To Dr. William Crano for helping me carry out a somewhat tedious data run with his suggestions and comments even while he was up to his nose in paint. To Dr. Lawrence Messe for his perceptive comments and time given in discussing a plan of action for the data analysis, and for remembering sections of my first draft better than I. And to Dr. Gary Stollak for his necessary comments on this project, which needed to be cut in half, for his patience and faith in my ability to get things done--eventually, and for his support and friendship throughout these many years. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................... vi INTRODUCTION .......................... l Review of Literature .................... 3 Family Support Systems, Mothers' Childrearing Attitudes and Behaviors, and, Children's Competence ...................... 3 Family Support Systems ................ 7 Family Social Structure and Class and Child Adjustment ...................... l2 Methods of Studying Parent Attitudes and Child Competence ...................... 21 Self-Report, Interview and Natural Observation Measures ............. 21 Measurement of Maternal Attitudes and Behaviors .................. 22 Hypotheses. . . . ..................... 30 METHOD ............................. 32 Subjects .......................... 32 Instruments ........................ 34 Procedures ......................... 37 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Page RESULTS ............................. 41 Methods of Analysis .................... 4l Findings Related to Hypotheses ............... 48 Summary of Results ..................... 55 DISCUSSION ........................... 58 Limitations of the Study .................. 73 Implications for Future Research .............. 75 CONCLUSION ........................... 77 REFERENCES ........................... 80 APPENDICES A. INSTRUMENTS GIVEN TO PARENTS MOTHER'S QUESTIONNAIRE BLOCK'S CRPR Q—SORT, INSTRUCTIONS, LIST OF ITEMS FACT SHEET .................... 84 INSTRUMENTS USED FOR CHILDREN BAUMRIND‘S PRE-SCHOOL BEHAVIOR Q-SORT, INSTRUCTIONS, LIST OF ITEMS ............ l02 B. CODING MANUAL FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROJECT ........ l07 C. ONE-WAY ANALYSES OF VARIANCE CORRELATION MATRICES ............... l25 D. LETTER TO PARENTS STATEMENTS OF CONSENT PARENTS TEACHERS ................... T43 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Means for Family Types, Caretakers and Educational Levels; Summaries of One-Nay Analyses of Variance ........... Factor Loadings for Child-Rearing Practices Report for Boys and Girls ........ Factor Loadings for Mothers' Interview Schedule ..................... Factors and Variable Clusters for Baumrind Manual for the Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort ............ One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent-Child Relationship-FT . . . . One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility-FT ........ One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent-Child Relationship-CT . . . . One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility-CT ........ One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent-Child Relationship-EdL. . . . One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility-EdL ........ One-Way Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control-FT .................. vi Page 42 45 46 47 125 125 126 126 126 127 127 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Table Page 12. One-Hay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress-FT ......... 127 13. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Self-Confidence-FT .................. 128 14. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency-FT ......... p ...... 128 15. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency-FT ..................... 128 16. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control-CT ........ . ............ 129 17. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress-CT ......... 129 18. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Self-Confidence-CT .................. 129 19. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency-CT ............... 130 20. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency—CT ..................... 130 21. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control-EdL ...................... 130 22. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress-EdL ........ 131 23. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Self-Confidence-EdL .................. 131 24. One—Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency-EdL .............. 131 vii LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Table 25. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency-EdL .................... 26. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance-FT .................. 27. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness—FT ................... 28. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented vs Non-Achievement Oriented-FT ............ 29. One-Nay Analysis of Variance Approach vs Withdrawn-FT ..................... 30. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Autonomous vs Suggestible-FT .................... 31. One-Hay Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable with Adults-FT ............... 32. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive-FT .................... 33. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting-FT ...................... 34. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance-CT ................ 35. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness-CT ................... 36. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented vs Non-Achievement Oriented—CT ........ 37. One-Hay Analysis of Variance - Approach vs Withdrawn-CT ..................... viii Page 132 132 132 133 I33 133 134 134 134 135 135 135 136 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Table Page 38. One-Hay Analysis of Variance Autonomy vs Suggestible-CT .................... 136 39. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable with Adults-CT ............... 136 40. One-Hay Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive-CT .................... 137 41. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting-CT ...................... 137 42. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance-EdL ........... . ...... 137 43. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness-EdL .................. 138 44. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented vs Non-Achievement Oriented-EdL ............ 138 45. One—Way Analysis of Variance - Approach vs Hithdrawn-EdL ..................... 138 46. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Suggestible-EdL .................... 139 47. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable with Adults-EdL .............. 139 48. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive-EdL ................... 139 49. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting-EdL ..................... 140 50. Multiple Correlation Matrix (MIS) ............ 141 51. Correlation Matrix - Bl & 82 and Baumrind I - VIII . . . 142 ix INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to examine Black family support systems as they affect (l) mothers' childrearing attitudes and (2) children's competence. Low income Black mothers ofyoungchildren have a great respon- sibility in attempting to raise their children under racial and econ- omic stresses. Quality childrearing requires economic security which allows mothers the freedom to spend necessary time with her child; time which fosters the child's optimum emotional and social growth. Such Black mothers ofyoung children, however, are hampered from pro- viding optimum quality child care because of lack of financial resources, a situation which affects her ability to attain and main- tain adequate housing and food. Racism and economic factors directly affect both Black women (and men) in their ability to make a living without undue environmental stress. This circumstance has in turn affected general coping styles related to survival, i.e., formation of Black family structures and resulting childrearing attitudes and practices. Most families with single parent Black mothers obviously have significant difficulties financially. Many Black mothers also raise their children without husbands, although there are equally as many (legal or informal) married mothers raising their young children in the Black community, (Kellum, Peterson, Ensminger, & Branch, 1974). According to Census Bureau data (March, 1970), female-headed house- holds receive the lowest income of any other group, an income which is substantially below the"povertyline" (Scanzoni, 1971). Scanzoni points out that even some Black married couples who are living together are economically insecure, even though usually with a male in the home, income expectedly doubles. In other cases, total families are sup— ported by Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It is sug- gested that poor intact families are no more secure economically than are poor female-headed families. LAlthough money is an important consideration for living, it is not the only crucial variable involved in giving children maximum quality rearing. It is reported by some (Kellum, 1972) that children from female-headed households exhibit more problem behaviors in school than children from intact families. Indications are that lack of a husband to provide support--financially and emotionally--is the causal factor. Superficially this may be true. Yet few studies have exam- ined the question of whether children of married/cohabitating mothers are doing better socially in pre-school settings than children of single mothers within the low income group of Black mothers. Review of Literature Family Support Systems, Mothers' Childrearing Attitudes and Behav- iors, and, Children's Competence The child's level of competence depends upon his socialization agents including support systems available to him as well as the mothers' attitudes and behaviors with children. The task is diffi- cult and affected by sometimes complex relationships within the family system. As Lewis (1967) points out, the socialization of a child proceeds though the media- tion of a set of small social systems, primarily his family . . . . One may think of a family . . . as a minature, relatively self contained social microcosm with a system of values regarding mutual expectation of the parents (and sometimes . . . (their) . . . sib- lings), as the socially sanctioned transmitters of the culture, value certain behaviors, attitudes, and feel— ings in their children as evidence that the system is maintaining satisfactory progress toward one of its' goals--developing a fully socialized adult. A child's responsibility in the socialization process is to learn the valued attitudes and behavior of his socializing system (p. 362). According to Billingsley (1968) childrearing has both instru- mental and expressive qualities inherent in its function. Not only must the parent or substitute provide for physical and health needs of the child, but this husband/stable male must provide a sense of self-worth and belongingness to his family--to the mother as well as to the offspring. v‘ ' Block (1971) and others believe parental models and pr0per childrearing techniques are important sources from which the child can induce the principles needed for ego maturity through motivation by love for the parent (positive reinforcement from potent instru- mental agents). The Joint Commission on Mental Health (1970) points out that the social group usually acts as a determinant of the cultural patterns learned in early childhood which are deeply affected by an individual's experience within his family group as well as by his unique interpretations of these family patterns. Each social class has an optional pattern of childrearing. An overview of research studies suggest that very poor people more often than not, fail to adapt family life patterns and childrearing patterns associated with child competence or positive mental health, al- though these finds are neither limited to nor universally found among the very poor (e.g., Baldwin, 1948; Block, Patterson, Block, and Jackson, 1958; Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Glidewell, 1961; Lewis, H., 1961; and Lewis, 0., 1961). Variables related to child problems include (1) A high ratio of marital and interpersonal conflict, (2) Parents lack of goal commitment to the child or to a belief in long-range success, (3) Sense of powerlessness in handling the child's behavior, (4) Parental low self-esteem, (5) Parental orientation towards impulsive behavior and a sense of alienation, (6) Failure to take responsibility for their own role in situations, (7) Distrust of new experiences, (8) Use of authoritatian rearing methods with the mother as main control agent and father as punitive agent, if he is around, (9) Use of inconsistent, harsh discipline rather than firm, consistent control, i.e., alter- nating encouragement and restriction of agression, (lO)Use of physical control rather than verbal communication including the use of reason, and (11) Abrupt, early yielding of independence and little support and acceptance of the child. For example, Baumrind and Black (1967) reported results from a comprehensive study on competence in pre-school children and parental socialization practices. Children's behaviors were observed and rated using a 95 item Q-sort. Parents were interviewed and their behaviors with the child at home were observed around dinner time until the child went to bed and ratings were obtained. Results indicated that (1) Maternal socialization and maturity demands were associated with independence and assertiveness in boys and girls, (2) Verbal give and take of parents in controlling children was associated with independence and social competence in children, (3) Consistent discipline and high socialization demands were not characteristic of restrictive or punitive parents; and (4) Restrictiveness and refusal to grant sufficient independence was associated with withdrawn, dependent and disaffliative behavior in both boys and girls. Baumrind (1973) has found that withdrawn and inhibited children seem to have been exposed to more restrictive pat- terns of childrearing. Baumrind's findings parallel results from others in that children who had shown the most inhibition and reacted with emotional upset in new or different situations had mothers who were restrictive. Most relevant, in a 1971 study, Baumrind found two parental patterns of authority high on control--authoritarian versus authori- tative. The authoritarian parent was found to value obedience, be- lieved in restricting the child's autonomy, valued perservation of order and traditional structure as an end in itself, did not encourage verbal give and take because s/he believed children should accept the parent's word for what is right (p. 13). Firm enforcement, low pas- sive acceptance and low scores on encouraging independence and indi- viduality define patterns of parental authority for these parents. The authoritative parent, on the other hand, tried to direct the child's activities in a rational issue-oriented manner. These par- ents valued autonomy, disciplined conformity, and affirmed the child's present qualities and set standards for future conduct. Characteristically, they used reason, overt power, reinforcement and regimes to reach objectives. Authoritative parents were high on firm enforcement, low on passive acceptance, and high on encouraging independence and individuality. The effects of authoritative childrearing on the development of their children's competence was generally positive when compared to authoritarian upbringing. Authoritarian parents were also found to lack confidence in their childrearing practices, did not enrich their child's environment, and lacked balance between what was offered to the child in supportive ways and what they demanded of the child regarding obedience. Authoritative parents, however, balanced their support and demands in that they highly controlled children, granted high amounts of independence and made high maturity demands while offering much support and nurturance. FamilyASupportASystems There have been a number of studies conducted concerning family structure and functioning but few on low income Black family patterns and inherent functions as they relate to caretaking and emotional support systems for Black mothers with young children. A family pattern can be viewed as a body of persons serving as models for carrying out duties or functions. A childrearing family pattern represents an entity of persons serving as models for raising children. This entity then providesaicertain structure within which the functions of childrearing occur. Structure can be varied depending on the nature of and the number within this body of persons defined as family. ”For a mother to raise children, she often needs help from family members such as a husband/boyfriend, sibling, parent, or friends and/or other relatives. Certain authors point out the importance of extended family support systems as most crucial to Black family functioning. Hays and Mindel (1973) view extended family structures as meaningful choices for Blacks given their environmental situations. When crises occur persons tend to rely upon the family as their source of social, emotional and financial support (Drabek and Boggs, l9l8; Shelsky, 1954; and Quarantelli, 1960). Given the everyday crises most poor Black people face, and the lack of moral support from most institu- tions such as educational ones, “there is a high probability that the family and its' extensions would become more important to the Black individual cut off from other forms of support that are meaningful to him." Furthermore, He . . . interact(s) and depends on kin in place of some of the non-familial institutions that provide support to the white family. The family then, for such individuals . . . (is) . . . a more pervasive and encompassing structure meeting more needs and with more intensity than would be expected for white individuals. (p. 52) The Black family serves as a strong support system in childrearing, and, provides psychological security and emotional support which can foster, or inhibit, the mother's positive attitude towards the parent- child relationship and her ability to provide the best possible care for her children. In a way similar to the family need for societal support, mothers need familial supports to assist them in carrying out their childrearing responsiblities, supports which necessarily emerge from various structural styles. Billingsley discusses two categories of family structures which illustrate the variations in those Black families in this study that must survive under different basic conditions, such as the lack of a husband/steady boyfriend, and/or financial resources. These family patterns are (1) nuclear and (2) extended: A family is commonly defined as a group of persons related by marriage or ancestry who live together in the same household. Nuclear families are con- fined to husband and wife and their own children, with no other members present. Extended families include other relatives or in-laws of the family head, sharing the same household with the nuclear family members. (p. 16) "Two-thirds of all Negro families are nuclear, (and) 25 percent are extended families . . ." (p. 16). Billingsley discusses specific types of family patterns with- in each of the relevant two main categories related to childrearing functions. The simple nuclear family is described as "consisting of husband and wife and their own or adopted children living together 10 in their own household with no other members present. This is the traditional type of family structure in America and EurOpe. Among students of the family, it is considered the ideal and most universal family form." (p. 18) Furthermore, Billingsley points out, . . That while this nuclear family arrangement is the ideal and the model against which all other families, particularly Negro families, are compared it does not encompass the majority even among white families. A study by Paul C. Glick found that in 1953 only 28.6 percent of house- hold units consisted of a husband and wife and their own minor children. And a study in 1965 in Richmond, California by Alan Wilson found that 45 percent of white families and 49 percent of Negro families consisted of husband, wife, and their own children. Thus the 'ideal' family pattern, the simple nuclear family, may not be any more common among whites than it is among Negroes. Nationally, about 36 percent of all Negro families or more than 1 1/2 million families, are of the simple nuclear type . . . (p. 18). In discussing the attenuated nuclear family, Billingsley uses the term attenuated to refer to one parent families with someone important missing. According to Billingsley (p. 18), "this type of family structure has either a father or mother but not both living together with minor children in the parents' own household with no other persons present." He further points out that in the United States, this type of family support structure is a very important one for Blacks with its most frequent form existing as mother and child living together. According to Billingsley, 11 Of the more than 2 1/2 million attenuated nuclear families in the United States in 1965, 733,000 were Negro families constituting about 6 percent of all Negro families. The vast majority of these families (689,000) were headed by females . . (p. 19). The simple extended family consisted of mother, father, their own children and other relatives, i e., a parent sibling, niece/ nephew, grandfather, or grandmother living in the house. The attenuated extended family is one in which there is a \J single mother (separated, divorced or widowed) living with her children and other relatives in the household, i.e., grandmother, siblings, or niece/nephew. If a family is to act more effectively as caretaking and emotional supports, certain instrumental-expressive functions (Billingsley, 1968) must be carried out. Generally instrumental and expressive functions are considered separately, but are highly interrelated. Instrumental usually refers to the head of household as the husband/stable boyfriend providing economic security to insure family stability, e.g., having a job and working everyday. Expressive functions refer to providing "'psychic security'" or carrying out ”'the mental health function of the family,'” and generally fostering "a sense of belonging, self-worth, self- awareness and dignity" to its members along with providing companionship and love (p. 26). 12 Although there are varied Black childrearing family structures, those of mother and father, or mother alone with or without relatives are most prevalent in Black families. With mother and father present, the husband/father often helps with household duties and caretaking functions. Although this caretaking is shared, most of the instru- mental functional responsibilities fall on the man (Scanzoni, 1971; Billingsley, 1968) and the mother devotes time to the expressive functions with the family (Billingsley, 1968), If a man has a good job, goes to work everyday, he meets instrumental needs. If he kisses his wife and children before he leaves and upon his return, he is (partially) meeting expressive needs (p. 26). »An important implication is that if the all around emotional needs of the wife and children are met, i.e., affection, understanding, etc., mother can maintain a positive attitude towards and perform a more positive job raising her children and meeting their emotional needs as well. Family Social Structure and Class and Child Adjustment Baumrind (1973) suggests that the way in which certain Black families socialize their young children may be based on traditional values within the Black culture, usually viewed as authoritarian in 13 this country, which may be beneficial to that culture. This latter point reasonable as it seems however remains to be substantiated for Blacks, although Black children tend-to be reared according to his- torically based values, i.e., protection of children against the ills of society, total psychological acceptance of the modes of disci- pline--by Blacks, especially males--as justified for today's world is questionable. Moreover, relaxation of control as the offspring matures does not seem to be the rule in many Black families, i.e., grandmothers and mothers do have conflict over mother's decisions on how to live her life and how to raise her children. Staples (1974) discussed childrearing practices of Black lower- and middle-class mothers. Black mothers rarely are exposed to literature on childrearing so that their childrearing practices conflict with those of contemporary theories which encourage posi- tive personality development of the maturing child. Since middle class Black women have not been so too long, middle class modes of childrearing are not readily known to the new Black middle class. Consequently,fmany a Black mother raises her children the way her mother or grandmother has raised her. One socialization mode characteristic of the lower class is the expectation that children must be obedient solely because they were told to do so by the mother whose authority resides solely in 14 her role (Minuchin, 1967). However, in middle class families, mothers are more likely to give explanations to the child about why they are required to behave a certain way. Staple explains that the Black mother is often tired and irritable due to the fact that she works more often and has more children than the average middle class White mother; ergo, she is impatient and insistent on immediate obedience. ' Moreover, Black mothers have little authority in their environment, a condition which fosters her exercise of authority in the place over which she has jurisdiction-~her home. ‘Staples remarks that although mothers are responsible for socializing children, lower class mothers are at a disadvantage in that the only reward she can offer her chil- dren is love and devotion. “She cannot offer status rewards to the child as can the middle class mother because educational and social rewards are not as readily available in the lower class culture. Since these status rewards represent a chance to achieve in society, any mother, no matter what class status, can be instrumental in teaching her child how to master his environment providing of course that the 4 mother believes in her own ability to teach the child to think for himself in solving problems in his surrounding environment. Eventu- ally, this ability will foster his c0ping skills and achievement in the larger culture. But in order to teach children these skills, more reasoning and explanation must be utilized in disciplining 15 instead of restrictive methods.i These external methods of control prohibit the child from learning the very skills he needs to Operate in the outside world--internal control. Staples points out that the socialization practices exer- cised by Black parents are shared by all lower class groups and are in part caused by tension and stress of everyday living under low- income conditions. “He suggests a Black mother's task is to see that the child gets material and emotional support, and receives encour- agement in learning educational and work skills to foster his success in the world. He also believes that Black mothers have raised chil- dren well regardless of the difficulties they have had to endure. He feels that the Black mother's love for her child has warded off the undesirable effects of her childrearing practices. Lower class Black mothers raise their children with more ease than White mothers for Black children "are seldom inculcated with neurotic traits seen in many middle class white children and they escape the status anxiety associated with some rigid middle class childrearing prac- tices . . . . Neglect and abuse of children on welfare are more frequent among whites than blacks, and, blacks are more accepting of retarded children." (p. 152) However, Black middle class mothers exert powerful and continuous pressure on children, " . to repress aggression at school, to inhibit sexual impulses, and to avoid lower class playmates." Staples adds, 16 The socialization techniques of the Black middle class mother are apprOpriate for her class. Chil- dren are taught pride in their class as the highest in Black culture. The techniques of training that middle class Black mothers use are designed to inculcate in the child a fear of loss of status if he is not a good child. Often anxiety emerging from this type of training is adequate enough to maintain his middle class habits (p 152). Staples concludes that life circumstances differentiate child- rearing practices of Black lower and middle class mothers.v Lower class mothers prepare children to deal with harsh realities of ghetto living and the middle class mother teaches her children the values and behaviors necessary for educational and material achievement. Harrison-Ross and Wyden (1973) believe discipline (sociali- zation) is a way of teaching the child what values a mother wants conveyed. They discuss important aspects of Black discipline (1) time and money, and (2) fear. Many Black parents believe that spar- ing the rod, spoils the child, a notion which is very much related to a "scarity-of-time-to-get—the-money" phenomenon common in the lives of many Black parents. Harrison-Ross and Wyden feel that most Black mothers and fathers are harrassed, busy working, and have to practice stern economy with their time to achieve their aims with a minimum of time and effort which often means a spanking of some sort, whereas White parents tend to agonize over whether to spank or not (p. 24). The second dimension to Black discipline l7 relates to fear, the reasons for which are historical. The Black aim of discipline has always been teaching survival. Consequently, many Blacks bring children up to be quiet to the extent that the children become self-effacing the reward for which is being unnoticed so that they have no opportunity to cause "trouble." These authors do believe that Black parents do a good job raising their children and give them the secure structure--rules and regulations--within which they need to grow. However, times have changed and so have priorities. Blacks need different strengths to survive today, strengths the authors believe emanate from using different types of discipline techniques. Parents need to relax their discipline a bit beginning by talking more to the children rather than hitting or punishing them unnecessarily. A natural consequence of this change in a control pattern is to foster competence in how to handle feel- ings and behaviors such as anger and aggression. Although the authors believe communication with the child is of crucial import, they sug— gest that spanking on the bottom is a good idea--sometimes. For "too many parents and particularly white parents, turn these lectures into excruciating psychological punishments for kids until the child squirms in discomfort, embarrassment, and shame . . ." (p. 244). More communication with the child would present childrearing as an easier task, and understanding, acceptance, setting limits, providing l8 alternatives for present unwanted (by parent) behaviors and alter- natives for the future would help the child understand his inter- personal world, the mother's world, and that of others. Williams and Stockton (1973) conducted a study on lower and working class Black family structure and functions. They found that a larger number of parents in the simple nuclear family re- ported favorable adjustments to the parent role than did parents in attenuated families. Parents in the attenuated nuclear family were more likely to have problems with their children, whereas mothers in the attenuated extended family had more doubts about their adequacy as parents (Minuchin, 1967). A large number of these same mothers in the attenuated families felt their lives had not changed or changed in a negative direction as a result of having children. Results also indicated that the simple nuclear family showed a larger percentage of children with fewer problems than the attenuated types. However, the most significant findings showed that a large number of children in the attenuated extended families were classified as emo- tionally disturbed as compared with the simple nuclear and attenuated nuclear families (Hill, 1972). Generally, the authors found that attenuated family styles showed a lesser amount of positive parental functioning than the simple nuclear family. 0f the two attenuated types, functional differences were small, but the attenuated extended l9 family contained children with more behavior problems. Williams and Stockton suggest that the combination of mothers' feelings of in— adequacy and symptoms of young children may result from the structual characteristics of this attenuated extended family. A three gener- ational family may have more Opportunity for interpersonal conflict (Harrison-Ross and Wyden, l973). Disagreement about socialization of the children between parent and grandparent could develop feelings of parental inadequacy (Minuchin, l967) and the resulting conflict could produce a strain which results in or is expressed as symptoms of child behavior disorder in the child. The authors concluded that the attenuated nuclear and extended families were fulfilling instru- mental and expressive functions less well than the simple nuclear family. In the attenuated family, there are more children with school related problems, fewer considered emotionally well adjusted, and fewer parents who are not adjusted to the parenting role. The authors believe the presence of both husband and wife in a family is a salient variable, because these families with the largest amount of problems are "father absent." Parker and Kleiner (l966) studied the psychological adjust- ment of mothers in single-headed households and their aspirations for their children. Subjects consisted of a group of urban mothers with a husband or husband substitute and another comprised of those 20 raising children without a male partner.” Results indicated that mothers' in attenuated home situations showed poorer psychological adjustment and lower goal-striving for themselves and for their children than did mothers in intact family situations. iThe authors suggested that male absence has a direct effect on the mother rather than on the children and can negatively affect the mother's psycho- logical adjustment and her achievement related attitudes which in turn can cause a depressing influence on competence motivation in her children. Kellum (l972) also studied young children's adaptation to school and found that adjustment is dependent on three factors (l) that the mother not be the only adult in the household, (él that the mother feel hopeful about her ability to influence her child's future, and (3) that the family have someone to whom they can turn in time of trouble. More evidence for this position has been pre- sented by Margaret Ensinger (personal communication, l974) regarding the Noodlawn Project in Chicago. .Results have shown that children from mother-alone families tend to be rated worse by their teachers on school performance. Children from two parent families tend to do better than mother-alone children, but there are other combinations of adults which do not include fathers which do as well or almost as well as mother-father families. Kellum has found that constellations of mother and father, mother and grandmother respectively are related 2l to social adaptation in the child, and, mother alone or mother with an adult having sporadic involvement in the home, respectively, are related to the lowest social adaptation. Methods of Studying Parent Attitudes and Child Competence Self-Report, Interview and Natural Observation Measures Baumrind (l974) has discussed the use of self-report, inter- view and natural observational measures. She feels all these mea- sures are useful because they assess different aspects of a subject's psychological realty. Self-report measures are efficient and con- trol for the problem of observer reactivity, but the self-report method she used has been found to be least acceptable to her sub- jects. Persons who value self-determination tend to resent the limited range of expression (a written questionnaire) permits them. She feels that the self-report cannot take the place of the inter- view or direct observation, but it adds a valuable perspective. A method Baumrind has found most acceptable to her adult subjects is the interview. She points out that the interview has been criticized because it requires retrospective subjective reports 22 of the parent's own behavior or the child's. But the interview also .gives the experimenter a chance to observe directly the interpersonal impact of the subject, and can provide a rewarding intimate experi- ence for the subject and observer. In Baumrind's studies sociali- zation practices, political views, personal aspirations were examined during lengthy interviews. The parents were interviewed after a home visit which gave the observer a chance to hear the parent's reports of subjective judgments regarding behavior observed. The third measure, naturalistic observation, involves an unstructured assessment of the subjects' behavior in natural set- tings. The importance of observing in a natural setting is to capture the subjects' as instigators of their own actions. The observer then has direct access to the social environment s/he is observing. Measurement of Maternal Attitudes and Behaviors Most relevant, Block (l969) studied maternal personality and high and low congruence between maternal retrospective reports and actual maternal behaviors. Mothers observed 5 years earlier interacting with their child in three complex but standardized sit- uations were asked to describe, retrospectively, attitudes, values, 23 and behaviors toward and with their child. Contrasts between per- sonality characteristics of mothers whose reports were more valid with those who's reports were less valid were studied. Initially these subjects consisted of ll2 mothers of various socio-economic and educational levels with children who had physical illnesses of various severities. Mothers were observed on three occasions inter- acting with their children. All three interactions were evaluated using a 6l item Q-set description of interactive behaviors, a modi- fication of a Q-set develOped by Ruesch, Block and Bennett (l953). Five years later, the Block Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR) (Block, l965) a 9l item Q-Sort was administered to each mother. Results on the agreement between actual maternal behavior and CRPR responses revealed a correspondence between the two data sets. Mothers characterized as (l) "Rejecting" mothers scored sig- nificantly higher on CRPR factors reflecting harsh, suppressive control of the child's behavior. The mothers were more critical, non-appreciative and less trusting of the child. Mothers in the second group were characterized as "Conscientious" mothers, and were more concerned about encouraging the child's independence and tended to foster an active, encouraging learning environment for the child. The third cluster (3) represented the "Engulfing," possessive mother who scored high on protectiveness and over-investment in the 24 child and was concerned about his level of achievement and discour- aged individuation. The “Victimized” mother, the fourth type (4), scored high on appreciative of the child's efforts; (5)"warm"nm¢hers appeared to encourage individuation of the child, but were more relaxed about training and weaning and were more tolerant of aggres- sion. The sixth mother type the "Autonomous" mother-—evidenced less emotional acceptance of the child, a reluctance to become involved and scored lower on over-investment in the child; (7) the ”Hostile- Sadistic" mother was distinguished on only one factor-~anxious over- investment on which they scored very low.~ The last group (8), "Child Oriented" mother defined their maternal roles with clarity and tended to rely more often on supernatural explanation of events to the child. Block points out that the Q-Sort reporting of maternal types is better than others based on individual differences of the mother. Block found that the mothers who were most valid in reporting events from five years ago, the "High Accuracy" group, were psychologically more healthy than the low accuracy mothers as determined by Cali- fornia Q-set comparisions of four raters on personality character- istics done at time of original investigation. The high accuracy group manifested qualities reflecting more differentiated, articulated outlooks and were more perceptive, objec- tive, intellectually oriented and verbally fluent. The "LtmIAccuracy" 25 group revealed more psychopathology, that is, they appeared to avoid close interpersonal involvements and had difficulty communicating with other people. They appeared brittle, exhibiting unmodulated reactions, with little ability to contemplate or be reflective which, according to Block, is a characteristic consistent with difficulty or inadequacy in analyzing and reporting one's responses. Items dis- tinguishing these mothers from the HA group suggest they are less reflective and engage in less cognitive processing, perhaps related to their lesser intellectual orientation. However, neither dif- ferences in intelligence or educational achievement of the high and low accuracy mothers nor the intelligence scores for their children were significant, but the high accuracy group did score somewhat higher on intellectual measures. In addition, the "Low Accuracy" mothers appeared to feel somewhat deprived and resentful. Adjectives differentiating them suggest that "these mothers project the causes of their dissatisfactions onto other people rather than seeking to define their own role in precipitating the isolation they apparently feel" (p. l6). Block suggests that projection as a defense mechanism would be expected to show an inverse relationship with accuracy of perception and may be revealed in attenuated form in these results. Finally aspects of childrearing that involve encouragement of the child and openness tend to be more reliably reported whereas the 26 more suppressive childrearing practices are least accurately reported. Block suggests that positive mothers who depart from the cultural norm in reporting are hesitant to admit their harsh and punitive practices for the factors most accurately reported coincide with socialization practices based on cultural norms. Maternal anxiety is more admissible than is maternal hostility, the latter reported with least accuracy. Bell (l965) has also studied childrearing values of lower class mothers. Subjects consisted of mothers with a pre-school child who had at least one older sibling choosen from three predominately Black, lower class elementary school districts in Philadelphia. Mothers were interviewed extensively so that her self-role image, a major focus of the study, could be determined. The final items in the schedule were designed to get at various aspects of the Black woman's self-role image, i.e., background data,*her views of her mar- riage and her wife role, patterns and techniques of childrearing, her feelings about the schools and her expectation for her children when they reach their adult years. Results indicated that distinctions could be made between subgroups within the Black lower class con- tinuum. The resultant significant groupings were low status and high status. The high status group's responses favorably compared to mothers falling in a group considered Black lower class by Parker and 27 Kleiner (l966).\/The author concluded that mothers aspirations for her children may be altered through the influence of other persons such as family members, the school, peer groups or other social or personal factors. However, the closer the mother's aspirations for her child are to the lower end of the lower class range, the less likely her children will be influenced by outside persons or agencies reflecting more middle class values, (and the more likely her position in the lower class is related to goals transmitted to her children, a situa- tion which contributes to a way of life making difficult any alterna- tive aspirational levels to be adopted, internalized, and achieved by the child). Finally the closer the mother is to the lower end of the lower class, the greater deviation between her stated aspirations and general social values, the latter which will have little exclusive influence on her. Baumrind (l972) investigated current patterns of parental authority and their effects on the behavior of Black pre-school chil- dren. Subjects consisted of l6 Black children and their middle class mothers and fathers who attended nursery schools in Berkeley, Cali- fornia. Children were observed in their respective nursery schools for a three-month period, and in a structured situation which included the administration of the Stanford Binet. Parent data were obtained during two home visits, each lasting three hours, followed by a 28 structured interview with the parents. Observation of the children's behaviors were summarized by means of the Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort and observation concerning the parents obtained with parent behavior rating. Results indicated few significant black-white differences for boys. No significant differences were revealed on the child behaviors, although Black boys tended to be less achievement oriented and more aggressive than White boys. However, Black girls differed as subjects of childrearing practices. Black parents did not en- courage independence or individuality or provide enrichment of child's environment as did White parents. Yet, they discouraged infantile behavior a great deal. Fathers were authoritarian in practice and did not promote nonconformity.i Mothers practiced firm enforcement, were not passive-acceptant and were somewhat rejecting. Black girls were expected to be more mature. Black mothers also discouraged noncon- formity. The girls, as compared to boys, were somewhat more dominant and less achievement oriented, but not significantly. However, Black girls were more independent and at ease in new settings. Baumrind believes this is due to their unusual social maturity and wide range of adaptive behaviors, i.e., caring for younger siblings at home, aggressive play, and ability to control behavior when around adults. Black families were not characterized by the authoritarian personality syndrome, but were characterized by the authoritarian practices. Black and White families had similar scores for 29 authoritarianism but differed significantly in that Black families scored higher on "Discourage Infantile Dependency” and lower on "Paternal Rejection" suggesting that Black parents trained girls to be very mature at perhaps too early an age and fathers were very much involved in this training. Certain authoritarian practices without the authoritarian personality syndrome may not have adverse effects and may be accepted by Black girls. However, authoritarian practices were not associated with intellectual achievement in either Black or White families, while authoritative practices with use of strict control, use of reason and encouragement of self expression were associated in White daughters with intellectual achievement and independence. Baumrind points out that Black girls were independent in social competence areas, but they were not socially responsible as they were domineering with peers and resis- tive with adults compared to White girls. These data were presented to illustrate the usefulness of self—ratings, interviews, and natural observations as measures of patterns of parental childrearing attitudes, reported behaviors, and children's competence behaviors. The present studyused all three of the methods. 3O Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested: I. II. III. The husband/stable male in the simple nuclear family system will have a more positive effect on the mother's socialization behaviors towards the child than will the mother alone in the attenuated nuclear type or the sib- lings in the extended family type, respectively, as shown by mother's high scores on firm control, ability to handle financial stress, self-confidence, encourage- ment of child's autonomy, and her own autonomy, and low scores on low self-confidence, encouragement of independence, and on her own autonomy. Husbands/stable males and grandmothers as caretaking supports, respectively, will have more positive effects on the child's mastery and socialization in school than will sibling support or no support system as shown by the teachers' ratings on child autonomy and self- confidence, and, on approach, constructive, and trusting behaviors, and low scores on rebelliousness. Grandmothers and siblings as caretaking supports will have a more positive effect on mother's attitudes towards childrearing than mother alone as caretaker as shown by 31 the mothers' scores on positive evaluation of the parent-child relationship, and on encouraging inde- pendence and responsibility and low scores on encouraging independence. METHOD Subjects Subjects consisted of 56 Black mothers or substitute mothers (William and Stockton, l973) and their 4 or 5 year old children who were enrolled in the Community Care and Development Services Head Start Program in South Central Los Angeles. Most of the mothers were on Aid to Families with Dependent Children programs. Some mothers worked part, full, or seasonal time. Ages of the mothers range from about 20 to 50 years old. Approval for the study was initially obtained from the Director of CCDS, Mr. Robert Wright. Subjects were recruited at various parent meetings, beginning with two large parent area meetings, and subsequent parent meetings over a continuous two month period and again five months later during one month at each of l0 centers containing most of the Black population in the CCDS areas to be involved in the study. In addition, a memo giving all necessary infbrmation about the study (See Appendix D) was distributed through the main office to each of l0 centers and subsequently sent with the child to each parent in order to procure the mothers' participation. This procedure was done twice. Each mother who was interested in 32 33 participating in the study was asxed to contact her child's teacher giving her name and phone number so that the experimenter could con- tact her for the Study- Additronal subjects were acquired to make up the total sample from: Rowe Memorial Child Care Center, Ares Day Care Center, and The Outpost, a branch of Rakestraw Community Center, all in South Central Los Angeles. In order to protect sub- jects' rights, permission was required by and obtained from The Human Subjects Committee at the University of California at Los Angeles Medical School_ All mothers were paid $4.00 for their full participation. Forty-one children of the mothers who were in the study were 4 years old. Fifteen of the children were 5 years old and all children were in the Head Start or Day Care programs at least nine months (Brody, l96l). A few children were enrolled only 2 to 3 months in Head Start. All children were observed by the teachers over these periods of time in structured and unstructured situa- tions of various kinds such as working at puzzles, listening to stories, sitting quietly at a specified time-period, playing with peers, playing outside on swings, etc. 34 Instruments A Fact Sheet questionnaire was administered to each mother. Items consist of demographic data Such as name, age, birthdate, num_ bers of years of schooling completed, current marital and job status, number of caretakers, and number of persons living in the homeo The purpose of this Fact Sheet was to gain infonnation about the care- taking support systems available to the mother and about the family structure within which the mother functioned. Structure of the Fact Sheet was partially based on ones used in the Family Styles Project At U. C. L. A. developed by Bernice Eiduson (See Appendix A)° An interview was conducted using a Mothers' Interview Schedule (See Appendix A). The Schedule consists of questions regard- ing (1) the mothers' goals in raising her child, (2) the mother's view of her familial and caretaking support systems, and (3) patterns of control used with the child including the use of explanations, etc., and (4) amount of time the mother spends with her child playing, talking, and her general involvement with the child. The purpose of this Mothers' Interview Schedule was to assess her felt sense of com- petence and resulting self-esteem by examining how she felt about integrating her own achievement levels in dual roles, as mother and as an individualo In addition, the Schedule provided information about the mother's positive or negative views of persons involved in 35 her childrearing personal environments indicating how these persons were affecting ways in which she was raising her child. (William and Stockton, 1973; Bell, l97l; Staples, l97lo) Moreover, the informa- tion gathered about how she controls including how much she commu- nicated with and spent time with the child, showed her patterns of control as authoritarian or authoritative and how involved she was in being with and fostering her child’s individual mastery and inter- personal skills. There are a group of techniques--Q—sorts--influenced by phenomenological theory that focus on events as perceived by the individual. An individual's self-description is of primary impor- tance in it's own right rather than being a second best substitute for other observations. Another focus of these instruments is the extent to which self-acceptance is shown by the individual. The procedures are applicable to idiosyncratic intensive investigation of the individual case (Anastasi, l96l). In this technique, the subject is given a set of cards containing statements or trait names which she sorts into piles ranging from most to least charac- teristic of himself or others (Anastasi, p. 626). The items are designed to fit an individual's case and a forced-normal distribu- tion wherein the person puts a number of cards into each pile to insure uniform distribution of rating- Ipsative data is obtained 36 although the Q-Sort Method represents a systemazition of self-ratings which can be used to rate others. The Block Childrearing Practices Report (CRPR) developed by Jean Block in l965 is a modification of the California Q-set (Block, 1961; 197l): The CRPR is a 91-item Q-set designed for self- administration and appropriate for administration to both mothers and fatherso The set is composed of items tapping childrearing attitudes, behaviors, and goals, as well as parental hOpes, anxieties, and frustrations vis-a-vis the child. Attempts were made to maximize comprehensiveness of the item set by surveying the literature for relevant dimensions and through participating in symposia with European psychologists to broaden item coverage. The items are phrases in the active form (I do, I punish, I show) where possible, and the language level is apprOpriate for parents with relatively little education. (Block, l969, pt 8) Instructions for self-administration have been carefully developed wherein the respondent is instructed to sort the items at each step. The instructions have been revised for this study to include instruc- tions for mothers only (See Appendix A)l The Pre-school Behavior Q-Sort was developed originally by Baumrind and Black (l967) as a 95-item set and was revised in l97l to contain only 72 items. Items are sorted into nine piles ranging from most characteristic to least characteristic with a fixed dis— tribution of 8 cards in each pile (See Appendix A): The domain of behavior covered by the Pre-school Behavior Q-Sort consists primarily of interpersonal 37 behavior and achievement-oriented behavior. Items were devised to measure facets of two unrelated dimensions of competence-incompetence: Namely, social responsibility versus suggestible behavior. Current models with two orthogonal dimensions include Schafer's (1961) reworking of the longi- tudinal data from the Berkeley Growth Study, Becker and Krug's (1964) reworking of Becker's data for 5 year olds, and this investigator's previous work (Baumrind and Black, 1967). Social responsibility and independence may be thought of as interacting, coping functions which are brought to bear whenever the child is called upon to interact with others in a group, or to res- pond to an extrinsic demand. The nursery (or Head Start) school is an excellent setting in which to record both aspects of competence, since there the child must conform to rules and regula- tions but also has many Opportunities to explore, construct, and alter his environment. (Baumrind, 1971, p. 6) Procedure Mothers were contacted for a one time two hour interview ses- sion by phone or through the center in the event that they had no telephones. During the interview period three tasks were done (1) Mothers were asked to fill out a Parents Confidential Statement (See Appendix D) and then they were interviewed by the experimenter who used the Mothers' Interview Schedule (M18); (2) the mothers were asked to use the Childrearing Practices Report Q-Sort in relating their attitudes about raising the subject child. Instructions for 38 Q-sorting were read or read to each mother; (3) at the end, mothers filled out the Fact Sheet Questionnaire. Any questions or problems that arose regarding the procedures were answered by the experimenter. The mothers were paid at the close of the session. Each Head Start teacher in each of 10 centers and the teachers in the three additional day care centers were trained separately by the experimenter. During that time, the overall task was explained, written instructions were given on how to do the child Q-Sort (See Appendix A), opportunities for questions and answers were allowed, then each teacher was asked to sign the Teachers' Confidential State- ment (See Appendix D). Thereafter, names of the mothers' children were given to the pertinent teacher designated to rate the child's behaviors in school using the Pre-school Behavior Q-Sort. In addi- tion, all teachers*were instructed to Q-Sort one child, Rodney Allen Rippy, before rating the subjects to insure their knowledge of the instrument. The teachers had had one year to observe the children's overall behaviors and throughout the year some had been required to periodically rate the children on special forms for Head Start pur- poses. A11 teachers involved were paid two dollars for eachchild rated. * The teachers were: Ms. Ammons, Ms. Barlow, J. Bell, M. Brown, N. Bryan, B. Copeland, V. Davis, S. Harper, J. Jones, M. Larsen, J. Parker, V. Rattler, Ms. Rodgers, A. Sherrill, J. Singleton, P. Tolliver, J. Walker. 39 The data were rated by four coders. The experimenter and 4 coders met during an initial session for a short period to become acquainted with each other and with general coding procedures. During the second session, all coders rated the second, third, and fourth portions of the sample data--The Fact Sheet, the Pre-school Behavior Q-Sort, and the Childrearing Practices Report-- until completed. The F3 was rated according to a specific 18-item format (See Appendix B) and coders transcribed data onto scoring sheets. A11 4 sections of each family's data had an ID number in the upper right hand corner of the material. This number was placed on the scoring sheet first, and double checked. This ID number placement and check thereof occurred for all subsequent codings. The Q-Sort data (See Appendix B) were rated (transcribed onto scoring sheets) by one person each. Two coders rated the Fact Sheets. In the event that a rater completed his portion, that person began rating the Q-Sorts until completion. Thereafter, training was implemented and directed towards the Mothers' Interview Questionnaire. Each coder was given a blank MIQ fOrm and the group discussed this questionnaire including the exper- imenter to familiarize the coders with it. Scoring protocols (See Appendix B) were given in turn. The experimenter explained the 40 rating procedure and went through the protocol question by question with the coders.* Then the experimenter gave the raters four completed sample questionnaires. Group discussion ensued and continued until the coders had a clear understanding of definitions paralleling those of the experimenter. Each rater then was asked to code a portion of the questionnaire and the experimenter checked these results with the format. This procedure was repeated once. The coding of the data began thereafter when it was determined that each coder could do the task as requested. Each of two coders were given half the material. The remaining two raters each took portions of the firsts' respective stacks and in turn became a "partner" to the person from whom each had received material such that each piece of l/Z the data was rated twice by two coders. Each rater worker in separate rooms. The coding procedure ended after this work was completed. Pearson r's were conducted and inter-rater reliabilities of .735 and .767 were obtained for each coder pair. * The coders were: Gw Curry, Michael Griffths, Tony Stewart, and Vikki Stewart. RESULTS Methods of Analysis A number of analyses were done. Three (Family type, Care- taker, and Educational level) one way analyses of variance were done on each of three sets of factors. Family type included (l) simple nuclear, (2) attenuated nuclear, and (3) extended families. Care- takers included (l) mother alone, (2) husband/stable male, (3) grandmother, and (4) other, i.e., mothers' siblings such as sisters, brothers persons who would be the child's aunts and uncles, etc; also included were friends of the family. Educational level included (1) 0-1lth grade completion, (2) 12th grade completed, (3) 0-11 months of college and/or any business or trade school training, and (4) l to 2 years of college and more. Means were obtained for each group (See Table l). The first set of factors was derived from Block's third per- son form factor analysis of her Childrearing Practices Report (CRPR) (l965) yielding 26 factors. In this study, only the two factors with the highest loadings (.4 cutoff) were used, the first factors' signs reversed, and the first person form implemented. The latter 4l Table 1. hang ror Fae-Hy Types. Caretakers and Educational Levels: Su-eries of One-lay Analyses of Variance 42 Ham Variable 11 fully Type C. "IIKOV Ed. Lovell Posltiye Evaluation 94 68.15 M 70.50 [X 62,33 HA nus/SH at Other 0.11 12 College. Bus/Trade 1-2 We. College 0 £"COur_a3gs_in0¢anan¢ §_fiesp_onsibi 1111 S! M (I HI Hus/SH GI Other 0-11 28': 12 SC, Bus/1nd. 1~2 Vrs, €011.90 O my,“ La- Control SN M . [I 1.67 ww ~ ; HI Min IS! GM Other O~11 12 Sale Coll/Bus-Trade 1-2 m. College 0 [1qu 1731914011”! __t_g Handle Financial Sim SN .00 AN ._33 [l -.67 H Nut/5H 0‘ Other 0-11 12 SC; Eu$l7rade 1-2 "'1. College e +21". rue-.311!- Confidence 51! 8.30 as: 7.33 (x 8.78 H! Hua'SH can Other 0‘11 12 SC. Bus/Trade 142 'n. College o Ens autumnal Mao-11.1.? firsflefl su 1 1 .o: All 9 . 89 f 1 B. 89 VJ “0535! 0' Other 0-11 12 SC. Bus/Trade 1-2 Yrs. C0119?! ° i.e.weme. brows 3' 2 . 23 AI . .35 ( x .22 flux/SH 5! Other 0<11 12 SC. Bus/Yrode 1-2 'FL Colleoe ' nigh vs Lou “333 11-9133 33 16.62 An 36.33 [1. 38.11 HA Mus/SN r.- Other 0-11 12 SC; Bus/lame 1.2 Yre. {011090 ' 07.27 621.22 69.22 MN.“ 'Pv' ‘l‘ wmmm 16‘ 28 1175 10.430 3871 39:11 an alumina- ~41 0 Hub!“ 0 “(20V .9. ‘4 37,08 3t.1D 31,62 NS .01 N5 ‘5 NS NS NS NS 43 Table 1 (cont‘d.) 1119513 Low 5e11- Enigma: SN 31.38 1.51 85 M 36.72 (I 33.78 M 31.22 3.98 (.01 Hus/SH 29.25 G! 32.22 Other 3.61 11-11 211.83 .30 I5 12 33.10 SC: Bus/Trade 34.11 1-2 Yrs. College 6 32.15 AguevejgrtfiOrienteu v! 'Len-Achlenmnt Oriented SN 38.15 1.65 us M 35.05 (x 38.00 NA 35.39 .93 RS Hus/SH 39.62 0“ 37.80 Other 37.22 0-11 35.33 87 NS 12 39.“) 5C. But/Trade 37.9‘ 1-2 in, College o 35.00 822W 511 37.12 .91 115 M 34.39 [I 35.22 M 35 67 21 I15 Huwsn 37.62 0'. 35.78 Other 35.13 041 35.92 22 IS 12 34.50 St; Busilrade 36.72 1-2 in. College 0 34.69 ‘9}0'IWU3' vs Sum SN 3873 .50 us All 50.67 U 39.89 M 38 22 1.12 NS H0535! 7.50 0H 00.67 Other 61.3] 0-11 37.42 .91 NS 12 38.60 SC; Busilrldc 00.50 1-2 in. College * arcs Rebellious n Deg. ywulls 5N 42.45 .03 HS M 42.28 (I 42 89 NA 41.83 .13 IS Hus-’5! 02.50 0% 32.56 Other 0 M 0-11 4.1.50 1.29 85 12 “.60 SC; Bus/Trade 80.56 1‘2 “‘5. College ' 42.50 QOLELEUV' vs Linstruct‘v‘g 3" 29169 .23 as M 26.28 [I 28.67 NA 32.67 5.92 ~ .002 "W“ 12 so 9‘ 24.56 Other 26.11 o-ll 32.33 1.60 IIS 12 29.40 SC; BualTrede 26.78 1.2 vrs. £011.99 9 28.85 6.139339111 Imam SN 33.58 1.50 115 M 34.22 H 30.22 M 32.61 .18 NS Mus/SH 33,25 3" 34.44 other 33.22 0-11 33.42 .32 NS ‘2 3210 SC; Bus/Trade 34.17 1‘2 in. College 0 32'” 99299 WSW" ”"09" “WW? “one O-ll-Graduued mu MnAttenuated Nuclear Hu;,l'9!-Husband{Stable Male Grade or 5.10. U-talended Family Other-Siblings/frlends l2-Gradualed 11,5. 44 two procedures were changed to facilitate clearer interpretations. The first factor (81) consisted of 14 variables such as: respected my opinions(+), felt angry with me(-), and gave me comfort when I was upset(+). The second factor (82) consisted of 3 variables such as: wanted me to handle problems(+), and let me make decisions(+) (See Table 2). The second set of factors were obtained from a factor anal- ysis done on the Mothers' Interview Schedule (MIS), (See Table 3). Fifty-three variables were used out of the original 61 and vartimax (6) and quartimax (15) rotated solutions (.3 cutoff) were obtained. The first factor in each solution was eliminated for the loadings were below the cutoff point. The vartimax rotated factors were used for the anovas as this solution resulted in the heaviest weighted, most condensed and useful variable clusters. The 5 remaining factors were labelled (l) Firm control (socialization), (2) High vs.low ability to handle financial stress, (3) High vs. low self-confidence, (4) Encouragement of autonomy vs. dependence, and (5) Autonomy vs. dependence. The third set of factors were derived from Baumrind's factor analysis of her Pre-school Behavioral Q-Sort (1967) in which 8 fac- tors emerged (See Table 4). Factors from 1 to 8 were (1) High vs. low tolerance of stress, (2) High vs. low self-confidence, 45 Table 2. Factor Loadings for Childrearing Practices Report for Boys and Girls Loadings Item MM MF 11 32 34 38 39 42 51 52 53 64 69 77 26 67 Block I @8thers-—Male; flothers--Females Positive Evaluation of.Parent/Child Relationship Respected child's opinions +.50 Felt angry w/my child -.71 Gave my child comfort when he/she's upset +.57 Feel my child disappoints me -.61 Am relaxed with my child - +.65 Reason with my child +.46 Trust my child for proper behavior +.45 Share warm times with my child +.42 Praise more than punish +.53 Appreciate my child's efforts +.62 Encouraged my child to talk about troubles +.47 Think scolding improved my child -.45 There is conflict between my child & I -.77 Find my child interesting +.46 Block 2 Encouragement of’Independence & Responsibility Want my child to handle problems +. Let my child make decisions +. Teach my child that he/she is responsible for his/herself +. 71 41 66 + 4— -+ + + .52 .70 .65 .64 .67 .42 .38 .59 .55 .59 .48 .51 .77 .47 .65 .45 .70 46 Table 3. Factor Loadings for Mother's Interview Schedule Item Loading Factor I Firm vs Lax Control 13 What type of child behavior problems do you deal with? +.44 12 Do you have problems handling child behaviors? +.41 15 How do you handle child behaviors? +.42 Factor II High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress 5 Does child need special care? -.44 6 What type of care? -.42 3 Sources of Income--Other +.30 Factor III High vs Low SelfLConfidence 11 How do you feel about your ability to handle your life? +.46 10 How do you feel about your ability to raise your child? , +.44 30 What social activities do you participate in? +.30 Factor IV Encouragement of'Autonomy vs Dependence 29 Do you help child perform tasks when he asks or when you decide he needs help? +.39 16 What would you do if child broke rules at school? +.33 27 What do you tell child when he does something you don't like? +.32 26 How do you respond to questions child brings you? +.30 Factor V Autonomy vs Dependence 2 Sources of Income--AFDC -.44 1 Sources of Income--Job (mother) +.44 18 How do you handle problems differently from person who takes care of your child +.32 47 Table 4. Factors and Variable Clusters from Baumrind Manual for the Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort January 1968 Construct Items Measures High vs Low Stress 1, 3, 26, Organic & psychological Tolerance 28, 30, 38, factors basic to compe- 51, 57, 65 tence such as vitality, integration, balance, resilience &.courage Self—Confident vs 13, 15, 16, Resolution, involvement Fearful 18, 19, 21, and forcefulness 25, 47, 50 Achievement Oriented 6, 8, 12, ' Purposive, self-modeled vs Non-Achievement 20, 40, 42, behavior in situations Oriented 53, 59, 66 requiring effort, high performance or tolerance of frustration Approach-Oriented vs 5, 10, 14, Thrust, vitality, potency Withdrawn 17, 24, 29, and expressiveness 34, 48, 49 Autonomous vs Sug- 4, 11, 31, Non-disruptive, gestible 36, 37, 41, individualism 46, 60, 64 Rebelliousness vs 27, 32, 39, Socially disruptive, Dependable w/Adults 44, 52, 58, nonconformity 61, 68, 69 Destructive vs Con- 7, 22, 33, Hostile, impulsive structive 35, 54, 67, behavior directed at 70, 71, 72 peers Alienated vs Trusting 2, 9, 23, Distrust, suspiciousness 43, 45, 55, & social ineptness 56, 62, 63 48 (3) Achievement oriented vs. non-achievement oriented, (4) Approach vs. withdrawn, (5) Autonomous vs. suggestible, (6) Rebellious vs° dependable with adults, (7) Destructive vs. constructive, and (8) Alienated vs. trusting. The variables comprising these factors have been discussed in a privious section (See Interview, self- ratings, and natural observation measures, p. 21-22). In addition, the multiple correlation analysis which emerged from the factor analysis of the Mother’s Interview Schedule was reviewed, and, a correlation matrix was examined comparing Block's two and Baumrind's eight factors. The most relevant data has been presented. All other tables can be found in the Appendix (C). Findings Related to Hypotheses The first hypothesis stated that husbands/stable male figures in the simple nuclear family system will have a more positive effect on the mothers socialization behaviors towards the child than will the mother alone in the attenuated nuclear type or the siblings in the extended family as shown by mothers' high scores on firm control, ability to handle financial stress, self-confidence, encouragement of autonomy and her own autonomy. Results of one-way analyses of variance show no significance for 4 out of 5 of the above variables. 49 (See Table 1 and Appendix C.) Significance was found only on mother's autonomy (F=5.52; df=2,50; p=<.OD7). The Duncan Range Test for dif- ferences in means, showed a significant difference between mothers in the simple nuclear styles (§¥2.23) and those in the attenuated nuclear family (Ye-.38). Mothers in simple nuclear families were more auton- omous than mothers in the attenuated family; the latter showed a great deal of dependency in comparison. The hypothesis therefore was only partially substantiated. The second hypothesis stated that husbands/stable males and grandmothers as caretaking supports, respectively, will have more positive effects on the child's mastery and socialization in school than will sibling support or no support systems as shown by the teachers' ratings on child autonomy and self-confidence, and on approach, constructive, and trusting behaviors, and low scores on rebelliousness. Results show no significant results on six of the eight child behaviors: tolerance of stress, achievement-orientation, approach, autonomy, rebelliousness, and alienation (See Table l and Appendix C). Significance was found for destructive behaviors (F=5.92; df=3,49; p=<.002). Duncan Range mean differences showed that mothers alone (7e32.67) agg_husbands/stab1e males (§;32.50) as caretakers foster mgrg destructive behavior in children than do grandmothers (Y¥24.56) or others (§¥26.ll) including siblings. 50 Another significant result was found for self-confidence (F=3.98; df=3,49; p=<.01). Duncan range mean differences show that Others (is36.61) as caretakers fostered higher self-confidence in children than did mothers alone (is3l.22) gr_husband/stable males (§;29.25)° This hypothesis was not substantiated. The third hypothesis stated that grandmothers and siblings as caretaking supports will have a more positive effect on mothers attitudes towards childrearing than mother alone as caretaker as shown by the mothers' score on positive evaluation of the parent- child relationship, and on encouraging independence and responsi- bility, and low scores on encouraging independence. No significance was found on any of the mothers' attitude variables as a function of caretaking supports (See Table l and Appendix C). Therefore, this hypothesis was not substantiated. Significance wa§_found as a function of educational level for positive evaluation of the parent-child relationship (F=4.67; df=3,49; p=<.006). Mothers with the most education, some college and any business or trade school (ie7l.72) and 1-2 years of college or more (Y¥7l.23) have a more positive view of parent-child relationships than mothers with zero to 11th grade education (is61.50). It seems the higher educated mothers are more confident in their abilities to raise their chil- dren. Another significant result was found for encouragement of 51 independence and responsibility (F=4.13; df=3,49; p=<.01). Compari- son of Duncan range mean differences show that mothers with some college and any business or trade school education (Ye7.22) and high school graduates (ie8.70) encouraged this independence more than mothers with only 11th grade education (is4.l7). This result indi- cated that more educated mothers felt more autonomous themselves and believed in encouraging this autonomy in their children. Trends are represented by two types of analyses (1) anal- ysis of variance and (2) a multiple correlation matrix on Mothers' Interview Schedule, and a correlation matrix comparing mothers' attitudes and childrens' behaviors. Although non-significant (p=.12), a one way analysis of variance on mothers' high vs. low ability to handle financial stress did show a Duncan range test difference in means for edu- cational level between mothers who finished high school (Ye.70) and those who had some college and/or any business or trade school (Y¥.77). Mothers who finish high school tend to have a higher_ ability to handle financial problems related to child's potential physical problems than do mothers with some college or business/ trade school. In fact, the latter group of mothers showed a very low ability to handle these stresses. High school graduates may be more established in their jobs, feel more confident in nmney 52 making matters. In addition, if the mother is attending school, costs for higher education strains budgets and would cut down her financial efficiency in handling any of the child's special needs. Additional trends related to the non-significant (p=.10) analysis of variance for mothers3 positive evaluation of parent- child relationships as a function of family structure show Duncan range mean differences between attenuated nuclear (Y¥70.SO) and extended family mothers (Ye62.33). Mothers from attenuated nuclear families tended to evaluate the parent-child relationship more pos- itively than did the mother from the extended family. Perhaps more autonomy in decision-making is felt by single mothers alone than by mothers living with other family members who may somehow interfere with her childrearing activities (or are allowed to) and prevent her from taking full responsibility. The multiple correlation matrix yielded significant corre- lations (r=.70 and above) between mothers' views of the steady man in her life agg_whether the man knew her child (.94), her social need satisfaction (.83), emotional need satisfaction (.82), whether he payed with her child (.81), whether the man was a stable figure in her life (.79), and, correlated negatively with whether a non- steady boyfriend knows her child (-.90), whether she has non-steady boyfriends (-.88), how often she sees non-steady boyfiends (-.84), and how many non—steady boyfriends she had (-.79). 53 Other correlations are as follows: between her view of the man as a stable figure in her life agg_her reason for considering him a stable figure (.84), with financial need satisfaction (.77), with both does he know the child (.73) agg_does he play with the child (.73), with how much the man satisfies her financial needs (.70), and negatively with does a non-steady boyfriend know her child (-.71). Similar correlations are as follows: between does the stable male figure know the child agg_does he play with the child (.85), mothers social need satisfaction (.77L her emotional need satisfac- tion (.75), amount of time he spends with the child (.74),and types of activities the stable male participates in with the child (.71). Other correlations are related specifically to mothers emotional and social need satisfaction. For instance, social need satisfaction is highly correlated with emotional need satisfaction (.82), and negatively related to the mothers having a non-steady boyfriend (-.74), and how well he know her child (-.74). Emotional need satisfaction is negatively correlated with the mother's having a non-steady boyfriend (-.72), and with whether he know the child (-.73). The last set of interesting correlations related to the mother are those concerned solely with the non-steady boyfriend. 54 The correlations are: do you have non-steady boyfriends ang_does he know your child (.98), how often mother sees boyfriends (.93), the number of boyfriends she has (.87), does he spend time with the child (.75), and participating in what type of activities (.70). The num- ber of non-steady boyfriends mother has correlates with_whether he knows the child (.88), and how often she sees the man (.83). How often mother sees boyfiends correlates .94 with whether he knows the child. Whether the non-steady boyfriend knows the child depends on whether he spends time with the child (.76), and type of activities he participates in with the child (.71). An additional set of trends is concerned with correlations between Block's l and 2 factors, and, Baumrind's 8 factors. All correlations were very low. However, one relationship worth men- tion is concerned with destructiveness and self-confidence. The highest correlation in the entire table was that between self- confidence and destructiveness (—.38). This negative correlation indicates that the more self-confident a child, the less destructive (or more constructive) he/she tends to be. In addition, the more self-confident a child tends to be, the more rebellious (.30), and the less alienated (more trusting) he/she tends to be (-.30). 55 Summary of Results These results suggest that mothers in nuclear families exhibit more autonomy in their childrearing behaviors than mothers in the attenuated family. Apparently the presence of a man in the home has an emotionally supportive satisfying effect on these mothers allowing them to assume independence and involvement in their role as mother, whereas the single mother alone lacks support and reassurance regarding her decisions about childrearing, etc. which fosters lack of confidence in decision-making capabilities. Mothers alone and husbands/stable males as caretakers foster destructive behavior in children, whereas grandmothers and Others foster constructive school behaviors indicating that mothers alone and husbands/stable males spend more time restricting the child's behavior in the process of socializing him and therefor foster a defensive reaction. Grandmothers and Others free from that role work on constructive activities with the child more readily. The self-confidence is fostered more by Others than by mothers alone, or husbands/stable males indicates Others are more free to participate in activities with the child, ones which may enhance his individual, epigenetic mastery expected for his age. The relevant correlations related to child behaviors show the 56 more self-confident the child, the less destuctive he tends to be, as well as more rebellious and trusting. Mothers who give the most positive evaluations of the parent- child relationship and encourage independence and responsibility have more education, high school completion or above, than mothers who do not. Trends related to the mothers' behavior show that mothers with more stable financial positions can assume financial stress related to children's special health needs. In addition, attenuated mothers tend to positively evaluate parent-child relationship more than mothers in the extended family; perhaps attenuated mothers believe they will have more control over socializing and spending time with their children than do the extended family mothers. Matrices related to Mother's Interview Schedule show that mother's view of a man as steady in her life is first determined by her view of how he and the child get along generally, then by her satisfaction socially, emotionally, and last whether he plays with the child. Whether the man was a stable figure in her life was lowest on the positive list. If mothers have a steady man around, they are very unlikely to have other boyfriends who know her child. The mother's view of a man as stable in her life was related highly to reasons shg_gave. Financial need, whether he knew and played 57 with the child, and how much she felt he satisfied her financial need were less important, per se. Yet, a stable male is one who most likely plays with the child, satisfies the mothers social and emo- tional needs and spends time with the child in specific activities, i.e., play. A Stable and Steady male essentially have the same meaning. In addition, mothers' emotional and social needs are highly related to each other, and to the mother having a stable male figure in her life. Non-steady boyfiends are most likely to be chosen according to whether she introduces him to the child, and whether he and the child get along which may determine how often she will see the man, and how many boyfriends she has, and how much she allows them to play with the child and in which activities. DISCUSSION Mothers' in the simple nuclear family were found to be more autonomous than mothers in the attenuated type. However, none of the autonomous mothers exhibited that much strength of independent actions. This result is probably due to the nature of the sample in that most single mothers were AFDC mothers and the remainder of the sample were working. Most important, however, is the fact that pre- sence of a man in the simple nuclear structure affected the autonomy of the mother in a positive way. Related to this result is the fact that none of the other mothers' behavioral variables were affected by family structure. The natural conclusions are at least two (1) the presence of the male implies that financial stress will be taken care of since that factor is concerned with sources of income related to the males' income. (2) Mothers' autonomy is a crucial factor affecting the remaining non-significant variables and the quality of her childrearing performance for if the mother is autonomous, she is very likely to be capable of sound decision-making (Gordon, 1969) as well as able to exert firm, consistent control with children exhibit self-confidence and in turn encouragement of autonomy in 58 59 her children. So that a man's influence on the mother is in a small area but a crucial one which allows her to assume her duties as a positive childrearer. On the other hand, the attenuated nuclear mother does not have this crucial supportQ-a man in the household-- to relieve her of essential financial worries, and to give her help with household tasks (Hill, 1972), and ideally advice about child- rearing although he may not directly involve himself in being childrearer (Scanzoni, 1971; Hill, 1972). In light of this situa- tion, these mothers are likely to exhibit low self-confidence in childrearing, encourage dependency in children (demand obedience), and use restrictive control in socializing their children. The attenuated nuclear mother's dependency may be caused by or be an artifact of being on AFDC--welfare. Although a stated aim of the program is to allow mothers to stay home and raise their chil- dren and mothers are encouraged to find jobs however small, the program does foster dependency. Autonomy is not discouraged, but it is not in some crucial ways encouraged (Clark, 1970). Dependency is inherent in being on welfare such that behavior is organized around physiological and safety needs, i.e., predictability in obtaining shelter and food, behavior which tends to inhibit devel- opment on higher levels, i. e., self-esteem and self-actualization. From a different perspective, perhaps mothers on welfare are 60 predisposed to be on it because of inherent dependency learned in her family of origin. The lack of results for husband/stable males substantiates what Scanzoni (1971) and Hill (1972) suggest that husbands do not participate in childrearing, for this is the most likely reason that husbands' behaviors as caretakers have no positive effect on the child's socialization in school. They most likely do not par- ticipate in activities which promote positive performance in learning environments whether through play situations or otherwise. For mothers alone as caretakers, however, the explanation may be quite different. Given there is no other in the home to give her support with the children, the mother may not spend time with the child in teaching (Constructive) activities which increases the possibilities that her patience becomes short with the child's behaviors. It is a matter of emphasis on obedience rather than on autonomy (Scanzoni, 1970). For both husbands/stable males and mothers alone then the resultant behaviors with children would likely be organized around restrictive behaviors rather than-~controlling in the positive sense--socializing. Baumrind (1971) points out that there are indications that father punitiveness in lower class families is associated with more disturbance in the child than mother punitiveness because fathers' 61 measures are harsher. It is the contention of this author that mother punitiveness or at least restrictiveness related to this study is equal or similar in severity as that of Black fathers (Baumrind, 1972). Disciplinary techniques such as extremely close supervision and high maturity demands provoke rebelliousness in children (Baumrind, 1971). Parental demands--encouragement of independence and responsibility-- provoke rebelliousness or antisocial aggression 9g1y_when parents are also repressive, hostile and restrictive. Another technique, firm control, has differiential effects on the child according to the child's temperament and results in two alternative moves (1) a controlling parent who is warm and understanding will generate less passivity in a child (and more rebelliousness) than (2) that same parent who is cold and restrictive. The parent reinforces those behavioral traits he/she presents as models. However, punishment per se is not always harmful to the child and in it's mild forms has beneficial side effects, i.e., more rapid re-establishment of affectional ties. In this study it seems likely that the mother and husband/stable male are restrictive and fail to encourage indepen- dence and as a result generate in the child a reactive response in the fbrm of destructive behaviors with peers. More than likely these children are obedient at home and troublesome at school. On the other hand, for grandmothers and Others--mostly sib- lings-~(Minuchin, 1967; Community Council of Greater New York, 1970), 62 the task of constructive caretaking can be attained easier. Kellum (1972) found that grandmothers' influence on children's socialization in school was most positive such that if a mother alone has her own mother as caretaker for the child it was most likely grandmother's influence would enhance his social adjustment to school more than the mother's influence alone. This social behavior was determined by the teachers who are accurate judges of the child's performance in the classroom. However, there is a question of value judgments reflecting those of the larger society being imposed on children by grandmothers. Given the indication that high self-confidence and rebelliousness tend to move in similar directions and dependability with adults is more desirable to most teachers than a rebellious child, what does this covert requirement and judgment by teachers and other adults do to the child's confidence levels over time in a structured classroom situation?! It is suggested that self-confi- dence suffers at the hands of what is so called proper behavior with adults, according to adult need for control and fear of child independence. Kohn and Rosman (1972) found a decrepancy between teachers' and clinicians' ratings of mentally healthy behavior con- cerned with conforming to rules, regulations and routines of a class- room, i.e., "living within the structure of the classroom and com- plying with the teachers' requests and suggestions; the negative 63 items indicate defiance or the creation of disturbances which upset the normal classroom routines" (p. 433). These authors concluded that a certain degree of compliance in children seen as healthy by teachers would be considered unhealthy by clinicians. For instance, they found that immediate compliance to teachers demands portrayed children who are very submissive to and fearful of adult authority. The authors hypothesized that the discrepancy between ratings may be a result of the teacher's job in that she "may have more rigid and severe views as to how much discipline is necessary to ensure a proper learning environment" (p. 442-43). The fact that others not only promote more constructive behaviors in children but also positive self-confidence indicates (1) that Others are more useful caretakers than all others. Apparently, siblings, and friends of the parent(s) around the same age, or even an older sibling of the child (Minuchin, 1967) are not as involved in the controlling role regarding do's and don'ts and can be more patient and are able to devote more time to being involved with the child in play activities which enhance his individual and social mastery for his/her particular age level, i.e., running, jumping, playing ball, answering questions, showing the child new things (Mussen, 1963). Moreover, encouragement of positive social behaviors and mastery may be combined in situations such as promotiontrflanguage 64 skills such as conversation during eating periods (Washington Guide for Promoting Development in Children, 1975) and allowing a child to make decisions about his choice of food, including allowing him/her to refuse certain foods (Walsh, 1975). Destructiveness and self-confidence have a strange relation- ship alluded to in the developmental literature (see e.g., Ferguson, 1970). The children who exhibit destructive behaviors—~hostile, destructive behaviors directed at peers--also exhibit fearful behavior-~a lack of resolution, involvement and forcefulness. More constructive behaviors tend to be commensurate with high self-confi- dence such that children who make constructive use of their time are involved in tasks showing independent, purposive action in that they are determined to complete tasks with forcefulness or competence motivation (Baumrind, 1971; White, 1959) and essentially are occupied and are not inclined to "act out" although individually they may hold a prevailing dominant, and domineering contenance. In addition, they are likely to be socially responsible in that they are friendly facilitative and cooperative with, and trusting of peers (Baumrind, 1971). So it seems very likely that the key traits for children are self-confidence and its somewhat isomorphic counterpart, ability to participate in constructive activities, behaviors which perhaps are precedents to learning higher stress tolerance, achievementcnjentation, 65 autonomy, withdrawal (in the service of task completion), rebellious- ness--enough to stand up for what one believes in and/or to question an unfair rule or regulation (Baumrind, 1974), and trusting behaviors. The fact that grandmothers and siblings as caretaking sup- ports do not have more of a significant effect on mothers' child- rearing attitudes than mothers alone as caretakers may be explained by the nature of the variables involved. Positive evaluation of a parent-child relationship and encouragement of independence and responsibility require an inherent judgment particular to each individual. Apparently, new influences toward childrearing from without do no good if the predisposition for the basic positive attitudes are not present. This phenomena has been referred to in reference to other influences on lower class persons' behaviors (Bell, 1965). Interestingly, educational level does have a positive influence on these childrearing attitudes, a factor which provides an intrinsic, individualistic orientation towards decision—making. Yet, the mothers with the highest educational levels had the most positive views of the parent-child relationships indicating more confidence in and a higher ability to make individual decisions. Moreover, trends indicate that attenuated nuclear mothers have a more positive view of parent-child relationships than do mothers from extended families, phenomena which indicated that attenuated 66 mothers feel more confident and autonomous in childrearing and that these feelings may have generalized to other situations such as deciding to attempt college for it seems likely that it is these single mothers living alone rather than extended mothers who are attempting to raise their educational and self-actualization poten- tials. The fact that encouragement of independence and responsi- bility however is fostered by mothers at the higher middle educa- tional levels can be explained by a hypothesis that these mothers feel more autonomous perhaps partially because of their accomplish- ments and/or stable job status (Scanzoni, 1971; Hill, 1972). Clearly, mothers in the lowest educational levels neither have positive views of parent-child relationships nor do they encourage independence. They most likely encourage dependency in their children. Education level and job status are often closely related and mothers with good jobs-~at least married mothers--tend to promote autonomy in their children rather than dependency, (Scanzoni, 1971). Nevertheless, education makes a difference in the way mothers trans- mit values to children. Although educational level is not strictly a psychological variable directly related to childrearing, values emanating from attained higher education can determine childrearing behavior (Gildea, 1961). Given that opinions often determine actions, those bits of information acquired as a result of higher 67 education may input into and have an effect on one's value system and change in behavior then occurs. Values are mediating variables causing any number of effects on behaviors. Specifically, educa- tional level as a mediating variable affects values which in turn often determine childrearing behaviors, except most probably maternal hostility (Block, 1961). The relationship between educational level and finances can become clearer by examining trends in this study which show that ability to handle financial stress is part of the total childrearing behavioral repetoire for mothers who had finished high school and were in a better position to handle financial emergencies related to children's special health-related problems than were mothers with some college/business/trade school. Although higher educational levels imply chances for better paying jobs, apparently there are complica- tions. It is likely that high school graduated persons are more established in the job market and are making enough money to cover impromtu stresses, whereas mothers who are attempting to go macollege or trade/business schools have an extra financial burden to assume-- tuition and fees--which inhibits them from handling a quick need for money to take care of a child's special needs. Moreover, the fact that people in this latter category never completed one year of college, and those that choose trades/business school choose ones 68 which did not take as much money (or time) to complete indicates for both that financial difficulties may have contributed to dr0pout rates or choice of short term, less expensive programs. The important issue being raised is that of Maslow's hierarchy of needs referred to by Aronoff (1967). If mothers are feund to be organizing their behaviors around lower need levels, i.e., basic needs for food, shelter money, a stable environment, affection and involvement, etc., the task of reaching self-esteem and self-actualization levels will be difficult. In this sense then, one can recognize the relationship between total family child- rearing supports and the attainment of competence for mothers and children (Rainwater, 1966). The last set of correlations concerned with mothers, their men and children is interesting. Mothers who have children seem to follow a pattern in getting close to a man. First she seems to check whether the man essentially likes children, the results of which determine whether she will see the man, and how many times. Thereafter, it becomes important to the mother if the man spends time with the child and in what activities, respectively. This pro- gression of events seems to be peculiar to the mother as courting behavior. Since this set of correlations did not factor out as meaningful in this study it can be assumed that most of the mothers 69 had steady/stable men. But what is interesting is the strong indica- tion that most of these mothers went through this ritualistic be- havior, if you will, before any decisions were made about whether a man would become steady in her life. The remaining relationships can be considered phenomena enacted after the stable relationship was established, and are mainly concerned with themes related to (l) steady and stable males, (2) whether the stable man knew the child, and (3) the mothers emotional and social need satisfaction. Although slightly different, there is a similar pattern which denotes successive importance to the mother of relationships between she and her man, and her child. Whether a man is considered a steady figure in a mothers' life depends on whether the man knows her child, satisfies her social needs, emotional needs, plays with her child, respec- tively. Then determination is made as to whether he is a stable figure in her life. At this point, if he gets the green light she virtually eliminates non-steady men from her life. Once determin- ation is made that he is a steady figure in her life, then his stableness in the second stage shall we say depends on her financial need satisfaction, and with both if he continues to know the child and plays with him. How much he satisfies her financial needs is last in importance. Non-steady boyfriends'relationships with her 70 child at this point tend to be non-existent. In the next stage as time passes a man's continued stableness is further determined by whether he plays with the child, her social and then emotional need satisfaction, and how much time he spends with the child and the types of activities he participates in with the child. It is evi- dent that certain relationships begin to emerge. Steadiness and stableness become one in the same from the mother's perspective. Emotional and social needs satisfaction become equally important to the mother. If the mothers' emotional and social needs are met by the stable male, she virtually eliminates hers and the child's relationships with other men. Mothers childrearing attitudes depend on a mothers values concerning her view of what her parent-child relationship is like and on how much she believes in encouraging the child's indepen- dence. These values are determined by educational level of the mother and cyclically affects her views towards her child. Atten- uated nuclear mothers are more likely to advance their educational levels than the mother with the lowest educational level and as a result view parent-child relationships and encourage child indepen- dence more because she is trying to be more independent herself. Mothers autonomous behaviors are fostered by her living in a simple nuclear family structure wherein a man resides and potentially can 71 give the mother both emotional and social support, although he may not have direct contact with the childrearing as often as the mother would like. This total support allows the mother to reach and main- tain autonomy which in turn allows her to take care of her other childrearing duties at maximum efficiency. Grandmothers and Others are most constructive with children because they are able to distance themselves from the parenting role and concentrate on teaching the child. There are exceptions to this positive support as has been pointed out by various authors (Minuchin, 1967; Harrison-Ross and Wyden, 1973; Williams and Stockton, 1973). However, ideally the combination of grandmother and Others have posi- tive potential influence on socialization of children. Furthermore, Others have more usefulness as caretakers than grandmothers because they serve to foster not only constructive behaviors but also self- confidence in children. If siblings of the parent, or of the child, they most probably spend a fair amount of time playing with, talking to, and intruducing new experiences to the child. Interestingly, destructiveness and self-confidence are inversely related in that the more self-confident the child, the less destructive he/she will be. Mothers alone and husbands/stable males as caregivers are inadvertently fostering low self-confidence in their children. Mothers with children pick their mates in particular ways strongly indicating that the child's welfare takes precedence over 72 the mothers needs. Although this pattern is generally the case, over time certain male behavior is expected to occur. During what seems like a testing phase, whether the man likes the child takes first place, then the mothers needs including her need to see them play together. After she has decided (or allowed) the man to become a steady person in her life, his stableness is then assessed by his willingness to satisfy financial needs. Thereafter, his relationship with the child reaches importance. Stableness is assessed also in a second manner later in that his play involvement with the child becomes again important, her social and emotional need satisfaction, and last how much time he spends with the child. This latter pattern is the same as for determination of a man as steady expect play with the child is first, whereas for steadiness knowing the child takes precedence. The overall pattern suggests behavior which operates along developmental family lines. As relationships mature, mothers expect more commitment from the man. Emphases at different stages suggest two possibilities (1) general expectations, or (2) necessary reminders to herself (and maybe the man) that she is not getting what she wants. Results of this study along caretaking lines, and other research on lower class mothers expectations (Bell, 1971) suggest the latter is occurring more in the childrearing realm than in a personal one for mothers. 73 Limitations of the Study The sample size was small with only 15 five year olds and 38 four year olds. The small sample size prevented (l) a multivariate analysis of variance from being conducted, (2) the sex and age of the children from being examined, and (3) mothers variables from being used as independent variables. Each child was rated by one teacher only. Although past research indicates teachers' ratings are highly reliable compared with principals and psychologists' ratings of children (Coopersmith, 1959; Kellum, 1972), two teacher ratings of each child might have insured sounder validity. The time span between mothers' interviews and their self- report Q-sort measure was short and could have been lengthened such that one week intervened between each to control for association of recent responses affecting mothers' answers on the second measure-- the Q-sort. The experimenter conducted all the interviews which increased the probability of her biases in knowing who the mothers were. Use of one or two persons such as trained graduate students who knew nothing of the goals of the research would have been ideal. The Mothers'Attitude Q-sort was pretested on only two people who were not representative of the sample p0pulation to whom the 74 Q-sort was administered. A pretest of at least 10 persons representa- tive of the sample could have been done. The Mothers' Interview Questionnaire was not pretested. A pretest could have been done on some other sample of mothers with young children and a factor analysis done to determine which items were useful. Then a revised test could have been administered to the subjects. It is questionable whether the sample used in this study was representative of the sample Block used in Oakland, California. Lower income persons in the Oakland Bay Area tend to finish high school and even some college more readily than Blacks in South Cen- tral Los Angeles. Ideally this study could have been conducted in the following way: The fact sheet would be administered to 120 mothers to obtain a final sample of at least 20 mothers in each of 4 groups reflecting 2 types of familial support systems (1) Husband/stable male + and grand- mother-Other +; (2) Husband/stable male + and grandmother-Other -; (3) Husband/stable male — and grandmother-Other +; (4) neither a steady boyfriendrunograndmother-Other present as supports; this would also be the control group. 75 Implications for Future Research Fathers' importance as total positive supports has been indi- cated and needs to be examined more closely. A study could be done wherein husband/father childrearing attitudes and behaviors could be assessed. Different groups of fathering groups could be established such that husbands living in the home would comprise the first group; natural fathers living in the home and not married to the mothers would comprise the second group; natural fathers not living in the home and not married to the mother would make up the third group; and men living in the home unrelated to mother through marriage or to the child could be the last group. The main issues would be con- cerned with differences between these 4 groups of men in attitudes and behaviors toward childrearing. This type of research has not been done and would prove itself to be enlightening and interesting. There is a great lack of work done on fathers' perspectives of family life and their roles therein especially regarding how they feel about their expected roles as fathers, what past events or training helped to form their present views of fatherhood, how (if at all) they would like to see their roles change in the direction of more involvement with children or less, and their views on marriage, separation and divorce and custody issues surrounding their relationships with the children. 76 In addition, more work needs to be conducted on sibling influence on childrearing. Specifically differential influences between parent siblings and a child's older siblings can be examined separately to obtain the most exacting differences between groups. CONCLUSION Familial support systems have been illustrated as factors affecting mothers attitudes and childrens' behaviors in school but not in the direction hypothesized. Generally, family structure affects mothers' childrearing behaviors, and caretakers affect children's behaviors in school. Mothers' attitudes regarding childrearing seem to depend on individual values regardless of family or caretaking structure and the implication is that mothers have formed these attitudes basically before having children including those regarding relationships between a potential man in the mother's life and her child. Marriage/cohabitation has been thought influenctial in modifying these attitudes, but no strong evidence for this has been found in this study. It is more likely that educational exposure is most influential, yet it is general educational training concerned with expansion of one's horizons and attaining and maintaining an independent, autonomous posture that is crucial. Mothers' childrearing attitudes are modified by experience --practicing childrearing. Mothers' behaviors in this area depend on family structure such that with a man in the home, mothers tend 77 78 to be autonomous, remain so, or become increasingly so as an individual with childrearing responsiblity. The attenuated mother on the other hand may find discrepancies between her attitudes after she has children and her actual childrearing behaviors because she does or cannot follow through on her ideal visions of motherhood. Parenting is difficult and has to be done at times when one does not feel like parenting (Block, 1971). The extended mother how- ever tends to have the most negative view of parenting based on the family type within which she lives. Mothers with lowest educational levels also have negative views of parenting and encouraging independence in children. Both latter factors seem related for views of parenting and educational levels are likely bedfellows based on goal attainment and resultant positive feelings of individual competence which can then be transmitted to children. One can only convey values and one's own actions as models from one's own experiences. Others as caretakers are the most important aides in socializing children. Mostly siblings and friends of the parents or older siblings of the child foster confidence fl constructive behaviors in children, whereas grandmothers are good in fostering children's constructive behaviors in school, and husbands/stable males and mother alone foster destructive behaviors and low 79 self-confidence. Perhaps there is something in Kubbutz style child- rearing wherein the children are removed from parents at early ages and raised and educated with their peers. Children who have gone through this system tend to have positive peer relationships (social responsibility) and are highly achievement oriented (independent). However, since this type of childrearing system does not seem liable to materialize for Blacks in the near future then we have to teach parents how to socialize their children, that is, to teach and discipline in more constructive ways conducive to their own and the child's mental health and competence. We also need to improve the caretaking system we already have access to by further acknowledging its importance and giving further training to those who are our most useful caretakers PRN in order to attain goals we want for our children. REFERENCES REFERENCES Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961, 623-626. Aronoff, J. Psychological Needs and Cultural Systems. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1967, 1-233. Baumrind, D. An exploratory study of socialization effects on Black children: some black-white comparisons. Child Development. 1972, 43, 261-267. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs. 1971, 4(1), l-lOl, part 2. Baumrind, D. The develOpment of instrumental competence through socialization. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Press, 1973, 7, 3-46. Baumrind, D. Early Socialization and the Discipline Controversy. Prepared for General Learning Press Module, 1974. Preliminary Draft. Mimeograph, 18-20; 2-3; 8-9; 6-7. Baumrind, D. Manual for the Preschool Behavior Q;Sort. Parental Authority Research Project, Berkeley, California, 1968 (Jan), 9-37. Baumrind, D. and Black, A. E. Socialization practices associated with dimensions of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Develgpment. 1967, 38(2), 292-327. Bell, R. Lower class Negro mothers and their children. Integrated Education. 1965b, 2(6), 23-27. Bell, R. The related importance of mother and wife roles among black lower-class women. In R. Staples (ed) The Black Family: Essays and Studies. Belmont, California: Wadsworth publishing Co., Inc., 1971, 248-255. 80 81 Billingsley, A. Black Families in White America. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1968, 15-31; 137-145. Block, J. Lives Through Time. Berkeley, Calif: Bancroft Books, 1971, 248—276. The Q7Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield, 111: CC Thomas, 1961, 1-20. Block, J. H. The Child-Rearing Practices Report (CRPR): A Set of ngtems for the Description of Parental Socialization Attitudes and Values. Institute of Human Development, University of Calif. at Berkeley, 1965. Retrospective Reports Revisited: Evidence for Validity. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Deve10pment Meeting. Santa Monica, 1969(March 26-27). Brody, S. Preventive intervention in current problems in early ' childhood. In G. Caplan's (ed) Prevention of Mental Disorders in Children. Basic Books, 1961, 176-178; 1-2. Mimeograph. Clark, J. Motherhood. In T. Cade's (ed) The Black Woman: An Anthology. New York: Signet. 1970, 63—72. Community Council of Greater New York, Research Department. Ihe_ Six-Year Experience of Unwed Mothers and Parents: A Continuing_Study of These Mothers and Their Children. New York City, 1970, 12-15; 83-88; 104; 122. Coopersmith, S. A method of determining types of self-esteem. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 593 87-93. Ferguson, L. R. Personality Deve10pment. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1970, 53-55; 106-109. Gildea, M.C-L, Glidewell, J. C., Kantor, M. B. Maternal attitudes and general adjustment in school children. In J. Glidewell's (ed) Parental Attitudes and Child Behavior. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1961, 43; 51-57. 82 Gordon, Chad. Self-conceptions and methodogies. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1969, 148, 328-364. Mimeograph, 1-8. Harrison-Ross, P. and Wyden, B. The Black Child: Parent's Guide. New York: Peter H. Wyden, Inc., 1973, 209-283. Hays, W. C. and Mindel, C. H. Extended kinship relations in black and white families. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1973(Feb), 51-57. Hill, R. B. The Strengths of Black Families. New York: Emerson Hall Publishers, Inc., 1972, 5-26. Income Eligibility Criteria. Head Start/State Preschool Program, California, 1975-76. Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children. Crisis in Child Mental Health: Challenge for the 1970's. New York: Harper and Row, 1970, 264-65. J Kellum, S. G., Branch, J. D., Agrawal, K. C., and Grabill, M. E. Woodlawn Mental Health Center: An evolving strategy for planning in community mental health. In S. E. Golann and C. Eisdorfer's (ed) Handbook of Community Mental Health. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, Educational Division, Meredith Corporation, 1972, 711-727. Kellum, S. G., Petersen, A. C., Ensminger, M. E., and Branch, J. D. Psychiatric aspects of child care programs. In A. M. Freedman, H. I. Kaplan, B. J. Sadock's (eds) Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry: Second Edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1974, Mimeograph, 4-16. Kohn, M. and Rosman, 8. A social competence scale and symptom checklist for the preschool child: factor dimensions, their cross-instrument generality and longitudinal persistence. Develgpment Psychology. 1972, 6(3), 430-444. Lewis, W. W. Project re-ed: educational intervention in discordant child-rearing systems. In E. Cowen, E. Gardner, and M. Zax's (eds) Emergent Approaches to Mental Health Problems. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967, 362—63. 83 Minuchin, 5., Montalvo, 8., Guerney, B. G., Rosman, B. L., and Schumer, F. Families of the Slums: An Explanation of Their Structure and Treatment. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967, 196-236. Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J., Kagan, J. Child Deve10pment and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1963, 324-333. Parker, S. and Kleiner, R. J. Characteristics of Negro mothers in single headed households. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1966, 263 507-513. ' Rainwater, L. Crucible of identity: the Negro Lower class family. In T. Parsons and K. B. Clark's (eds) The Negro American. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1966, The Daedalus Library, Z, Scanzoni, J. H. The Black Family in Modern Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971, Chp. 2, 3, and 4. Staples, R. The Black Woman in America: Sex, Marrigge, and The Family. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1974, 35-159. Staples, R. Educating the black male at various class levels for marital roles. In R. Staples' (ed) The Black Familyi_ Essays and Studies. Belmont, Wadsworth, 1971, 167-171. U. S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty status. Current ngulation Reports, 1970, (March), 29-31. Walsh, 8. Self-worth and competence. On Child Growth and Development: A Time to Grow. KCET--Los Angeles, Public Broadcasting Station. Nov., 6, 1975. The Washington Guide to Promoting Deve10pment in the Young Child: 1975, Mimeograph, 52-69. White, R. W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review. 1959, 66, 297-333. Williams, J. A. and Stockton, R. Black family structures and functions: an empirical examination of some suggestions made by Billingsley. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1973, (Feb), 39-49. APPENDICES l) 2) APPENDIX A Instruments Given to Parents a) Mother's Questionnaire b) Block's Childrearing Practices Report 1- Instructions 2- List of Items c) Fact Sheet Instruments Used for Children a) Baumrind's Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort 1- Instructions 2- List of Items 1. APPENDIX A MOTHERS' INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (MIS) What are your sources of income? (a) (b) (C) (d) What (a) (b) I am your (a) (b) Job? Yes - No if so, what kind? A.F.D.C. Other DPSS Program Other is the state of health of your child? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? Does he or she need special care? Yes - No What kind of care? interested in some ways you generally believe in dealing with child. What would you do if your child began yelling and screaming at you in a store? 1) Why? How would you handle your child's questions about sex? 1) Why? 84 85 (c) What would you do if your child told you that he or she (d) absolutely would not follow your directions? 1) Why? How do you feel about your ability to: 1) Raise your child? 2) Handle your own life? Do you have problems handling your child's behaviors? Yes - No (a) (b) (C) (d) (e) What kind of problems? Is this a result of the number of people involved in caring for your child? Yes - No How do you handle the problems? What would you do if your child: 1) Broke the rules at school? 2) Got in trouble with the teacher for something he didn't do? 3) Failed to do well in school? Do you handle the problems different from the person who ordinarily takes care of your child? Yes - No If yes, explain: 5. 86 When you are the caretaker for your child in which kind of activities are you involved most of the time? (a) (b) (e) (d) (e) (f) (9) Dressing? Feeding? Holding? Talking? - Verbal Discipline? Physical discipline? Other (specify): 1) How much time do you spend participating in these activities? In what kind of activities is the caretaker involved in most of the time with your child? How often do you just talk to your child other than giving directions or disciplining? (a) (b) (C) (d) What do you talk about? If he wants some information or has a problem does he come to you for advice? Yes - No What kind does he bring you? How do you respond? 87 (e) When your child does something you don't like, what do you tell him? 8. How much time do you play with your child? (a) What do you do in play with her/him? 1) Watch? 2) Talk? 3) Show her/him how to do things? a. What kinds of things? 4) Watch television? 5) Participate in play with your child? 6) Other (specify) 9. Do you help him perform tasks only when he asks or anytime when you think he needs help? (a) What do you do when your child has difficulty with and gives up working on a task? 10. What social activities do you participate in most? 11. Is there a steady man in your life? Yes - No (a) If so, how long have you been together? (b) Do you live together? Yes - No 12. 13. (C) Does (a) (b) (C) (d) Does (a) (b) (e) 88 Would you consider him a stable figure in your life? 1) If yes, Why? Yes - No he know your child? Yes - No How much time does he spend with her/him? What kinds of things does he do with your child? List: Does he spend time playing with him? Yes - No 1) Doing what? Does he: 1) Discipline your child? Yes - No 2) Give you advice about the child? Yes - No a. If yes, what kind? 3) Take care of the child? Yes - No he satisfy your needs: Socially? Yes - No 1) Explain Emotionally? Yes - No; Explain Financially? Yes - No 1) How much? Very little? Moderately? A great deal? 89 14. If you do not have a stady man in your life, do you have any boyfriends/male friends? (a) How many? Very few? Some? Many? (b) How often do you see them? 1) Often Sometimes Almost never (c) Does he know your child? Yes - No (d) Does he spend time with your child? Yes - No 1) Doing what? 90 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CRPR Q-SORT CARDS In trying to gain more understanding of young children, I would like to know what is important to you as a parent and what kinds of methods you use in raising your child--in particular, your child who is now in You are asked to indicate your opinions by the Head Start Program. sorting through a special set of cards that contain statements about bringing up children. The Cards and Envelopes Each set or deck contains 91 cards. having to do with child rearing. Each card contains a sentence Some of these sentences will be true or descriptive of your attitudes and behavior in relation to your child. Some sentences will be untrue or undescriptive of your feelings and behavior toward this child. By sorting these cards according to the instructions below, you will be able to show how descriptive or undescriptive each of these sentences is for you. Together with the cards you have received 7 envelopes, with the following labels: de-bmmfl These These These These These These These cards cards cards cards cards cards cards are are are are are are are most descriptive. quite descriptive. fairly descriptive. neither descriptive nor undescriptive. fairly undescriptive. quite undescriptive. most undescriptive. Your task is to choose 13 cards that fit into each of these categories and to put them into their proper envelopes. How to Sort the Cards Mothers take the cards and shuffle them a bit first. 91 Using a large cleared surface, like a desk or table, spread out the envelopes in a row, going from 7 to 1 (Most Descriptive to Most Undescriptive): 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Now take the shuffled deck of cards, and read each sentence carefully. Then make three piles of cards: one pile containing cards that are generally true or descriptive of you; one pile that you're not certain about, and one pile of cards that are generally ggi_true or descriptive. It doesn't make any difference how many cards you put in each of the three piles at this time, since you'll probably have to do some switching around later. But you may find it helpful if each pile contains about the same number of cards. Now your cards and evelopes look like this: 7 6 5 4 3 2 l - envelopes “Descriptive" "Not Sure'I "Undescriptive" Cards Cards Cards - cards Now, take the pile of descriptive cards and pick out the 13 cards that are mg§i_descriptive of your behavior with your child. Put these cards on top of envelope #7. Don't put them inside yet, because you might want to shift some of them later. Next, from the cards that remain, pick out 13 cards that you think are guite descriptive of your behavior and put these on top of envelope #6. (If you run out of cards from your "Descriptive" pile, you'll have to add some of the more descriptive cards from your "Not Sure" pile.) Now, begin at the other end. Take the pile of "Undescriptive" cards and pick out the 13 cards that are most undescriptive of you. Put these on top of envelope #1. Then pick out the 13 cards which are quite undescriptive and put them on envelope #2. (Again, you may have to "borrow" from your "Not Sure" pile to make the necessary 13 cards for envelope #2.) —8 . 92 You should now have §2_cards left over. These are now to be sorted into three new piles with 13 cards in each: 13 cards that are fairly descriptive of you (to be put on evnelope #5); 13 cards that are neither descripiive or undescriptive (to be put on envelope #4); and 13 cards that are fairly undescriptive (to be put on evelope #3). You may find it hard, as others have, to put the same number of cards in each pile but I must ask that you follow these directions gxgcily, even if you feel limited by them. Now, as a last step, look over your sort to see if there are any changes you want to make. When the cards seem to belong where you have put them, double-check to be sure you have 13 cards in each pile. Then put each pile on the proper envelopes. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 10. 11. 12. 93 APPENDIX A The Child-rearing Practices Report (CRPR): A Set of Q Items for the Description of Parental Socialization Attitudes and Values Item List Jeanne H. Block Institute Of Human Deve10pment University of California, Berkeley I respect my child's Opinions and encourage him to express them. I encourage my child always to do his best. I put the wishes of my man before the wishes of my child. I help my child when he is being teased by his friends. I Often feel angry with my child. If my child gets into trouble, I expect him to handle the problem mostly by himself. I punish my child by putting him off somewhere by himself for a while. I watch closely what my child eats and when he eats. I don't think young children of different sexes should be allowed to see each other naked. I wish my spouse were more interested in our children. I feel a child should be given comfort and understanding when he is scared or upset. I try to keep my child away from children or families who have different ideas or values from our own. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. -27. 28. 29. 30. 94 I try to stop my child from playing rough games or doing things where he might get hurt. I believe physical punishment to be the best way of disciplining. I believe that a child should be seen and not heard. I sometimes forget the promises I have made to my child. I think it is good practice for a child to perform in front of others. I express affection by hugging, kissing, and holding my child. I find some of my greatest satisfactions in my child. I prefer that my child not try things if there is a chance he will fail. I encourage my child to wonder and think about life. I usually take into account my child's preferences in making plans for the family. I wish my child did not have to grow up so fast. I feel a child should have time to think, daydream, and even loaf sometimes. I find it difficult to punish my child. I let my child make many decisions for himself. I do not allow my child to say bad things about his teacher. I worry about the bad and sad things that can happen to a child as he grows up. I teach my child that in one way or another punishment will find him when he is bad. I do not blame my child for whatever happens if others ask for trouble. 31. 32. 33. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 95 I do not allow my child to get angry with me. I feel my child is a bit Of a disappointment to me. I expect a great deal of my child. I am easy going and relaxed with my child. I give up some of my own interests because of my child. I tend to spoil my child. I have never caught my child lying. I talk it over and reason with my child when he misbehaves. I trust my child to behave as he should, even when I am not with him. I joke and play with my child.) I give my child a good many duties and family responsiblities. My child and I have warm, intimate times together. I have strict, well-established rules for my child. I think one has to let a child take many chances as he grows up and tries new things. I encourage my child to be curious, to explore and question things. I sometimes talk about supernatural forces and beings in explaining things to my child. I expect my child to be grateful and appreciate all the advantages he has. I sometimes feel that I am too involved with my child. I believe in toilet training a child as soon as possible. I threaten punishment more often than I actually give it. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 96 I believe in praising a child when he is good and think it gets better results than punishing him when he is bad. I make sure my child knows that I appreciate what he tries or accomplishes. I encourage my child to talk about his troubles. I believe children should not have secrets from their parents. I teach my child to keep control of his feelings at all times. I try to keep my child from fighting. I dread answering my child's questions about sex. When I am angry with my child, I let him know it. I think a child should be encouraged to do things better than others. I punish my child by taking away a privilege he otherwise would have had. I give my child extra privileges when he behaves well. I enjoy having the house full of children. I believe that too much affection and tenderness can harm or weaken a child. I believe that scolding and criticism makes my child improve. I believe my child should be aware of how much I sacrifice for him. I sometimes tease and make fun of my child. I teach my child that he is responsible for what happens to him. I worry about the health of my child. There is a good deal of conflict between my child and me. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 97 I do not allow my child to question my decisions. I feel that it is good for a child to play competitive games. I like to have some time for myself, away from my child. I let my child know how ashamed and disappointed I am when he misbehaves. I want my child to make a good impression on others. I encourage my child to be independent of me. I make sure I know where my child is and what he is doing. I find it interesting and educational to be with my child for long periods. I think a child should be weaned from the breast or bottle as soon as possible. I instruct my child not to get dirty while he is playing. I don't go out if I have to leave my child with a stranger. I think jealousy and quarreling between brothers and sisters should be punished. I think children must learn early not to cry. I control my child by warning him about the bad things that can happen to him. I think it is best if the mother, rather than the father, is the one with the most authority over the children. I don't want my child to be looked upon as different from others. I don't think children should be given sexual information before they can understand everything. I believe it is very important for a child to play outside and get plenty of fresh air. ‘ a. t'l-r’ 88. 89. 90. 91. 98 I get pleasure from seeing my child eating well and enjoying his food. I don't allow my child to tease or play tricks on others. I think it is wrong to insist that young boys and girls have different kinds of toys and play different sorts of games. I believe it is unwise to let children play a lot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups. 99 APPENDIX A FACT SHEET I know you've given the Center some information about yourself when your child started the program. We'd now like you to fill out this form which will update this information. 1. Name: Today's Date: 2. Age: 3. Birthdate: 4. How many years of school have you completed? lggyg. Eggreegif any Grammar School(k-G): 1 Junior High(7-9): Senior High: Did you graduate? College: Other (specify) 5. What is your current marital status? a. Single: If checked, are you: Divorced Separated Widow Never Married The following items deal with your houshold. b. Married: If checked, how many times? Are you working? What do you do? Have you worked in the last 6 months? What type of work? 100 For how long? It is helpful for us to know a few things about the family in which your child lives in order to understand his behavior at school. you give us in strictest confidence and will not reveal it to any outside sources. We will keep all information 7. Please list all persons involved in taking care of your child who attends the Center other than the Head Start Teacher. When and what part of the day does this happen? If no one other than you takes care of your child, state--'No one'. How Often . When (i.e. every night Relationship Caretaker (Mon, Tues) for 2 hrs, etcg) to you a. b. c. do e. f. 101 8. How many people live in your home other than yourself? What are their ages, sex and relationships to you. Please list: Relationship i Name Age Sex togyou E I H”, 102 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE PRE-SCHOOL BEHAVIOR Q-SORT With the individual to be rated in mind, look through the 72 cards. You are to sort these statements into a row of nine categories placing at one end of the row those cards you consider most characteristic or salient with respect to the subject and at the other end, those cards you believe to be most uncharacteristic or ggggtively saligpt with reference to the subject. Eight cards are to be placed in each category: Category Label of Category 9 extremely characteristic or salient 8 quite characteristic or salient 7 fairly characteristic or salient 6 somewhat characteristic or salient relatively neutral or unimportant 4 somewhat uncharacteristic or negatively salient 3 fairly uncharacteristic or negatively salient 2 quite uncharacteristic or negatively salient 1 extremely uncharacteristic or negatively salient First, form three stacks of cards. One stack should consist of attribute-descriptions characteristic of the individual; another stack should consist of about the same number of attribute- descriptions uncharacteristic of the individual; remaining cards belong in the middle pile. When the three piles have been established, they nay be further divided, this time into their proper proportions. Check your judgments and placements. Record your placements on the sheets provided, ordering the items within each category by their item numbers from low to high (for convenient data analysis). Check the recording of your placements. BE SURE TO SHUFFLE THE CARDS WELL AFTER EACH SORT. # —___._.._._...__ .h. -_ _ _. .. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 103 APPENDIX A The Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort: A Set of Q-Sort Items for the Description Of Child Behaviors Item List Diana Baumrind, PHD University of California, Berkeley Expresses negative feelings Openly and directly. Manipulates other children to enhance his own position or to get what he wants. Well-coordinated and agile. Willing to pursue tasks alone. Forcefully goes after what he/she wants. Likes to learn new cognitive skills. Nurturant or sympathetic towards other children. Does not persevere when he encounters frustration. Lacks ability to get along with other children. Spectator. Suggestible. Gives his best to work and play. Timid with other children. Characteristically unoccupied. Vacillates and oscillates. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 104 Confident. Lacking in curiosity. Self-starting and self-propelled. Disoriented in his environment. Does not become pleasurably involved in structural tasks. Peer leader. Supports or incites culpable behavior by other children. Other children seek his/her company. Paid attention to by other children. Dependent upon any one adult, especially mother. Easily frustrated or upset when an Obstacle to task performance is encountered. Tries to evade adult authority. High energy level. Emotionally expressive. Nervous or fearful about facing future situations. Argues with other children to get his point across. Obedient. Destructively impetuous and impulsive. Slow-moving and apathetic. Helps other children carry out their activities. Does not question adult authority. Expresses preferences for one kind of activity over another. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54; 55, 56. 57. 58. 105 Communicates well verbally. Requires a great deal of adult supervision. Likes to compete with other children in performance Of activities. Concerned about adult disapproval. Set goals which expand his/her abilities, e.g., learning to pump on swings, trying difficult puzzles. Gets other children in trouble with teacher. Actively facilitates nursery school routine. Seeks company of other children. Avoids peer interaction by techniques such as seeking adult attention. Plans activities for other children. Resists domination by other children. Has a strong sense of self as a positive force. Socially withdrawn. Physically courageous with playground apparatus. Can be trusted. Stretches to meet the situation when much is demanded of him:~~ Bullies other children. Understands other children's position in interaction or altercation. Content, cheerful attitude. Withdraws when faced with excitement or a great deal of activity. Friendly attitude toward teaching staff. -_.‘ -——-v—-' _. AHA... 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 106 Samples activities aimlessly, lacks goals. Typically in the role of a listener. Tries to manipulate adults. Excludes other children from pair or group play. Selfish. Individualistic. Avoids accepting blame for wrongdoing. Lacks originality in his thinking. Hits only in self-defense or doesn't hit at all. Provacative with adults. Responsible about following standard Operating procedure at school. Insulting. Nonintrusive. Thoughtless Of other children's productions. APPENDIX B CODING MANUAL FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROJECT PART I - FORMATS l) Mothers' Interview Questionnaire 2) Fact Sheet 3) Pre-School Behavior Q-Sort Rating Form 4) Child-Rearing Practices Report Rating Form PART II - CREDIT FOR WORK PART I - FORMATS 00 APPENDIX B HIGH = 3 MEDIUM = 2 LOW = 1 SCORING FORMAT FOR MOTHER'S INTERVIEW SCHEDULE (MIS) SOURCES OF INCOME 4 AFDC YES-2 NO-l YES-2 Other YES-2 NO-l Health of the child 4=Excellent 3=Good 2=Fair 1=Poor Special Care YES-2 NO-l If Yes: 3. Serious (sixcle cell) 5 Other DPSS NO-l YES-2 NO-l 2. Moderate (sickly; asthma) 1. Mild (colds) 107 (Leave blank if no answer) 108 Consider reasons in determination of following codes: 10 11 12 13 Generally, answer will be related to how mother handles independent and autonomous behaviors in her child. High - Ask him to stop, and listen if he says what problem is; take him outside, talk to him. Med. - Tell him to stop (no attempt to find out problem). Low - Hit the child (no attempt to talk). Reflects amount of mothers anxiety about sex. High - Honestly; directly discuss and answer questions. Med. - Hedge; tell him he's too young and he can learn later (avoidance). Low - Refuse to answer; tell child to leave you alone. Get angry, refuse to answer. If child refuses to follow directions. (Autonomy vs Obedience) High - Ask reason (if you already do not know why); have a . discussion including verbally achnowledging the i child's point of view. Med. - Make him do it, then ask (if his life isn't in l danger, an assumption here); give him a whipping. ; Low - Whip him; tell him he was going to do it or else. Mother's feelings about her childrearing ability. (Self-Confidence) High - Usually, alright; feel I'm doing the right thing most of the time with my child. Med. - I'm not sure, but doing the best I can. Low - Don't know; not good; never sure what I am doing. 14 15 109 Mother's feelings about her ability to handle her life. (Coping Skills) High — I do a good job of it; I can handle myself well; I get along fine. Med. - O.K.; doing my best; hanging on. Low — Not too good; there are a lot of things I can't handle. Problems with child's behavior? YES-2 NO-l If answer “NO“ usually this section blank - Don't score. 16 17 18 What kind of problems? 3 - Stubborn; he won't listen to anything I say; he wants his way most of the time. 2 - I can't control him all the time; I talk, he listens and the child goes right off and does his own thing. 1 - Takes too long to do what I say and/or to follow my orders. Is the child's behavior the result of number of people involved in caring for her? YES-2 NO-l How do you handle problems with child? High - Exhibit understanding and acceptance of his wishes; tell him what I want and give alternative. If none at moment, continue to talk until he listens, especially about what he can do in the future. Med. - I tell him what I want him to do (or not do); give him an alternative choice (one). Low - Tell him he must fall in line; whip him. ”- h~_ hag-m. .Aaiodm' .I. . — -——.—.--—fi.._._ 4.. 19 20 21 22 23 110 What would you do if child broke the rules at school? (Answer related to independent vs. other directed or no judgment.) High - Ask what happened in calm manner (the child); check the teachers side of the story. Med. - Blame the child for the incident without finding out what happened. Low - Whip the child, reprimand him, or make no decision about incident--let it go. If your child gets in trouble for something he does at school what would you do? High - Check with teacher and child to get both sides of the story. Med. - Back up the teacher, even if she is wrong. Low - Reprimand the child whether the child is right or wrong. If child failed to do well in school would you: High - Obtain help; ask school for it first. Med. - Blame the teacher (or other authority figure). Low - I would feel something was wrong with my child. Do you handle problems differently than caretaker for your child? YES-2 NO-1 How differently? (Amount of interference; how ma handles it.) High - My mother interferes agreat deal with the way I choose to raise my child; I ask her to follow the rules I want followed. 24 25 26 111 Med. - Sometimes the caretaker/mother/babysitter does not follow through on not giving the child most things he wants; I don't like that. Low - The caretaker and I have disagreements but we work them out. What kinds of things do you do with the child when you're the caretaker? - Talking - Verbal discipline - Physical discipline 7 6 5 4 - Dressing 3 - Feeding 2 - Holding 1 - Hardly any contact, he's out playing with friends alot How much of your time is spent participating in these events. - All the time; off and on every day - Most of the time Half day - Seldom - Not much de-ko'l I In what kinds of activities is the caretaker involved in with your child most of the time? (Stimulation of child's interest in new experiences) High - Talking about or introducing child to new tasks, subject-matter, and experiences, i.e., reading new material. Med. - Watching television; watch child play. FHA-“F? w W .avfi-TTT’T‘TZW‘ 27 28 29 30 31 112 Low - Caretaking only; child plays outside mostly; I don't know; caretaker impedes child's play activities with overdirection. Do you talk to the child other than to discipline? High - Often. Med. - Sometimes. Low - Not much; he talks. What do you talk about? (Responsiveness of mother to child's feeling, point of view; individuation.) High - Ask him how it's going at school; often have conversation with him and discuss his opinions of the world. Med. - Listen to him, but don't talk much' he talks gll the time; sometimes I get tired. Low - Nothing; I usually get too busy to listen; that child ain't got no problems. Does child come to you for information? YES-2 N0-1 What kind? School (academic) Friends (at school or otherwise) General, i.e., how are babies made, why do stars shine? 4 3 2 1 Can I go out and play, swim, eat Mother's response? (Candor; reason; fosters child's curosity) High - Answer questions directly and fully as possible and/or often. 32 33 34 35 113 Med. - Give maybe a few answeres; don't listen much; sometimes have a conversation. Low - If I answer, I say yes or no; he talks so much. If child does something you don't like, what do you do? (Does she give alternatives for present, future, show understanding of his position) High - Why I don't like that behavior and not to do it, although I know he likes to; we talk about it. Med. - Explain I don't like it and why; tell him to stop; stop child and tell him God don't like ugly. Low - Tell him to stop; hit child without warning. How much time do you play with your child? (Look for as much free time as possible) High - Most of my free time; once a day 1/2 or 1 hour. Med. - When I can; occasionally. Low - I watch him play; I don't play with him. How do you play with child? (Participation, stimulates his interests, curosity) 6 Show him how to play new games, tasks; do them together Expose him to new experiences and how to do it Talk Watch Watch television together —‘ N (A) h 01 I Take to a movie or a park Do you help him perform tasks when he asks or when you think necessary? High - At his request; he lets me know. 36 37 39 4o 41 42 114 Med. - I watch him closely and I see what he wants before he says it. Low - When I think it is necessary. l When child has difficulty on a task, what do you do? High - Allow him to stop for a while and try again later. Med. - Get angry and make him do it again now or soon. E Low - Do it for him. What social activities do you take part in? i (Personal space of mothers) 3 - Visiting, parties, church 2 - Reading, walks or sports 1 - Television; don't do anything; take kids with me everywhere Is there a steady man in your life? YES-2 NO-l How long together (actual number, i.e., 8, or 7)’ Do you live together? YES-2 NO-1 Is he a stable figure in your life? YES-2 NO-l Why? (Some answer reflecting mother's satisfaction with the males as a positive or negative support) 43 44 45 46 47 115 High - He does things with me and the child; satisfies my overall needs social, emotional, financial. Med. - We like each other; there's a togetherness between us. Low - He's around all the time; he give me money. Does he know your child? YES-2 NO-1 How much time does he spend with the child? (Mother's satisfaction with time the man spends with child) (At least half of his spare time) High - After work and all during weekends; a great deal of time. Med. - Weekends; he works a lot; as much as he can. Low - He only takes care of the child; hardly at all. What kinds of things does he do with the child? High - Talks about child's problem; helps with homework; takes child to the park; plays ball. Med. - Takes child to movies or park; takes him around with him when he goes visiting. Low - Spends little time with him; does not play with him. Does he play with him? YES-2 NO-l What kinds of things? 6 - Shows him how to play games 5 - Talks to him and explains things he (child) asks about 4 - Plays ball; sports 49 50 51 52 116 3 - Horseplay, i.e., wrestling, tussling 2 - Hide and seek 1 - Plays house Does he discipline child? YES-2 NO-l Does he give you advice about the child? YES-2 NO-l What kind does he give you? (Some answer reflecting his concern with child's emotional welfare regarding control/discipline) High - Tells me I should let the child do more on his own; I hit the child too much; I should not spank him so much. Med. - I let him get away with too much; I baby him. Low - Don't discipline him enough; keep out of my way. Does he take care of the child? YES-2 NO-l Does he satisfy your needs socially? YES(below) NO=4 (Father participates in social activity with mother/family) High - He spends time with me, i.e., we do things together; he takes me out to dinner, church, movies; also takes children at times. Med. - Lets me go where I want; sometimes we go out together. Low - We don't do same things; don't go out together. 53 54 55 56 57 58 117 Are your emotional needs satisfied? YES(below) NO=4 (Answers reflecting the man's understanding of the mother as person who needs emotional support) High - Listen when I need to talk about whatever; he talks to me and helps me solve problems; I feel he understands me and my ways. Med. - Sometime; or he just talks about bills, money and work. Low - Not much. Does he satisfy your financial needs? YES-2 NO-1 How much? He tries A great deal Moderately Very little de-h I If there is no steady man around, do you have boyfriends/male friends? YES-2 NO-l How many? 3 - Some 2 - Very few 1 - Many Do you see them: 3 - Often 59 60 61 118 2 - Sometimes l - Rarely Does he know your child? YES-2 NO-1 Does he spend time with your child? YES-2 NO-1 Participating in what activities? Shows him how to play games Talks to him and explains questions of child Takes child with him to visit friends Participates in sports with child Takes child to park Takes child to movies ._| N (A) «b 03 03 I wag. fl (J‘MVTL. 1 —‘w ..__.. _m. _ a - _-. .. 119 APPENDIX B SCORING FORMAT FOR FACT SHEET 3 4 ”Age 5 - Years of school attended. up to 9 years 10 - 11 12th (Graduated) Some college 1 2 3 4 5 College graduate 6 - Marital Status Married Widowed Separated Divorced 1 2 3 4 5 Never married 7 - Working? YES - 2 NO - 1 If yes, 8 - Type of work 3 - Semi-professional/professional 2 - Clerical/skilled labor 1 - Domestic/unskilled labor 120 ‘0 I Have your worked in past 6 months? YES - 2 no - 1 10 - Type? 3 - Semi prof/prof 2 - Clerical/skilled 1 -’Domestic/unskilled 11 - Type of Caretaker 1 - No; no one; only mySelf; only I take care of child 2 - Husband, boyfriend, mate 3 - Extended family member 12 - Type of Extended Family Person Motherh(Grandmother to child) Sistenn(Aunt to child) Brothern(Uncle to child) Niece/Nephewh(Cousin to child) Cousnim Friend Child Extended Family (many and varied) Augmented (Family ggg_friends--many and varied) SOCDNQU'l-D-wN-d I 13 - Number of caretaking days (Unless specified) 2 - Varies/sometimes/when I am not home 5 - Everyday 121 14 - Number of caretaking hours a day (Unless specified) 2 - Varies/sometimes/when I am not home 8 — All day 15 - Type of Family Structure Simple nuclear = M, F, children Attenuated nuclear = M, children Simple extended = M, F, children, relatives Attenuated extended = M, children, relatives Augmented = M, F, children, relatives, non-relatives Attenuated augmented = M, children, relatives, non- relatives 03 01 ab OJ N --' I (If mother living with family of origin = 3-simple extended) 16 - Number of children in household (More than 10 = 10) 17 - Number of relatives in household 1 - Motherm(Grandmother to child, etc.) 2 - Sisterm 3 - Brotherm 4 - Niece/Nephewm 5 - Cousin m 18 - Number of non-relatives in household 1 - Friend 2 - Boarder 3 - Other (Do not include boyfriend, here) I"- I. ., . 1“.- 122 m .3 m N. w w "dwrdd dwiué nd¢ir2wv MATEO o wraz 123 PART II - CREDIT FOR WORK ' DE ' -. _. k‘h 124 APPENDIX B CREDIT FOR WORK Each coder was offered Psychology 490, 3 credits or Psychology 491, pass/not pass. Required for Psychology 490 was a 3 - 5 page paper to be submitted no later than Monday 12 noon July 25, 1977 to Owen Graduate Center front desk. The paper had to be concerned with some aspect of the coders'experience performing this work and could be viewed in conjunction with prior research experiences, etc. . If a coder chose not to write the paper, then Psychology 491 was given on a usual pass/not pass basis. All coders were required to complete the coding tasks, regardless of how they chose to pass the course. The grades were submitted for the summer, if desired. If that was the case, then each coder had to add the course to his or her program as soon as possible. Otherwise, grades were received at the end of Fall quarter, 1977. APPENDIX C ONE-WAY ANALYSES OF VARIANCE CORRELATION MATRICES ._ .> _.____.__.. __. .‘_.,____,_ APPENDIX C Table 5. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent/Child Relationship Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 402.04 201.02 2.45 NS Errorw 50 4101.88 82.04 Total 52 4503.92 Table 6. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragment of Indpendence and Responsibility Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 48.20 24.10 2.07 NS Errorw 50 583.04 11.66 Total 52 631.24 125 T. to, 71‘; 126 Table 7. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent/Child Relationship Source DF SS MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 369.64 123.22 1.46 NS Error“ 49 4134.28 84.37 Total 52 4503.92 Table 8. One-Way Analysis of Variance-—Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility a Source DF SS MS F P MA/Hus—SM/GM/O 3 35.47 11.82 .97 NS Errorw 49 595.78 12.16 Total 52 631.25 Table 9. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Positive Evaluation of Parent/Child Relationship Source DF 55 MS F P ll/lZ/SCBT/l-2C+ 3 1000.90 333.64 4.67 <.006 Error" 49 3503.02 71.49 Total 52 4503.92 _...—-_.-__ .— 127 Table 10. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Independence and Responsibility Source DF SS MS F P ll/lZ/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 127.44 42.48 4.13- <.Oll Errorw 49 503.80 10.28 Total 52 631.24 Table 11. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control Source DF SS ‘ MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 18.27 9.14 .63 NS Errorw 50 721.65 14.43 Total 52 739.92 Table 12. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 3.28 1.64 .65 NS Errorw 50 126.00 2.52 Total 52 129.28 128 Table 13. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Self- Confidence Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 11.11 5.56 .57 NS Errorw 50 486.09 9.72 Total 52 497.20 Table 14. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 36.66 18.33 1.16 NS Errorw 50 788.51 15.77 Total 52 825.17 Table 15. One—Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 79.53 39.78 5.52 <.OO7 Error“ 50 360.45 7.20 Total 52 439.98 '3 «v .1-) «31.—u ' ~ I 129 Table 16. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control J Source DF 55 MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O ' 3 26.42 8.80 .60 NS Errorw 49 713.50 14.56 Total 52 739.92 Table 17. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress Source DF SS MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 10.34 3.45 1.42 NS Errorw 49 118.94 2.43 Total 52 129.28 Table 18. One-Way Analysis Of Variance - High vs Low Self- Confidence Source DF SS MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 5.22 1.74 .17 NS Error 49 491.99 10.04 w Total 52 497.21 . __..... _....‘ “—_.._. 130 Table 19. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency Source DF 55 MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 22.06 7.35 ' .45 us ErrorN 49 803.11 16.39 Total 52 825.17 Table 20. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency 1 M Source DF SS 5 MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 19.72 6.57 .77 NS Error“ 49 420.28 8.58 Total 52 440.00 Table 21. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Firm vs Lax Control Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SC8T/l-ZC+ 3 46.85 15.62 1.10 NS Errorw 49 693.07 14.14 Total 52 739.92 131 Table 22. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Ability to Handle Financial Stress Source DF SS MS ‘ F P 11/12/SCBT/l-2C+ 3 14.48 4.83 2.06 NS Errorw 49 114.80 2.34 Total 52 129.28 Table 23. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Self- Confidence Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 11.12 3.70 .37 NS Errorw 49 486.09 9.92 Total 52 497.21 Table 24. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Encouragement of Autonomy vs Dependency M M Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 45.89 15.30 .96 NS Errorw 49 779.28 15.90 Total 52 825.17 132 Table 25. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Dependency Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 27.90 9.30 1.11 NS Errorw 49 412.10 8.41 Total 52 440.00 Table 26. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance Source DF SS ‘ MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 15.29 7.64 .19 NS Errorw 50 2057.54 41.15 Total 52 2072.83 Table 27. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 126.38 63.19 1.61 NS Error 50 1961.32 39.23 w Total 52 2087.70 133 Table 28. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented-vs Non—Achievement Oriented H j m Source DF SS MS F P 7 l SN/AN/EX 2 111.37 55.68 1.45 NS Error" 50 1916.33 38.33 a! Total 52 2027.70 ‘m I .J 3 Table 29. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Approach vs Withdrawn a; 1 Source DF 55 ' MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 83.59 41.80 .911 NS Errorw 50 2294.49 . 45.89 Total 52 2378.08 Table 30. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Suggestible Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 40.86 20.43 .50 NS Errorw 50 2042.00 40.84 Total 52 2082.86 134 Table 31. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable w/Adults Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/Ex 2 2.25 1.12 .03 NS Error" 50 1692.96 33.86 Total 52 1695.21 Table 32. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 22.77 11.39 .23 NS Errorw 50 2489.15 49.78 Total 52 2511.92 Table 33. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting Source DF SS MS F P SN/AN/EX 2 102.27 51.14 1.51 NS Errorw 50 1699.01 33.98 Total 52 1801.28 135 Table 34. One-Way Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance Source DF SS MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 217.01 72.34 1.91 NS Errorw 49 1855.82 37.87 Total 52 2072.83 Table 35. One—Way Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness Source DF 55 MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 409.25 136.42 3.98 <.Ol Errorw 49 1678.44 34.25 Total 52 2087.69 Table 36. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented vs NoneAchievement Oriented Source DF SS MS F P MA/HuséleGM/O 3 109.55 36.52 .93 NS Errorw 49 1918.15 39.15 Total 52 2027.70 136 Table 37. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Approach vs Withdrawn Source DF SS MS F P MA/HuseSM/GM/O 3 30.64 10.22 .21 NS Errorw 49 2347.43 47.91 Total 52 2378.07 Table 38. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Suggestible Source DF SS ‘ MS F P MA/H-SM/GM/O 3 133.76 44.58 1.12 NS Error“ 49 1949.11 39.78 Total 52 2082.87 Table 39. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable w/Adults Source DF 55 MS F P MA/Hus-SM/GM/O 3 13.54 4.51 .13 NS Error“ 49 1681.67 34.32 Total 52 1695.21 137 Table 40. One-Hay Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive Source DF 55 MS F P MA/Hus—SM/GM/O 3 667.92 222.64 5.92 <.002 Error;w 49 1844.00 37.63 Total 52 2511.92 Table 41. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting m i w Source DF SS ‘ MS F P MA/H-SM/GM/O 3 20.17 6.72 .18 NS Errorw 49 1781.11 36.35 Total 52 1801.28 Table 42. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - High vs Low Stress Tolerance Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-Zc+ 3 13.44 4.48 .11 NS Errorw 49 2059.39 42.09 Total 52 2072.83 138 Table 43. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Self-Confidence vs Fearfulness Source DF SS MS F. P ll/lZ/SCBT/l-ZC+ 3 47.66 15.89 .38 NS Errorw 49 2040.04 41.63 E; Total 52 2087.70 4 Table 44. One-NayxAnalysis of Variance - Achievement Oriented vs 5’ Non-Achievement'Oriented L H n Source DF SS \ MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 102.09 ' 34.03 .87 MS Error“ 49 1925.61 39.30 Total 52 2027.70 Table 45. One-Nay Analysis of Variance - Approach vs Withdrawn Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-20+ 3 32.28 10.76 .23 NS Errorw 49 2345.80 47.87 Tota1 52 2378.08 139 Table 46. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Autonomy vs Suggestible Source DF SS MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-ZC+ 3 110.13 36.71 .91 NS Errorw 49 1972.74 40.26 Total 52 2082.87 Table 47. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Rebellious vs Dependable E With Adults ' Source DF SS ‘ MS F P 11/12/SCBT/1-Zc+ 3 124.13 41.38 1.29 NS Errorw 49 1571.08 32.06 Total 52 1695.21 Table 48. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Destructive vs Constructive Source DF SS MS F P ll/lZ/SCBT/1-2C+ 3 224.05 74.68 1.60 NS Error“ 49 2287.87 46.69 Total 52 2511.92 140 Table 49. One-Way Analysis of Variance - Alienated vs Trusting Source DF SS MS F 11/12/SCBT/1-2C4 3 34.07 11.36 .32 Error:w 49 1767.21 36.07 Tota1 52 1801.28 141 Table 50. Multiple Correlation Matrix (MIS) (r-.7 +) 9. s. L E u E 2 2 .5. 2 2 Z :9. 2 E S 3 vi vi 3' 1n "’ K S I: E a G 2 : 1."; 2'3 '5 3 '2 3 w m - u— — 3 .1: In to to u u E A u L III - -I- U — U1 II! In ‘I: ‘2 s 8 8 E E -’ 5 2 E ‘6' v v S - 1: '0 so. - “2:52 acmauzchvssz: Item ESUE :Swuvzgumgxttzu 8 w".- E a. 5 3 :5 g E a .— .— 33 u- : Io- 'o-u 8 .. 8 E u. ’: “' .— ‘ E 1'3 ‘2 ° 3 3’ "E u- u U 0 O )5 cl £ 9— £ I; O U 3:: L '4- m 8 O 8238888383=8»~§°M3; eazcazss§sézggz§§§rc 5 10 1213 3134 36 37 38 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 Type of Care -6 .87 Self-Confidence. Coping ll .75 Types of Behavior Problems ~13 .901.00 How You Handle -15 .77 79 Stable Figure -34 .79 1.00 Reason for Above -35 .84 Does He Know Child? -36 .94 .731 .00 Amt. Time Spent w/Child ~37 .741 00 Does He Play w/Child -38 .81 73 .85 .761.00 Kinds of Act. -39 .72 .71 .70 Social Need Satisfaction -44 .83 .77 1 .0d Emotional Need Satisfaction -45 .82 .75 £21.00 Financial Need Satisfaction -46 .77 1.00 How Much -47 .70 .81 Nonsteady Boy- friend -48 -.88 -.80 - 74- 72 1.00 #of Boyfriends -49 -.79 -.82 -.72 .87 1.00 Often Seen -50 -.84 -.74 .93 331.00 Know Child? -51 -.90-.71-82 -.71-.74-73 .98 .88 341.00 Spend Time w/Child -52 .75 .76 1.00 Type of Act. -53 .70 .71 .80 1.00 142 oo._ om.- Am~.+v _m.- on.. m - H newessem.u=8.um a _m - x_euaz covua_agaoo .Fm «Fame u szmEnE 1) 2) APPENDIXVD Letter to Parents Statements of Consent a) Parents b) Teachers APPENDIX D (TEACHERS: Please send home with each child by pinning this memo to the back of his or her clothing to insure that this message reaches its destination--the mother . . . .) ALL BLACK MOTHERS (AND SUBSTITUTE MOTHERS) IN THE PRE-SCHOOL HEAD START PROGRAM Your participation in the Family Support System Project is requested. Miss Carol Trufant. M.A., from Michigan State University needs black mothers--single or married--with children in the Head Start Program to participate in this project (INCLUDING ALL SUBSTITUTE MOTHERS WHO ARE RAISING THE CHILDREN ANQ_WITH WHOM THE CHILDREN ARE LIVING. All work will be done at the centers, and all information will be completely confidential. The project consists of two parts: 1. Mother - a) Fills out fact sheet questionnaire and confidential. b) Has a personal interview with Miss Trufant. c) Rates her own child with a Q-Sort rating method with Miss Trufant present to assist with any questions that may arise about the task. 2. Child - Teachers will observe and rate your childls.c1ass room behavior also using a Q-Sort method similar to the type used by the parent. Participation of children in the study will depend on the mother's involvement and willingness to help with the project. All participation is voluntary and all information will be strictly confidential. If you are interested in being a part of this study, please inform the teacher at your child's center. You will be contacted for your personal interview at which time you will be able to fill out the parent confidential statement and fact sheet. The project will begin the week of May 3lst and end June 18, 1976. 143 144 Letter to Parents (cont'd.) Miss Trufant, the Director of the project, has already attended as many parents meetings as possible to answer any questions you may have had. Please sign up with your child's teachers as soon as possible, if you are interested. ALL MOTHERS WILL BE PAID FOUR(4) dollars for each interview and ALL TEACHERS WILL BE PAID $2 for each child rating. Thank you, Sincerely, Carol Trufant 145 APPENDIX D FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEMS PROJECT Statement of Informed Consent for Parents I hereby give consent and permission for data to be collected for the Family Support Systems Project by teachers of the Community Care and Development Services Head Start Center. I understand that data collected on me and my child will consist of interviews and psychological assessment measures, i.e., questionnaires, observations, and Q-Sorts. I understand that Q-Sorts are rating methods used to describe individual behaviors, and that general Q-Sorting procedures include arranging phrase-cards into a certain number of categories ranging from most to least characteristic to describe my child. I have been informed that there will be no immediate or long term hazards or discomforts as a result of these procedures either to me or to my child.' I also give permission for the release of any school records as necessary for the pursuit of this research. I understand that appropriate controls in regard to confiden- tiality will be applied so that all material collected will be coded to protect my identity. I understand that although results of the study may be published, my identity will not be disclosed. I further understand that for no other purposes will my identity nor that of my child or any other person in my household be disclosed without my separate written consent. I also understand that none of the information collected will affect my financial or living status in any way, or my child's status in school at the Community Care and Development Services' Head Start Center. . I understand, too, that inquires to the principal experimenter, Carol Trufant, M.A., can be made regarding the aims and plans of the study and results of procedures that were administered. 146 Consent for Parents (cont'd.) I hereby sign this statement with the knowledge that consent to continue participation in this project can be withdrawn without prejudice to myself or my child at any time. Signature of Mother Date Name of Child: Birthdate: 147 APPENDIX D FAMILY SUPPORT SYSTEMS PROJECT Statement of Informed Consent for Teachers I hereby agree to participate in the collection of data for the Family Support Systems Project to be conducted at the Community Care and Development Services Head Start Center. I understand that data collected on mothers and children ' will consist of interviews and psychological assessment measures, i.e., questionnaires, Q-Sorts and observations. I understand that I will be observing and rating only that proportion of 80 children, who, as a result of their mothers participation, will randomly fall into my classroom group. I understand that I shall be using a Q-Sort method to rate the children's behavior. I understand the Q-Sorts are rating methods used to describe individual behaviors, and that general Q-Sorting procedures include arranging phrase-cards into a certain number of categories ranging from most to least characteristic to describe the child. I have been assured that there will be no immediate or long term hazards or discomfort as a result of procedures either to me, the mother or the children involved in the study. I understand that apprOpriate controls regarding confiden- tiality will be applied so that all material collected will be coded to protect identities. I understand that although results of the study may be published, the mother's identity will not be disclosed. I further understand that for no other purposes will the identity of the mother or any other person in her household be disclosed without her separate written consent. I also understand that none of the information collected will affect the mother's financial or living status or the child's status at the Community Care and Development Services Head Start Center. I will be given appropriate credit for my participation in the study in all publications or oral presentation that ensue therefrom. 148 Consent for Teachers (Cont'd.) I understand that inquires to the principal experimenter, Carol Trufant, M.A., can be made regarding the terms and plans of the study and results of procedures that were administered. Signature of Teacher Date ‘