113
069
THS

 

' IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIII'V

300643 6426

   
 
 

  

IBRARY

 
 

 

l MacinmnSqm ”I: “I

....._-~-« :22?

PLACE N RETURN BOX to roman this checkout tram you! record.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton duo due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ ., d‘
, ' "
g I I'-
' , ‘ u...
v—o-r ~--—
. .l_ >5 '
‘ a
\_ fl

 

 

PWLD RELATIONSHIPS
AND
SCHOOL AGIIEVEMENT

(A Study of High and Low'Adhieving
Eighth Grade Pupils of Superior Ability)

E

CHARLOTTE R. JOLLY

A WORLD!

amitted to
lflshigan State University
1n.Partia1 Fulfillmant of the Requirements
flor’tho Degree of

MASTEROF ARTS

quartma t of’Hnme NanagamantIand Child.Devdlqpnent

1963

dri‘ on;

It"

IY(

AC KN OW LEDGI‘JIE NT

The author wishes to express her deep appreciation
to the people who helped to make possible the completion
of this study:

To Mr. Richard Fransted, Principal of Eaton Rapids
High School, for his willing cooperation in making avail-
able, not only the subjects for the study, but also re-
cords of their school history and the class time necessary
for the administration of the instrument.

To Dr. William R. Morrow, Research Coordinator for
the State Hospital No. l, Fulton, Missouri, for generous
permission to use his instrument.

To Dr. Bernice Borgman and Mrs. Diane Hanson, mem-
bers of the graduate committee, and to Dr. Alice Thorpe,
Chairman of the Department of Home Management and Child
Development, for their interest, assistance, and time.

To Dr. Robert L. Green, College of Education, for
his statistical assistance, continued encouragement, and
genuine interest.

To Dr. Martha E. Dale, Major Professor, for her
motivating guidance, discerning judgment, and willing-
ness to give of herself.

And especially, to the fellow students who read
critically, listened sympathetically, and helped immeas-
urably.

a}:
:?

€3-

.‘o
op

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACImOWIOdgments O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0

Table Of Contents 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

LiSt 0f Tables 0 O O, O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

chapter
I.

II.

III.

IntrOduCtion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Family Relationship's Influence on Child's
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . .

Design and Methodology . . . . . .

Administering the Test . . . .

Selection of Subjects . . . . . .
Data Processing . . . . . . . .

The Adolescent' s Perception of His Parents
The Parent-Child Relationship and School

Achievement . . . . . . . . .
Value of Studying Adolescent's Perception.
Problem . . . . . . . . .

Selection of the Problem .
Statement of the Problem .
Basic Assumptions . . . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . . .

The Instrument ... . .. .
Description of the Scales

o o e 0' e 0
O O O O o O
' o e o o e
o o e O o e
O 0 o O o 0
0 O o e o 0

Findings 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Interpretation of Results . . . . . . .

Parental Approval . . . . . . . . . . .
Parents' Sympathetic Encouragement of
Achievement . . . . . . . . .
Sharing Ideas and Confidences . . . . .
Lack of Parental Restrictiveness. . .
Lack of Over-Insistence on Achievement
Lack of Severe Parental Discipline .
Parental Trust in Child . . . . . .
Overall Family Morale Rating . . .

iii

page
11
iii

chapter

IV. Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . .

Sample . . . . . .
Data Collection . .
Analysis . . . . . .
Results . . . . .
Limitations of Study . .
Regarding the Sample .
Regarding the Instrument
Conclusions . . . .
ReIzarding the Use of the Instrument
Regarding Adolescents' Perception of
Parent-Child Relationship . . . . .
Suggestions for Further Study . . . . .

...“...

000000.
0......
000000.
00000000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O C O O 0
APPENDIX A O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction of Instrument to Subjects .
The Family Relations Scale . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B . I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Additional Tables . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Grade Point Cut-Off for High and Low Groups . . 26

2. Median Intelligence Quotients, Grade Point
Averages, and Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3. Ranges in Intelligence Quotient, Age, and
Grade P01nt Average 0 o e e o e e o e e e e o ' 56

h. Fathers' Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5. Results of t-test for High and Low Achievers . 58
6. Subjects According to Age . . . . . . . . .. . S9
7. Subjects According to Intelligence Quotient . . 6O

INTRCDUCTILN
Family relationships' Influence on Child's DevelOpment

The family is one of the most important contributors to a child's
develOpment. The child is born into a world of peeple. Phat he does affects
others and what others do affects him. The family is the first part of
the world that the child encounters. Later groups such as the schools,
churches, neighbors, and children in the child'senvironment influence his
develOpment but the family influences often set the stage for the child's
encountering other segments of his environment. The family is the keynoter
in the child's deveIOpment, Specifically in the development of attitides
and as a source of eXperiences for the child. Bacmeister emphasized,
"the theme that it (the family) sets is likely to persist as background
music throughout life."1

Glueck2 contends that parental attitudes have great significance for
the destiny of the individual child. He also believes that the mental

context of the family does not necessarily assure an intelligent and

healthy management of the parent-child relationship.

 

1R. Bacmeister, "The Family Comes First," Childhood Education,
XXV, September 1948, pp. 8-11.

 

2B. Glueck, "The Significance of Parental Attitude for the Destiny
of the Individual," Mental Hygiene, XXII, October, 1928, p. 723.

 

-2-

He holds that the important curriculum of the family depends for its
success, much more than does the formal school or the classroom,
upon atmosphere, upon the subtle and intangible forces, which are
implicit in the situations created by the human beings who compose
it.

The vital importance of the home for the child's psychological
health is evidenced by the widespread interest in effects of parental
attitudes on child development found in publications written for
parents and educators. There seems to be an agreement among many
authorities that the family exerts a tremendous influence upon
child develOpment. The agreement seems to be expressed in the state-
ment of Faegre and Anderson:

Granting the extent to which the responsibility for some

types of training has been shifted to the school, the home
still offers the earliest and in many respects the most _
thorough education which the child receives . . .We have seen
that the personality of the child is emerging among all the
influences of the early environment and is being shaped by
them, and that the family represents the world of the child

in which, long before he reaches school age, he has been meet-
ing situations and develOping ways of reacting to them. Be-
cause he is more frequently and more profoundly moved or stim-
ulated by persons than by inanimate parts of his environment,
the home with its close associations with a number of person-
alities, becomes the field in which the child tests out and 3
comes to appreciate the values of certain types of behavior.

HawkegIreports a project of the Agricultural Experiment Station
of Iowa State College. This project has as its objective the problem

of determining factors within the family environment which influence

personal and social deveIOpment. These factors, explains Hawkes, are

 

3M. L. Faegre and J. E. Anderson, Child Care and Training, hth
Edition, Revised. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
l9h7), p. 279.

a

 

G. R. Hawkes, "Family Influences on Personality," J. of Home
Economics, XLIV, 1952, pp. 767-769.

-3-

even more influential factors than those of economic conditions and
physical environment, and Operate to influence the develOpment of
children living in the family. He also states, "The factors are
certainly the subtle and more difficult to measure psychological
factors of the interpersonal environment . . ."5
The c00perating workers on the project reported by Hawkes
accepted as a theoretical core: "Whatever each individual sees,
hears, and reacts to is the world or the environment which is real
to the individual . . . For each, however, there is a highly unique
interpretation which we can understand only if we see through his

eyes as it were. To understand what a relationship means to an in-

dividual, we must know what he sees there."
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The Adolescent's Perception of His Parents

With few exceptions, behavioral scientists who treat the parent-
child relationship are preoccupied with the attitudes of the parent
toward the adolescent. It has been noted, however, that children,
and particularly adolescents, form attitudes toward parents which
are not necessarily a reflection of parental attitudes toward them.

The critical evaluation of parents by adolescents can be ex-
pected to occur in any heterogeneous, Open class society; that is,

any society in which there is considerable diversity in family be-

 

5Ibid.

-h-

havior patterns and in which achieved status predominates.6 In a
social milieu of this type, ample Opportunity is afforded for the
comparison Of parents with those Of one's own peer group, or to
some extent, with the other actual or idealized parents.

The motivation for evaluation lies in the crucial role that
the parent continues to play in the life of the adolescent. Par-
ents meet some adolescent needs directly through food, clothing,
spending money, family recreation, affection, and enforcement of
family and societal rules for his safety and welfare. Parents are
perhaps even more crucial in helping or hindering the adolescent's
adjustment to his peer group, school, and community. They initially
determine his socio-economic status, equip him with a set of atti-
tudes and skills for interaction outside the family and further af-
fect his relationships by their own interaction with his friends,
school, and community.

Coincidental with this evaluative aspect of adolescence is an
extended period of role-change during which the child passes from a
dependent to an independent relationship with the parent. Insofar
as parent-child adjustment is concerned this involves the relinquish-
ment of parental power and prerogatives and the assumption Of duties
and responsibilities by the adolescent. Since neither the exact
timing Of these changes nor their exact nature are clearly defined
in contemporary American society, some friction is probably inevi-

table. The evaluative process is affected by such friction but its

 

6E. B. Renter, "The Sociology of Adolescence," Amer. J. Of

Sociology, 43 (November, 1937), p. hlk.

 

-5-

outcome is dependent on much more fundamental and extensive phenom-
ena: that is, the total personality, status, and social relation-
ships Of parents, together with the develOpmental status Of a given
adolescent, as these impinge on any part of the adolescent's world.
The result of the evaluative process is the placement of
the parent on both specific and general attitude continua; that
is, the adolescent develops a generalized attitude of acceptance
or rejection, but he also can and does place the parent on gener-
osity, strictness, or other continua. Since behavior patterns
which stimulate the formation of attitudes exist on continua, we
may infer that the attitudes formed would also be found on continua,
rather than falling into discrete categories. We cannot divide par—
ents into selfish and unselfish parents on the basis of one group
that is completely selfless and one that has no generous impulse
or attitude. Rather, some are more generOus or more often generous
than others. We may for convenience of analysis divide them into
two, three, or more categories but the differences between these
categories are differences Of degree rather than kind. In the same
sense we may divide general attitudes toward parents into "reject-
ing," but these categories will contain a range of attitudes within
each Category, and the dividing line is placed for convenience of an-

7

alysis rather than to separate discrete phenomena.

 

7F. Ivan Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior,
(John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 71.

 

-6-

The Parent-Child Relationship and School Achievement

Du Pont de Nemours stated in 1800 in his "National Educa-
tion in the United States" that "a single day of an educated man
of genius is of more value to the world than the labor of 100,000
men for a year."

Many educators have struggled to help our superior pupils
so as to reduce the lag that so often exists between promise and
performance. W. D. Lewis9 is Of the Opinion that our information
relative tO superior children is deficient in that we know far too
little about those who are designated as superior by standardized
intelligence tests but who are not making effective use of their
superior ability, and as a result, Often are never recognized as
superior.

Horace B. English,10 in his Dynamics Of Child DevelOpment,

 

states:

Deprive a child Of favorable environmental conditions--
of education broadly conceived, or of intellectual stimula-
tion--and his intelligence is apt to be stunted. More subtle
but perhaps even more important, however, are the emotional
and motivational factors.

 

Du Pont de Nemours, "National Education in the United States,"
1800, as in John W. Musselman, J. Experimental Education, 1942, 11:53.

 

9W. D. Lewis, "A Comparative Study Of the Personalities, In-

terests, and Home Backgrounds of Gifted Children of Superior and In-
ferior Educational Achievement," J. Genetic Psych., 19h1, 59:207-218.

lOHorace B. English, Dynamics of Child DevelOpment, (New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), p. 298.

 

‘léu. t.

-7-

Few studies Of school achievement have Obtained data regard-

ing family relations correlates. While these few present conflict-

  

ing findings, most Of the studies have indicated a positive associ-’
ation between student achievement and emotionally supportive home
situations. This general finding applies to elementary,11 high
school,12 and college students.13
More specifically, parents of high achievers have been found
by the above investigators to give their children more praise and

15

approval}!+ to show more interest and understanding, to be closer
to their children,16 to make their children feel more family "be-

longingness" and identification with parents.17 On the other hand,

parents of under-achievers have been reported to be more domineering

..18 ,
and over-restrictive, and to use more severe and frequent punish-

 

11B. W. Hattwick and M. Stowell,, "Relationship of Parents'
Over-Attentiveness to Children's Work Habits in Kindergarten and the
First Six Grades," J. Educa. Res., 1936-37, 30:169-176.

12J. R. Tibbets, "Role of Parent-Child Relations in Achieve-
ment of High School Pupils," Dissert. Abstracts, 1955, 15:232.

13D. Harris, "Factors Affecting College Grades: A Review Of
the Literature," 1950-37, Psychological Bulletin, 19h0, 37:125-161.

14

 

 

 

G. Ricoid, as in Morrow and Wilson, 1961. (See footnote #24)
15

16B. Kimball, "Case Studies in Educational Failure During Adol-
escence," Amer. J. OrthOpsychiatry, 1953, 23:406-Hl5.

Tibbets, 10c. cit.

l7Tibbets, loc. cit.

18E. S. Jones, "The Probation Student: What He is Like and
What we can do About it," J. Educational Research, 1955, 99:93-102.

-3-

19

ments which is at the same time less effectual.20 Parents of
under-achievers have also been found more likely either to baby
their youngsters or to push them excessively21 and to present to
their children either low or extremely high demands for achieve-
ment.22 Finally, homes of under-achievers are reported to show
more tension and more parental disagreement as to standards of

behavior expected of their youngsters.23

In a study of bright high school boys done by William R.
Morrow and Robert C. Wilson24 it was hypothesized that the report-

ed family relations of high achievers, as contrasted with those of
low achievers would be characterized by the following:

a. more emotionally supportive home environments; and
more specifically,

b. greater family sharing in recreation, decision-making,

and exchange of confidences and ideas;

c. greater mutual parent—child affection, acceptance, trust

and approval;

 

19A. M. Conklin, Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ., 1990, #792.

Ibid.

 

21Hattwick and Stowell,, loc. cit.

22Ricord, loc. cit.
23Tibbets, loc. cit.
24W. R. Morrow and R. C. Wilson, "Family Relations of Bright

High-Achieving and Under-Achieving High School Boys," Child Develop-
ment, 52:502.

-9-

d. less parental domination, severity and restrictiveness;

e. more sympathetic encouragement of achievement but less
overinsistence on achievement;

f. greater harmony between parents and more regularity of

home routines.

The sample included two equated groups containing 48 high school boys
of superior intelligence (Intelligence quotients of 120 or above).
The groups were equated for: grade in school, socio-economic status
and intelligence.

The two groups differed greatly in grade point average in
academic courses. The high achievers maintained an average Of 1.00
to 1.67. (Contrary to common usage, Morrow employed a scale in
which 1 was the best grade possible, and 5, the poorest.) The
under-achievers' average was 2.57-5.00, 2.75 being regarded as under
achievement for superior students. The students' relations to their
parents as seen by themselves were evaluated primarily by 16 self-
report Family Relations Scales. Each scale consisted of six ques-
tions about the student's relations with his parents (or foster par-
ents). The scales were presented in consecutive order, but without
scale titles or breaks in spacing. Each student was asked to de-
scribe his own situation using the following four response categor-

'ies:

-10..

Not at all or Almost Never
A little or Sometimes
Considerably or Often

Very much or Very Often

Each student was given a score on each scale by summing his

scores on six items in the scale. A score was also obtained on the

total of all scales, called the index of Overall Family Morale.

 

Following are listed the 16 individual scales included in

the Overall Family Morale Scale:

10.
ll.
12.
13.
1h.
15.
16.

Family Sharing of Recreation

Family Sharing of Confidences and Ideas
Family Sharing Of Decision-Making
Parental Approval

Parental Affection

Parental Trust

Parental Approval of Peer Activities
Student Acceptance Of Parental Standards
Student Affection and Respect for Parents
Lack of Parental Over-restrictiveness
Lack of Parental Severity of Discipline
Lake of Parental Overprotection

Lack of Parental Over—insistence on Achievement
Parental Encouragement of Achievement
Harmony of Parents

Regularity of Home Routine

-11..
Morrow and Hilson found that:

High achievers more often than under achievers:

a. described their families as typically sharing recreation, ideas,
and confidences;

b. described thir parents as approving and trusting (the areas of
sharpest difference between the two groups;) affectionate, encouraging
(not pressuring) with respect to achievement and relatively non-restric-
tive and non-severe with regard to discipline;

c. described themselves as accepting their parents' standards.

An equal majority of both groups described their parents as having a
relatively harmonious relationship, portrayed their homes as having a fairly
regular routine, denied that they were either seriously overprotected or
excessively pressured to achieve, and said they felt considerable respect
and affection for their parents.

In Terman's study of 59 gifted children,25 the most consistently re-
ported parent's comment was the fact that from the child's earliest years,
the parent had answered all the child's questions fully and honestly.

Most of the superior children had been given no formal training at home but
had been encouraged to use their own initiative and to go at their own
pace. Parents also often reported that current events and international
affairs were discussed readily and regularly with their children when an
interest was shown. From this and other similar information it would seem

apparent that the

 

25Lewis Terman, The Hygiene 3: the School Child, Boston: Houghton,
c1929.

 

 

.12..
environment mt provide the child with a wide range of problems at a.
level of difficulty suited to his achieved ability; and it must pro-
vids him with the necessary means to solve the problems. These means,
this author feels, can be blighted or nurtured by parent-child rela-
tionships.

John W. Mlsselman made a stuck26 Of bright (students and their performance
and melted it to investigation of two variables: 1) personality and
2) family background. School records were used which included subject
who, conduct and e ffort marks, attendance, school problems or deficiencies,
aim for life, vocational choice, etc. Ebctensive testing was done in the
areas of achievement, personality and home background. For this purpose '
only two aspects of home environment will be discussed. ‘Ihess' are parents].
discipline and study habits.

1116 data on the relationship of achievement ratio to home discipline
were acquired from the questionnaire in which the pupils were asked which
methods were used at home to discipline them. Out of a total of 297 students,
it was discovered that the majority of their parents used the method of de-
priving them of pribileges (121). Sixty-seven parents lectured the pupils,
and twenty-three parents used a combination of these two methods. Ten parents
used whipping, twenty-

 

26J. W. Messiaen, 3:93. g3.

2713. v. Hat‘hdck and M. stowell, _l_o_p_. gt.

-13-

-eight did nothing and the remainder employed miscellaneous forms
of discipline.

The pupils who were deprived of privileges had a lower mean
achievement than the pupils who were lectured or punished in any
way. Those pupils who received no punishment at all were next in
mean achievement ratio. According to this study, and in conflict
with Morrow and Wilson's findings, low achievement ratio is associated
with being deprived of privileges while high achievement is associ—
ated with whipping and lecturing by parents. The same situation
was true in the case of boys, girls, and the total group.

Hattwick anCSFowe1127

have done significant research on the
relationship of parental over-attentiveness to children's work habits
and social adjustment. The study was carried on at the request of
a school superintendent who asked this question: "Does over-attentive-
ness either in the form of "babying" the child, or in the form of
exerting too much pressure upon him, influence the child's performance
and social adjustments during kindergarten and the first six grades
of school?"

The research source was the file of cumulative records of the
children in a Winnetka, Illinois,Public School. A separate record
for each child is prepared by each successive classroom teacher at the

end of a year's eXperience with the child. The investigators report

that the records are frank, confidential reports for the benefit of

 

27Hattwick and Stowell, loc. cit.

-14-

succeeding teachers who will deal with the child, his interests, ac-
tivities, problems and home. The authors also state that Winnetka
teachers are in unusually close contact with the homes and that they
have all had considerable training in approaches to mental health.
These records, therefore, are usually reasonably accurate and reliable,
especially when one has a series of them by different teachers deal-
ing with the same child.

Verbatim teacher evaluations of the students were taken from
the records in order to categorize students in the three groups:

Child "Babied," Child Pushed, and Home Well-Adjusted.

In classifiCation of poor work habits, for every descriptive
category, examples were far more numerous for children from over-
attentive than for children from well-adjusted homes. The second
phase of the analysis reported that the work habits of children pushed
and children babied were predominantly poor. On the other hand, the
work habits of the children from well-adjusted homes were predominantly
good. The authors note that there is, however, a tendency for poor
work habits to increase in the case of children babied and to decrease
in the case of children from well-adjusted homes. Another point of
interest discovered by the authors is the similarity in the work habits
of children pushed and babied. Apparently over-attentiveness makes for
poor work habits, regardless of the manner in which it is expressed,
say Hattwick and Stowell.28

These findings held throughout the grades investigated. In fact

there was a slight tendency for children who were babied to develOp more

 

Ibid.

“.15"

social difficulties and poorer work habits through the years.
file tendency for children from well-adjusted homes was in the
opposite dierection.
Dr. David M. levy” reports some interesting findings with
regard to overprotectiveness, but the nature of his simdy related
this characteristic of the parent to its effect on difficulty in spe-
cific subject areas and types of learning. In his article, "'Ihe
Relationship of Maternal Over-Protection to School Grades and In-
tenigenoe Ibsts,' Dr. Levy relates that werprotected children
apparently do average work in reading and language work (possibly
due to their almost exclusively adult environment)30 but they are
as much as bro years (median) retarded in arithmetic and number
skills. Dr. Ptvllis Blanchard” mind similar results in her
Ibiladelphia studies, for the majority of her students with minor
to severe reading difficulties come not from over-prdected homes, but
hes rejecting home enviroments. Ham of these children were
from excellent educational and culmral backgrounds and had super-
ior vocabularies, but nevertheless, their reading difficulties were
great. ale concluded however, that as far as children with arith-
metic difficulties were concerned (although she had only a small
lumber to work with) they came from both over-protective md rejecting

homes.

 

25’David M. Levy, “Relationships of Maternal Overprotection to
' School Grades and Intelligence Tests," American Journal of Orth0psy-

30Ibid.
31131371118 Blanchard as reported in Levy (footnote 29).

-16-

As an apprOpriate summary comment on the over-protected child's
problems, a quotation from Dr. Hugh Miller-Crichton's "The Home Back-
ground of the Pupil" is cited:

Last and commonest of the teacher's problems is the over-

mothered child. To him no effort is worth while. He has
found all his life that invalidism, incapacity, assumed shy-
ness and diffidence, pay. His self—confidence is nil, for
he sees that any effort on his part tends to come between
him and the Nirvana of his mother's spoiling. He must be
taught self-realization, the need for individual effort, and
independence before his work habits and personality will al-
low him to develOp and utilize his aften-hidden potential.32

We shall now turn our attention from the overprotective par-
ent to home environments in which one or more parent is autocratic,
or for various other interrelated reasons, where the atmosphere of
the parent-child relationship and the home in general are tense,
disturbed, or severely maladjusted. In a study of students on aca-
demic probation matched with superior achieving students in an arts

33

and science college, Edward Jones found that more of the poor stu-
dents had indicated homes which were tense, disturbed, or often not
quiet, where one parent autocratically dominated and where there was
little talking over of problems with parents. Taking trips with the
father and position in the family constellation did not prove signif-
icantly different for the two groups; there was, however, a slight

tendency for superior students to be oldest and probationers to be

youngest.

 

32Hugh Miller-Crichton, "Home Bahkground of the Pupil," Mental
Hygiene, 1932, 16:23-25.

33

E. S. Jones, loc. cit.

-17-

34

Barbara Kimball made a study of prep school boys, all of whom
had measured "high level of intelligence" and all were doing failing
work. An intensive investigation revealed two strikingly similar
characteristics in case studies of the boys: 1) poor father-son
relationships and 2) aggressiveness. (One might well wonder at the
observation, which of these characteristics is cause and which effect,
if such a relationship could exist; the author does not discuss them
individually. Definitely the two are quite interrelated and have

)35

their bases in the home. The research method used was the sentence
completion type technique which the author supports because such a
test can be structured to reveal information on certain aspects of
attitude. The two hypotheses which were significantly upheld by the
research were that these boys (the poor achievers) would reveal diffi-
cult father-son relationship and more aggression and guilt feelings
than do high achievers.

The case study method also yields valuable data in the area
of family relationships. Information of this type is provided by
Wallach and Ulrich in their illustration of a 15 year old boy with
an average I.Q. who was doing failing work in school. They report
that Bobby's very complex problems were rooted in the emotional dis-
turbances caused by severe personality conflicts within his family.
This home milieu seriously hindered his cognitive functioning and until

intensive therapy for parents and child was possible, Bobby continued

to perform at a level far below his intellectual capacity.

 

3“Kimball, loc. cit.

35Ibid.

-15-

1793.22 93. m Adolescent's Perception
2f. Parent-(11:13.531 Relationship
Ausube137 and his associates concluded that the use of child-
ren's perceptions of parents' attitudes and behavior as independent
variables is predicated upon two assumptions. First, although parent
behavior is an objective event in thl. real world, it affects the child‘s
ego development only to the extent and in the form which he perceives
it. Secondly, perceived parent behavicr is in reality a more direct,
relevant and proximate determinant of personality development than the
stimulus content to which it refers. -. W mewmfwh “*‘W‘\ is}

“9“." '

may“

Aquusions suggest the importance of studying children' s \
captions of parent-child relationships. An understanding of chil-

  
  
  
 

dren's perceptions of parental accceptance, approval, trust, and sup-
port is essential to further understanding of the effect of parental be-

  

 

havior, attitudes and performance of the child.

.- .-m_._ __ -- , .. _
" "' "PM H.122; ...;T . - _ - .
‘ ’ "”1"?!“ reg-rm. q _. \.-' 'J: ' "— ,. _. -.
‘fl-‘Skflm _ '3':.’§'.'$:<.' Hm {rosin :— «p... 'rr'a’ "'J M

Selection 93; E Problem
me problem for this study arose from the following questions:
(1) To what degree does parental behavior toward the child function signif-

icantly in the emotional development and the academic performance of the

   
   

child? (2) Do children's perceptions of their parent-child relationship

determine, to a great extent, the effect of this relationship? (3) Can

 

' n 37D. Ausubel, “Perceived Parent Attitudes as Determinants of Chil-
dren’s Ego Structure,n Gli1____d_ Develownt, m, September, 1951;, pp.173-183.

6

children's perceptions of this parent-child relationship be measured
and would a stun of its relationship to school achievement be useful
in further understanding the effects of the parent-child relationship upon
the children' 8 total development?
Statement 93 _t_hg_ Problem

Haw studies reported in the literature have suggested that
there is a positive correlation between warm, emotionally supportive
home environments and high academic achievement. However, some few, but
significant, studies have indicated results of a contrary nature. misa-
beth Brews and John rechan38 found that strict, authoritarian, restric-
tive parents produced children who were higrf'achievers than were those
children reared in more democratic, sharing mmily environments. How-
ever, one point of possible significance to the present stuck is the fact
that the Drews and Teehan study did not deal with the child's perception
of this relationship and the ensuing heme conditions. ' Instead the in- '
vestigators interviewed the mothers of the pupils to determine the family
practices and home requirements for the children.

Another reason for undertaking the present study is the fact that
no stucw the author has found thus far has dealt with the specific age
group (eighth graders) involv ed in this investigation. Several studies
have included adolescents but there are reasons to believe that by working
specifically path early adolescents, one '8 results might yield more pert-
inent and useful implications, since it ’

 

3BELiisaheth Dream and John E. Teehan, "Parental Attitudes and Aca-
demic Achievement," Joumal 2f Clinical chholog, 1957, 13:328-332.

-20-

is generally acknowledged that adolescence is a critical period in
the total develoPment of the child.

These two factors, the first being the conflicting evidence
available at present, and the second being the dearth of studies
dealing with the child's perception of the parent-child relation-
ship, and more specifically, the early adolescent's perception--have
led this investigator to make the following assumptions and hypothe-

sis.

Basic Assumptions

 

(1) Eighth grade pupils are capable of communicating some of their
perceptions of their parent-child relationships.

(2) Morrow's Family Relations Scale measures parent-child relation-

 

ships as viewed by the child.
(3) The 1957 revision of the California Test of Mental Maturity is
a valid and reliable group intelligence test for eighth grade

pupils. (Elementary form: grades h-8)

fiypothesis
(1) There will be a difference in the high and low achievers' per-

ceptions of their parent-child relationships.

CHAPTER II

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The Instrument

 

Selection of the Instrument. The first step in the procedure
was to select an apprOpriate instrument. The one chosen for data
collection in this study was a questionnaire, the Family Relations
§galg, develOped by W. R. Morrow in 1956. He deve10ped this instru--

thent for use in the family relations aspects of the Portland (Oregon)
Gifted Child Project which he carried on with R. Wilson and others

and reported in a 1961 issue of Child DevelOpment.l After reading

 

this article, permission was received from Dr. Morrow to use his
questionnaire in the present study. Dr. Morrow writes that his in-
strument was adapted from the "Family Relations Questionnaire" devel-
Oped by A. W. Brown and his associates (reported in R. J. Havighurst
and Hilda Taba, Adolescent Character and Personality, Wiley, l9h9,
chp. 21). Morrow's instrument was develOped for use in grades eight
through twelve and was thus scaled with the adolescent pupil in mind,

making it apprOpriate for this study.2

Description of the Scales. The questionnaire contained sixteen

six-item scales in which the respondent was asked to report for each

 

1W. R. Morrow and R. C. Wilson, "Family Relations of Bright High-
Abhieving and Under-Achieving High School Boys," Child DeveloPment, 32:

501-510.

2See Appendix for c0py of questionnaire.

-21-

Is “a.

-22-

item to what extent it applied to his relationship with his parents.
Below are the directions given each student, along with the descrip-
tion of the four response categories.
DIRECTIONS: The following questions are about yourself
and your family. Read each question carefully and answer
it as it applies to the parents WITH WHOM YOU NOW LIVE,
(whether they are your real parents, step-parents, or
guardians.)
To the right of each question put a check-mark in the col-
umn which comes nearest to the truth in your case. If you
feel is is NOT AT ALL true or happens ALMOST NEVER, check
column marked ALMOST NEVER. If it is a little true or hap-

pens SOMETIMES, check column 2. If it is pretty much true
or happens very often or almost always, check column #.

All six items of each scale appeared in sequence in the question-
naires, and the 16 scales followed each other without a break in
the questionnaire and of course, without indication of scale titles.
The scale titles, given below, indicate what each scale was intended
to measure. All titles are stated in a "positive" direction. Items
expressing a "negative" situation or attitudes were scored in a di-
rection Opposite to that of positively stated items.

1. Family Sharing of Recreation

’2. Parental Approval

'3. Parents' Sympathetic Encouragement of Achievement

h. Parental Overprotection

‘5. Family Sharing of Ideas and Confidences

6. Parental Affection

 

‘Indicates scales scored for this study.

-23.

4:7. Parental Restrictiveness as to Activities
8. Emily Slaring in Decision-Manna
9. Child Acceptance of Parental Standards
«10. Parental Over-Insistence on Achievement
ll. Qlild Affection for Parents
*12. Severity of Parental Discipline
*13. Parental bust in Child
11:. Parental Harlow . A
15. Parental Approval of Peer Activities
16. Orderliness and Regflarity of Home
Morrow rated each scale separately, giving each child an indivi-
dual score for each of the 16 scales, as well as scoring the total, or
overall score. In his use of the instrument, the internal consistency
reliability of the 16 six-item scales appeared to be 'suffidently sat-
isfactory for purposes of group comparison'3 i.e., all but threeh of the
corrected odd-even coefficients were above .70. me 10 ital-5 Overall
Family Morale Score yielded a reliability of .97.
For the purposes of this study it was decided that only seven
scales, those found ‘8 Morrow to yield a'p'at the .01 level or beyond
would be scored

 

3Morrow and Wilson, loo. gig.

hScales #1:, #8, #10 had coefficients below .70.

5111s Harmony of Parents Scale (M) was scored only for students
with two parents living together.

-gh-

individually in addition to the overall score. This would mean that
seven scales, numbers 2,3,5,7,lO,12, and 13 would be scored indiv-
idually and, including the overall score, there would be 8 scores

for each pupil.

Selection of Subjects

 

Children in the eighth grade were selected for this study.
The decision was made to use children at this grade and age level
for several reasons. First, children thirteen and fourteen years
old, normally classed as eighth graders, usually have deve10ped
their reading skills far enough to free them from some of the mechan-
ics of reading. Hence, they are able to concentrate on the subject
matter. Second, it is commonly believed that children at this age
have matured enough to have some degree of reciprocity. They are
able, according to Newcomb,6 to perceive some of the relationships
between themselves and others who have perceptions of their own.
Third, they are in the stage of growth and develOpment commonly re-
ferred to as early adolescence. The values of testing this age
group have been suggested earlier in this study and have been empha-
sized by many investigators. During early adolescence, it seems nor-
mal for youngsers to drop their identification with adult society
and their acceptance of adult standards and establish a strong iden-

7

tification with their peer groups. Mussen and Conger say the par-

 

 

6T. M. Newcomb, Social Psychology, (New York: The Dryden
Press, 1950), Pp. 308-3120 '

7P. H. Mussen and J. J. Conger, Child DeveIOpment and Person-
ality, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), p. 324.

 

-25-

ental behavior and attitudes may be a matter of imitation of both
his peers and parents.

The subjects for the study were obtained through the prin-
cipal of Eaton Rarids Jr. High School, Mr. Richard Fransted. The
subjects were enrolled in eighth grade classes there. Eaton Rap-
ids is a small farming and imhgtrial community a few miles south
of Lansing, Michigan.

The thirty eighth-grade pupils chosen have been classified
as having "superior" ability according to California Test of Mental
Maturity8 (I.Q. 120 and above). The scores made by these pupils
on this test given last year, in the seventh grade, and recorded
on their cumulative records were employed for this criterion.

After the names of pupils with superior ability had been
obtained ffom the school records, the group was divided into two
achievement groups. The criterion for achievement level was the
grade point average computed from the first semester grades as re-
corded on the report cards of the students. The grades were eval-
uations of four academic subjects: arithmetic, history, science,
and English. The following point scale is employed by the school
and was used for delineating the two achievement groups for this

- h.0
- 3.0
- 2.0
- 1.0
-0.

study:

WUOW>

High achievers were those whose averages were 5.0 or better

while anything below a 3.0 (2.9-0.) was classified as low achieve-

 

8120 I.Q. is the low level of the "superior" range as defined
in the CTMM Manual. (See footnote 9 on the following page.)

-26-

ment. (See Table 1).

TABLE 1

GRADE POINT CUTeOFF FOR HIGH AND Low GROUPS

 

 

Azueo

High Achievers
B = 3.0
C=2.0
D = 1.0 Low Achievers
F300

 

Finally there were fitteen pupils selected in each group with a total
of 30 pupils in all.
Besides being matched for grade in school the groups of

9 The

children were also matched for age and intelligence quotient.
age range for the total group of 30 pupils extended from 13 years 7
months to 1h years 9 months.

The I.Q. scores covered a large range, extending from scores
at the lower end of the superior range (121), to very bright or
gifted (159). The median I.Q. scores for the high group were : boys--
131; girls--129; and for the low group, boys--l32; girls--127.

The median grade point average for the high group came to 3.0

while the low group achieved a mean of 2.0

 

9E. Sullivan, w. Clark, R. Tiegs, California Test of Mental
Maturity, (Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, c 1957). (CTMM
E-57 Manual, p. 2). '

 

-27-

TABLE 2

MEDIAN I.Q.,GRADE POINT AVERAGES, AND AGES

 

 

 

 

High Achievers Low Achievers
Variable Boys Girls Boys Girls
I.Q. 131 129 132 127
Grade Point 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Age (yrs.no.) 14-0 14-0 13-11 13-11

 

The groups were not matched for socio-economic status, chief-
ly because, using Warner's I.S.C., nearly all pupils would have been

classified in his upper-lower or lower-middle class ranges, since.

there was very little diversity in the status level of the fathers

 

 

M“‘M~—.-b . ‘—

 

 

 

I -' ..ww'rw.

‘_ -_,
. ~—

 

...:

i Ii.\‘|..l.\

 

 

Administering the Test

The questionnaire was administered to thirty
superior eighth grade pupils in one group, during the
final class period of the school day. This period is
set up as an "exploratory period" and the children had
been notified by the principal's office on the morning of
the day they were to meet for the test.

When the group had assembled the principal, Mr.
Fransted, introduced the investigator to the:3tudents,
asking for their cooperation in aiding her in some work
she was doing at Michigan State University. The invest-
igator then introduced the questionnaire to the subjects,
instructing them in the procedure required. (See appen-

dix for investigator's instructions.)

Data Processing

 

Preliminary procedure for analysis of data involved tabulat-
ing the seven individual sub-scales and the overall score for each
subject in the sample. According to Dr. Morrow's directions, the
response categories were weighted so that for "positively" stated
questions, the responses were scored from 1 to h, with answer "al-
most never" receiving 1 point, "sometimes" receiving 2 points,
"often" receiving 3 points, and "very often" receiving 4 points.
0n the items worded "negatively" the scoring was reversed, rating.
a response of "almost never" 4, and so on, so that a response, "very.

often" received 1 point on these items.

 

 

~28-

As mentioned earlier in fliestudy the seven sub-scales, numbers
2,3,S,7,lo,12, and 13, were scored individually and an overall or total
score on the 96 items was computed. The subscales (hereafter referred
to simply as 'scales") which this investigator computed responses for
were : #2. Parental. Approval, #3. Sympathetic Encouragement of Achieve-
ment, #5. Sharing Ideas and Confidences, #7. Leek of Parental Restrictive-
ness, #10. lack of. Over-insistence on Achievement, #12. Severity of Pa-
rental Discipline, and #13. Parental bust in Child.

After the eight scores were tabulated and recorded for each
subject the "t-test' was employed. l’ne "t-test" determined whether
or not the mean scores of the two groups «high achievers and low
achievers-were significantly different, and it so at what level.
this investigation was not designed to determine individual differences,
but bump differences as they might be related to levels of achievement.

W Si

FINDINGS
Parental Approval. me t-test of significant differences re-
vealed that the difference between the mean scores of high achiev-
ers and low achievers was non-significant at the .05 level on scale
2, Parental Approval. (1:: .867.)

Parents ' Sygpathetic Encouragement gf Achievement. “me t-test
revealed that the difference of the two groups on scale 3,Parents'
Sympathetic Encouragement of Achievement, we r simificant beyond .
the .001 level (t 3 h.255). no difference was in the predicted direc-
tion with high achievers perceiving their parents as more sympathet-
icall y chomping «Movement.

WEE-33:93 Confidences. Scale 5, Famfly Sharing of
Ideas and Confidences , also yielded differences significant beyond the
.001 level, with the high achievers perceiving their nannies as
sharing more ideas am confidences than low achievers perceived.

(t : 6.98).

2.9;; of Parental Restrictiveness. The t-test revealed that the
two groups did not score significantly different respenses on the scale
7, Lack of Parental Restrictiveness (t g 1.660).

' 9:95 9; Over-Insisteng 93 Achievement. High achievers and low
achievers were rated-with differences in mean scores significant at
the .05 level on scale 10, Lack of Over-insistence on Achievement. This
result was also in the desired direction, i.e., high achievers reported
less over-incitence on achievement from their parents than did low

achievers. (t . 2.2M).

-30-

assuming. Scale 12. Lack of Severe
Parental Discipline , failed to yield responses significantly different

at the .05 level. (t = .820.

0 Parental M g 21.11.24. me last sub-scale, Parental Trust in
the Child, 13, revealedo’Jdiffermce batman the high an! low groups, sig-
nificant at the .05 level. his, too, was in the desired direction with
the big: achievers perceiving more parental trust in than than the low
achievers reported. (t - 2.1m)

mmmm. me t-test was many enslaved
to test for significant differences in the man group scores on the
overall test (96 items.) This overall or total score proved to‘hsve
the highest level of significance of all, except for the scale dealing
with sharing of ideas and cmfidences. has, the Overall Family Morale
Scores of the high adlievers were significantly higher (at .001 level)
than.the sane scores of the low achievers. (t - 6.757)

Mn reta 9!. Elysee-9.
Scale 2, Parental Approval of mild, proved to yield non-

signii‘ieant differences in the mean scores of the big: and lot
achieving groups. ’Ihe high achievers reported slightly more approv-
ing parents than did the low achievers, but both groups scored high
enough on this scale that there was no significant difference at the
.05 level.

Scale 3 dealt with the parents' attitude toward the child's
academic performance and the type of nphasis they placed on high
achievement. The results revealed that parents who sympathetically

-30a.

encourage achievement and who are understanding in the area of the
aild's capabilities and Didtations pro dnced higher achievers (in
this-sample).' At the same time, the results of Scale 10, Lack of
Over-Indetence on Achievement, support this finding. fire the high
achievers scored higher (at the .05 level) an as; of over-insistence

-31-

on achievement by their parents. It is a wise parent who learns

to understand the limitations of his adoleScent son or daughter

and accordingly helps him to set a realistic level of aspiration.
Unrealistic demands in this area set by parents can be primary
contributors to an unhappy, maladjusted low-achiever. Sometimes,
however, the result is the opposite, a compulsive, frustrated ‘\
high achiever who constantly feels the push from his parents who

have set the unrealistically high goals for their child. These

 

' are the parents who are often forcing the child, unwittingly or
consciously, into a mold which they themselves either could not
fit, or missed the Opportunity to try for.

Scale 5 concerns the facet of family life that sparks an
immediate controversy in many circles of discussion on child de-
ve10pment and family life today, i.e., the patterns of "authori—
tarianism" vs. "democracy" as opposite extremes in patterns of
parent-child interaction. It is in this area that many studies
present conflicting findings. Drews and Teehan,10after interview-
ing mothers of high and low achievers, discovered that mothers who
reported that they were strict, demanding, and authoritarian pro-
duced children who were achieving at a high scholastic level. The
mothers studied in this investigation who were more "laissez-faire,"

"permissive," or "democratic" concerning family practices produced

children who reportedly were lower achievers in school. One chief

 

10Elizabeth Drews and John E. Teehan, "Parental Attitudes and
Academic Achievement," J. of Clinical Psychology, 1957, 13:328-332.

 

‘ r32- (5

distinction of note here, however, is that this investigation

ought to get at the parent' 3 opinion 3? parental attitudds toward
child-rearing practices, while the present study, and others, edited

, at the same target, but from a different point of View, i.e., the

~ child's perception. Harrow and Wilson,n who dovehped and fir st

. used the imtrunent employed in the present study, tested m school
boys' perceptions of their parent-child relatimdlips and found that ~

  

highe- chime saw their parents as more democratic, saw themsohes as
sharing more ideas and oonfil emcee with their parents, and stated that
they had a greeted part in phming and decision-making than did low
echimrs in the same senile. Tress results contradict mews and
Teohan's findings aid support the work of the present insatigation.
in this stuck the mean scores were not significantly different on the
scale dealing with sharing'in deoision-nsldng, although the results
were in the direction of Morrow and.Wilson's, hit Scale 5, flaring

of Ideas and Confidences, dirterentiated sigfiflcantly at the .001
level; this is perhaps one of the more useihl findings of this study
in light of the denoting results of Brews and Teehan and the supporting
' widens. of Morrow and Wilson. L.K. Fralnkl2 says the following about
the sharing, democratic home envimnment: N

/

n‘bbrrow and Wilson, 2.2;. Q}.

12L. K. bank and Mary Fx-ank, Your Adolescent gt Home 2E9. a
School, new York, Bet: Morisonldbrary, 19%, p. M. w

-33-

Slowly the concept of democracy is evolving as an aspir-
ation--a continual striving for a way of living in homes,
schools, workshOps, public affairs, everywhere that people
are engaged in human relations. This way of life we are
seeking will recognize that every individual is a person,
with worth and dignity which we should respect so that he
in turn will be able to respect others and participate in
maintaining a free society. This means that what happens
in families, what we learn in childhood, is as important
for good social life as what we do as citizens in the out-
side world.

The family reflects democratic society when its members
have fun together, respect one another, and are given a
voice in policy-making. The clash between "old" and "new"
climates may produce problems; when father's pride is at
stake; when mother feels "put upon;" or when parents think
that complete dictatorship or permisiveness is the answer. b‘
We need a family system and a school system that will more
adequately rear children for democratic families in a dem-
ocratic nation.

Scale 7, Lack of Parental Restrictiveness, yielded non-
significant results at the .05 level. It is interesting to note
here that although the high achievers perceived their parents as
being less restrictive than did the low achievers, the difference
was not large enough to be significant. Perhaps the following

13 will help to clarify this result:

statement from F. Ivan Nye
"The effectiveness of direct controls, those of restriction, super-
vision and punishment, are least affected by affectional identifi—
cation with parents. Evasion of and actual rebellion against di-

rect controls might be expected to be less frequent, however, in

cases in which there is an accepting relationship.

 

13F. Ivan Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior,
(John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 71.

 

h -31“

1110 results of scale 10, lock of Over-InSistence on Achieve-
ment, which proved to be significant at the .05 level, have been
discussed earlier, as they are related to the results of scale 3,
Wthetic Encom'agement of Achievement.

As dglt be expected after the non-significant results of the
scale dealing with restrictiveness and the comment made by Nye, .'_---
scale 12, Severity of Parental Dzhcipline, also proved to’ield non-
significant results at the .05 level. Even though these results were
non-simficant, here again, the results were in the predicted direc-
tion, that high achievers would see their parents as less severe
and more reasonable in disciplinazy practices than would low achievers.

me last individual scale on which the t-test was used was
scale 13, measuring the child's perception of his parents' trust in
him. his is a very crucial facet of the parent-child relationship
and one which is often negatively misconstrued by t1! defensive adoles-
cent. According to (lemon,1h adolescents and adults tend to be their .
most critical and Quilt-finding selves at this stage in the child's
life. the child who is in the midst of major physical and sectional
personal changes is easily discouraged by the sligltest criticism from
an all-too-demanm parent. ms sense of worth is easily damaged it
he feels a parent does not accept his as a person in his own right,
trusting hil‘fcr the mahme, independent person he wants to believe

11‘Arnoild Gesell 21; $3.." Youth: 213 Years from _T2 3.2 fixteen,

New York, Harper and Brothers, 1553.

~35.

he has already become. At the same time, it is particularly diffi-
cult and trying for a parent who my see nothing but irr98ponsible, un-
predictable behavior from his adolescent «behavior which naturally pro-
vokes more than the usual amount of criticism from the parent. he on-
oouraging Issults of this scale showed that the high chievers did
perceive their parentsas trusting thenmore thanthelow achievers
did. . lhe findings were agnii‘icant at the .05 level. Frank gives this
advice to parents on the important subject of helping the adolescent
to feel that he is trusted andrespected as an individual: "It is time
to think ahead «about the trust you must show in your adolescent and
his friends, about a remwed effcr t to say things posibively to young-
sters who feel grown-up, idealistic, altruistic. he best way to be-
lieve in your won child is to know other dli‘fl ran in his school or in
awgroup to which he belongs. Every adolescent since time began needed
the adult world to talk with him and to trust hin.'15

After testing the simficance of the differences in mean scores
on the seven individual scales, the t-test was outplayed for the same
purpose with the overall or total. scores. Elhis determined the differ-
ence in neanyscores of the high and law achieving groups on‘the total
questionnaire-wd differentiated between their Overall Family Morals

Ratings. These reenlts were highly significant,

 

15m, 22.- aih, M6.

-36-

well beyond the .001 level (t = 6.757), indicating that the

high achievers scored well above the low achievers not only on
scales 3,5,10, and 13, but also in their perceptions of their
parent-child relationships as a whole. Only the results of scale
5, Sharing Ideas and Confidences (t = 6.98), were more highly sig-

nificant than the findings on the overall score.

CHAPTER III

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Sample
The sample included two groups of fifteen subjects
each, equated for grade in school, age, I.Q., and level of
academic achievement. The subjects were eighth grade boys
and girls who were all rated "superior" (scoring 120 or above
on I.Q. rating) according to the elementary form of the CTMM.
For the purposes of the study, they were divided into one high
and one low achievement group, depending on the academic
grade point averages they held at the time of the study.
The high group had averages of B (3.0) or better and the
low group, averages below a 3.0. The median I.Q.'s for
the two groups were 129.5 for the high achievers and 130 for

the low achievers, the difference being non-significant.

Data Collection

The subjects were given the Family Relations Scale, a
questionnaire developed by William Morrow, to discover their
perceptions of their parent-child relationships. The ques-
tionnaire consisted of 16 self-report scales (seven of which
were indiVidually analyzed for the purposes of this study,
though all were completed by the subjects) and an overall or
total score. The scales used in this study dealt with the
adolescent's perception of his parents and of family practices
in his home, more specifically, parental approval, sympathetic

encouragement of achievement, sharing ideas and confidences,

as.
Parental restrictiveness, overinsistence on achievement, severity
of discipline, and parental trust in the child.
Analysis

be six items in each sub-scale were rated from 1 to 1;, de-
pending on whether the reapondent checked "almost never”, "sometimes",
'dten', or “very cften.“ (positively phrased itona) oh the item which were,
negatively phrased, the scoring was reversed. After a score hr each of.
the seven sub-scales and the overall score had been computed, the t-test
of significance of ddfferences was mloyed to test differences of mean
scores of the high and low achievement groups.

Results

Ihe findings show that high achievers perceived their parents
as more sympathetically encouraging achievement, (rather than placing
great “stress anl over-insistence on high achievment), as more trusting,
and saw their families as sharing more ideas and confidences than did low
achievers in the sample. m above findings were all significant at or
beyond the .05 level. Positive, but not statistically dgnificant, were
the statements that high achievers saw their parents as less restrictive,
less severely disciplining, and more approving than did the law achievers.

'Ihe high achievers also made a significantly higher mean score
on the overall questionnaire than did the low achievers, indicating that
they perceived a more favorable parent-child relationship, ea 5 3112.12.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUD!
W 12.129. m1:
1. All subjects were from a relatively homogeneous socio-eco-
nestle background. more were no real opportunities for mntrasts
in social class status.

2.

3.

h.

-ho-
Grade point averages, used to determine high or low level
or achievemnt grouping were computed from grades made in
only one sex-ester's work.
LQ. scores were obtained from one test, the California Test
of Mental Maturity. while this is accepted as a nlid and re-
liable group intelligence test, more than one test score would
be helpiul in differentiating more accuragely between "super-

ior" and "below-superior“ students.

the findings from such a limited lumber of subjects ahmnd

not be generalized for groups other than the group in this
study.

magma

1.

2.

One isolated incident might have distorted the subject's
response to the questions. For example, a child nightrhave
had a onflict with both or either parent on the morning of

the dw the imtrument was administered. Me, of course, is
a limitation which applies to most cross-sectional kinds of
research.

The subject may not have selected an accurate or truthful
response. Jerkinsl says that a subject may answer inaccurately
when the accurate response would embarrass, incriminate or is not
expedient to him. This is a limitation which applies to all
data collected by qmstionnaire.

4,0,.
CONCLUSIONS
m as 9.2a 2:. as am
1. It is possible to measure some aspects of adolescents'
perceptions of their parent-child relationships - as a
whole - and in some specific areas of the relationship.
2. The instalment can be used to collect data concerning
adolescents' perceptions of their parents which can be
related to various characteristics of children and their
fandlies. Such use of the instrument with a large, ran-
dom sample can yield information which may contribute
to better mderstanding of parent-child relationships and
the child's academic performance.
margin; the Adolescent's Percgptigg of the P-G Relationship
The following conclusions regarding adolescents' percep-
tions of their parent-child relationships can be applied only to
the subjects of this study. The limited number of

 

1J.G. Jerkins, "Quaracteristics of the Questionnaire as
Determinants of Dependability, " Journal 93 Consultant Pfloholog,
7', 1911.1, pp. 1614-170.

'hl'

subjects and the selective nature of the group do not ware
rent generalization of the findings to a wider population.

The hypothesis of the study was supported, since the
t-test of significant diFferences revealed that in the sam-
ple investigated, the high-achieving superior pupils per-
ceived their parent-child relationships as strikingly differ-
ent from.the low achieving superior pupils in three specific
areas. The areas were parents' sympathetic encouragement of
achievement versus over-insistence on achievement, perceived
parental trust, and sharing of ideas and confidences in the
families. In other words the high achievers reported that they,
were the objects of more sympathetic encouragement of achieve-
ment, more parental trust, and that there was in their fami-
lies, more sharing of ideas and confidences. Thescores of
the high and low achieving groups had non-significant differ-
ences on the scales dealing with parental approval, restric-
tiveness, and severity of discipline. Finally,overall or
total score of the subjects, the Over Family Morale Rating,
indicated strongly that the high achievers significantly more
often than low achievers, saw their parent-child relationships
more favorably §§.§ WE212° I

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

The investigator offers the following suggestions for
further study:

1. It might prove interesting to check data gathered

by using this instrument against results secured

from case studies, projective techniques, and/or

2.

3.

-h2-
other methods of data collection. (the open-ended question dealing with
the pupil's impression of the questionnaire he had Just allplaeted was
written in at the and offline instrlnnent for pupils to shaver if thw
desired. Ihe rang'grfc: answers received suggests that helpful quali-
tative data might, be thus obtained in this subject area.)
his instrument was‘adunistered to a small group for this study.
he investigator suggests that, after further validation of the in-
strument (cross-checking. results with other types of data), it be
achninistered to a large random sample. Such findings may provide broader
and more realistic implications of chill ren‘s perceptions of their rele-
ticnships with their parents all of the effect of the relationship on
tie child's develcpment, specifically his scholastic achievement. mus,
generalizations to a wider population 2111 be warranted.
me investigator suggests a study comparing children's perceptions
of their relationships with their parents' perceptions of these same
relationship . A study of this nature would provide correlations of
children's and their parents' perceptions. If these were studied in
relation to children's behavior and academic performance, one might
gain insight as to what the signficant determinants are in the
parent-child relationship as it affects the child’s behavior and
fuller utilisation of his potentialities. Ibo writer believes that
the parent-child relationship does have significant effects upon chil-
dren's achievement in school, and that children's perceptions, more than
parents‘ perceptions determine the effects of the parent-child relation-

ship.

-h3-

child's behavior and fuller utilization of his
potentialities. The writer believes that the par-
ent—child relationship does have significant of-
fscts upnn children's achievement in school, and
that children‘s perceptions, more than parents'
perceptions determine the effects of the rela»

tionship.

slmlcdmm

l. Ausubel, D.D., "Perceived Parent Attitudes as Determinants of.
(hildren's Ego Structure," Child Develgpte at, pm, September,
1951.. PP. 173-183.

2. Bscmeister, R, "1119 Family Cones first," Childhood Education, m,
September, l9h8, pp. 8-11. -

2a. Baker, Marietta, Causes of Failure in Junior High School Among Boys
. of Superior Intelligence” Master's, 1927.

3. mock, V. J., "Conflicts of Adolescents with 'Iheir Mothers," Journal
Abnormal Social szcholog, 193?, mn.

h. canpbell, 3.5:. 93 5}, Journal Educational P chole , 52:199-200

5. Campbell, nah, |'Ef‘fects of Bolton Hones on Children's Adjustment
in School,‘I Journal Educational Sociolgg, 1932, II, pp. 271;.

6. Glampney, E., "the lbls Parental Behavior Rating Scales," Yellow
Springs, Chic, Antioch Press, 1939.

7. Chandler, £4. , “Importance of the Early Years: Childhood Education,
39: 2" e

8. Chopin, F.S., "A Home Rating Scale,“ 3_9_____cialS ceResearch, 1929,

9. Cliiford, .Ed. 'Discipline in the Hons," J__o______uma1 Gene___;____tic P chclo
1959, 95 115.82. M

10. Conklin, AJL, “Beach. 0011. Contr. Edam, 191m, #792.

11. 00:, EN. et a1, "Assessing As cts of Parent-Child Relationships,"
Child Develop]. nt 32 :637- 9.

12. che, HAL, "Home Gmditicns as a Cause of Failure in High Schools,"
Education Research §1_J_._le_t_i§_, September, 1923, vol. 2.

13. Daily, Marion E., "Causes of Failure in Fourth and mm Years,“
Master's, 1929, New York University. . .

111;. English, 11.3., cs 9_.§_______ Child vow, New York, Holt,
Rinehartan ston, Im. ,1 l.

15. Drew's, Elizabeth and John Teehan, "Parental Attitudes and
Academic Achievement," Journal of Clini______c__al_ mm
1957, 13:328-332.

15a. Faegre, ILL. and J. E. Aniorscn, Child Care and h'ainin hth Edition,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Hess, 1957, p. 279.

16. Ford, Mildred 9., u Study of Certain Sociological and Psychological
Factors in Children of Superior Intelligence who Failed in School, n
Snith Coll. Stud. of so__<_:_. Work, 1932, 3. 20h. (abstr. )

16a.

17.

18.

19 .

20.

21.

22.

23.

2h.

26.

27.

28.

29.

32.

4:6-
Glueck, Bernard, "Parent and Child: A Patnership,’ _C_h_il__dS tug, 1929,
6' 379-810

'ihe Significance of Parental Attitui es for the Destirw
...—...:
c? the Indiv:l.d:.tal,a lb_§__ta1 m 12 :723-31.

Glueck, Sleldcn and Eleanor, Ebrironment ing Delingueng,
Routeledge and Kegan Paul, I: n, 1952.

Harris,D ., "Facts- 3 Affecting College Grades: A Review of the literature,"
1930-37, cholc cal Billetin, 191:0, 37 :125-151.

Hattuick, s. and Stowell, 11.5. , "Relationship of Parents' Over-Attentive-

nose to Children's Work Habits in Kindegarten and the First Six
Grades.‘l Journal Educational Research, 1936-37 , 30: 169-176.

Hevighurst, R. J. , and Hilda Tabs, Adolescent alaraEter and 136va Janent,
Wiley and Sons, 191:9

Hashes, G. R., 'Family Influences on Personality," Journal of Home Eco-

nond.___£_,s XLIV, 1952.

Keyword, R. 6., "Child's Report of Psychological Factors in the Rom,"
Arch. of chholog, 1935, #189:1-75

Hoffnsn, H.L., 'Powefi Assertion by Parents and the Inpact on the Child,"
Child Development, 31: 129-1143.

lush, u. , uSome Relation Between Intra-thily Attitudes and Pro-
Parental Attitudes Toward Children, Journal Geneti_______c_ Psycholog,

Jones, E.S., "me Probation Student: What He is like and What We can
Dc about It," Jamal Educational Research, 1955, 1:9: 93-102.

Iagan,J ., *‘lhe Child's Perception of Parents," Journal Abn__g_'____ml
Scc__i_._a1_ szcholog, 1956, 53: 257-258.

Kimball, B., I'Case Studies in Educational Failure During Adolescence ,"
American Journal _o_f_ Orthopgzchiatiz, 1953, 23 :hO6-h15. .

"lhe Sentence Coupleticn Tedmique In a Study of Scholastic
movement,“ Journal Consultant Psychcleg, 1952, 16: 353—358.

Koch, H.L., et al, "A Scale for Measuring Attitudes Toward Questions of
the Child's Fl‘eedcn," GlildDeve Develgpngnt, 1931:, 5:252-266.

Laws, Gertrude, Pare: t-Child Relationships: A tfituq 9_f Atti tudes Egg
Practices Concezqulgg“ the Socials Maggy ent of Mn New York,

ac. umbia,

levy, David 11., Relationships of Maternal Over-Protection To School
Garages and In. elJigence Tests ," American Joumel 2.1? Orthopsychiatry,
3:2 29.

33.

3h.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
(cont'd.)

Lewis, W. D., "A Comparative Study of the Personalities,
Interests, and fiome Backgrounds of Gifted Children
of Superior and Inferior Educational Achievement.

g. Genet. Psychol., lghl, 59:207-213.

 

Likert, A., "A Technique for Measurement of Attutudes."
Arch. of Psychology, 1932, 22:5—55.

 

35.Lorr, M. et a1, "Three Factors in Parental Behavior."

I

30.

37.

he.
1:7.
1,8.

g; Consult. Psv., 1953, 17:306-308.

Mannino, F.V., "Family Factors Related To School Per-~
Sistence.”_§4_§d. Sociology, 35:193-202.

 

Meister, A., "Perception and Acceptance of Power Rela-
tionships in Children." Group rsychotherapy, 1950,

9:153-163.

Merrell, E., "A Measurement of Mother-Child Interaction."
g, Abnormal Social Psychology, lghé, h1:37-h9.

 

Leltzer, h., "Children's Attitudes Toward farents."
.Auere_ll Orthopsvchiatry, 1935, 5:29h-205.

. Miller-Crichton, Hugh, "Home Background of the Pupil."

Megfal yvgjgng, 1932, 16:23-25.

Morrow, H.R. and Wilson, 3.0., "Family Relations of
Bright High Achieving and Under-Achieving high

School Boys,"_thld.Delelnpment, 32:501-510.

Musselman, J.W., "Factors Associated with Achievement of
High School Pupils of Superior Intelligence." J. Exp.
Education, 19MB, 11:53-68. _—

Myhand, Mary V.,_An_lnstrument To Measure Children's Per-
centiog§_2f Their Parents' Acceptifig Behavior, EA
Thesis, Michigan S;ateUhiversity, 1957.

 

Nemours, Du Pont de, "National Education in the United
States," as in J. W. Musselman, 19h2. (See entry #h2.)

Newton, Alice, "Relation Between Emotional Maladjustment
In the Home and School Failure." smith Coll. Stud. Soc.
Work, 1931, 2:89. (abstr.)

 

 

Nye, F. Ivan, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior.
John Wiley and Sons, 1953.

 

Peterson, D.R. et a1, "Parental Attitudes and Child's
Adjustment." Child DevelQEment, 1959, 30:119-130.

Plutchek, R. et a1, fStudies of Parent-Child Relations."
3; Genet. Psy., 95:171-170.

-uél

 

L9. Rolf, E., "A Factorial Study of the Fels Parental- 4
Behavior Scales." Ch 1d Development, 19u9, 20:29—h5.

50. Serot, N.H. et a1, "Perception of Parent—Child Relation-
ships... and the Relation tonthe Child's Adjustment."
Child Development, 32:373-375.

 

51. Stodgill, 3.1., "Parental Attitudes and Mental Hygiene
Standards." Rental Hygiene, 1931, 15:813.

 

52. Stott, Leland H., "Adolescent Dislikes Regarding Parental

Behaviorslnd Their Significance." J. Genet. #31,, 19LO,
‘ ., _
57:393-L14-
53.Swanson, G.E., "Development of An Instrument for Ratinr
Child-Parent Relations." Social Forces, 1950, 13:82-9h.

 

 

5L. Symoncls, Paul, P83611010? 9.2 Parent-Child 12813t.0“3fips°
Appleton~Century, 1939.

 

 

55. Tarqoff, 1., Rev. Educ. Research, 31,h79-h90.

 

 

56. Tauschi "Ehild Who Rebels Against Authority." Instructor,
71: “8-4.?0

 

 

57. Terman, Lewis, The Hygiene 2: the School Child, Boston:
floughton, 1929.

 

58. Tibbets, J.R
ment g£.H
232.

, Role
3h Soho

4.

Parent-Child Relations in Achieve-
Eupils. Dissert. Abstr., 1955, 15:

 

Q£
ol

0
o
..
l

59' Van Alstyne: Do, Teach. Coll. Contr. Educ., 1929,#366.

 

 

60. Wallace, H.A. and Ulr'ch, David, "Family Disturbances and
0 o n o o ‘ "‘ r 'J /
Learning leflcultles." J. Co sult. £sv., 2h:3;5-300.

61. Walsh. A., Self-Concepts of Priiht BQXfi 71th Learniqg

.

Difficulties;“ Columbia University: 1956.

 

 

 

62. Williams, J.H., Jhittier Scale For Grading home Conditions.
. J n. r . . f ‘ n ,' . -
Bulletin #2. fillttler State Donool, California.

/ azr. ‘ I T Y.‘ n o o
03. #11301, Isabell, "The Jse of a sentence Completion Test in
Determininq Differences Between dell—Adjusted and mal—
Adjusted Secondary School Eupils." J. Consult. fsv.,
. ... “...—_— ...—An—
1949, 13.hCO-h02.

-u7-

APPENDIX A

4:449 e:-

“1“

‘3’

APPENDIX A

«21-149 4:-

INVESTIGATOR'S INTRODUCTION OF INSTRUMENT
TO SUBJECTS.

I am a graduate student at M.S.U. My job is to
find out something about boys and girls your age.
would like to know some things about ways you feel about
your home and parents.

In a minute I will give each of you a question-
naire. Please leave it face down until I ask you to
turn it over. Please answer the questions as honestly
as you can. I am the only person who will see your
answers. Your responses will not be discussed with
your parents, teachers, or with anone who knows you.
This is not a test because there are no right or wrong
answers -- the best answers are the ones that best
describe you and your parents.

(Hand out questionnaires; check to see if every
pupil has a pencil with an eraser.)

Now, please look at the first page of the ques-
tionnaire. (Investigator proceeds to demonstrate mark-
ing technique with a sample item and response.) Are
there any questions?

You will have until the end of this hour to com-
plete the questionnaire. If you have a queS"; ion during
the time you are working, please raise ye-.: hand and I
will come around to your desk Please begin now. (Note
time on wall clock.)

=I=

 

 

I ; {LEST 13331189 J‘St' mitial} W‘Bmasim
' - mes__ . 9’8 ...,

maxvnuwas-rx -' . 9

Bah; of Bifih ~

i I
mums-.911..- v- ' ~ ‘

_ _ __,l 4.. ..o..—..—.4...,—.

Maw

BIKES TIUNS :

 

 

2' ~::‘:3::::r.'. .‘..:‘:.‘..n::.x...‘ ' *..'...::.- m:.<-M-**-:'.:x.~n'tn u- .. .

i W _ 9
f The follmzing ques tions are about yourself and your family.) Road

g each moieties oarefully and, answer it as it applies to the parents with
i when Egg 1.333 was (whether they are your real parents 9 ate-p p’renmr

 

3118.?

a

To the right of sash question put a she sis-umn: in the column whi eh, comes
is.) the times. in your ease... if you feel. it is ties at all true as is phehs

‘ 5 ">1 ' {V ‘ If: . (“'2' .. -.. , 0 V; v w .. w v: ‘ n 4 vn-al' ~ 1" a T .
wisest h‘i‘iroi 9 cheek; to 19411113; 1... ii" it.» happens sensitizes, chess. so was. .29

. ’1 . v. if,

 

"‘-

‘ T, '7' 1 - ‘9 ' '." Wit? .5" i 'r‘m’t: 4-“ "n" 7" 1’ W11" 57-10" 3 'z'f‘ " e:- ' afuxxlz .-.... “I .9 p, t J" 7 t b .
3 ~ . v I -- "‘ »‘ ' if, '4‘" ‘ ' 4 ’v n w 1,. v) ‘94—} .Ux.‘.:.~f.) JLAQ ai.."..T-:U}.13j (m 3:»; "= a“- -, 'i.‘ 5.316512. 9:5 is :- ‘7 " APE/333
u... JAW.‘ v&s: VML ”(7‘1 1* b: - {mi-um?“ i,

 

 

 

 

m C . ~- ... h ... » _ ‘4? .n , .f , ' r
his: 999 we: Ca» ism, E 8M
In": ‘. ..__ . .- -‘;' :1: "225 , ‘ I‘l‘y‘; .' ”175”?
_ 9 . , _ .. 9 7, -- .1. .. 1......5‘... L" 3 “4- '1...ng
:- , , ‘ .-..9‘3'4 ... . :1...-.1.-.; ...uuqn»;~~. 11;... .. u . t . w. -— ;.M\.-:.m;..::.~....;:qz. cud. a—<.~“.:.-- t- - JokavttA-"v-ha. . 43.29:):er ,-.9--.Ln;v.ua.:Fu&C.i.L W-m‘ ' A w ..- I I 2"“.
9.27. pm v- 3.. e {his {series is :1 iii). as nevi :' i , 3 ’95
- —~p:_-.-.'p<)~ ‘c—Wl- “—3 (‘-'.~)*1A.'-’ '9 ‘-~_ : ‘ Q m—_'<‘9>'_ 141..“ .IluaM' ~0F...h)'.{l""' n.4'M'. “ F.‘ .1-’?F .‘blvial “_g$~l 'l'-'\ 4». a ‘o. L? 511' 3‘ ’ "sl- - ‘5)
9 .2
"s ‘ _ .0 b ‘ l ‘ . J . ’t “2’ ' ‘ ‘ 1.
so you go to games (item; at 9 has chalk e (3&3 ,5 with. E 3:
. one or both permits ? _
‘ . -».,.. ~ .4 ———_ wA,_9‘n‘.-. . 9,. n. . . . r" T. - A _' .. HRS-$1. , W 1;

 

 

 

 

 

 

hoes your family have good. times together at home?

 

 

Bo either of your parents work with you on any
‘_ hobbies or projects?

 

E

:3

is Do you and your family go on picnics or outings 3
or trips together? 5
i

i‘

 

<3. is it enjoyable to spend evenings with your family
“group?

L. -.

 

Are both of ymr permts fair in their criticism

of you? .

Do you worry about Hint either of your parents think
of you?

.19....

 

 

 

Wm

Doee someone at home "pick" on you?

 

353». Does either parmt ever seem to wich that you were
a different sort of person?

' ‘l—m'" ‘ V

11:: Are both of your permits inclined to think well of M?

 

 

12 Does either parent over seem irritated with you i
Without cause? '1

 

214-

13 Do your parents sympathetically encourage you to do
well in school?

 

 

14-0 Do your parmts inspire you to want to develop
.Wur abilities? ' ""7

 

5o Does your parentsi interest in mrtlmhile books
. flake you mat to read them? .

 

 

" . 399 your parents understandjngly encourage you to
who part in school. affairs? . - --

a"...

 

Wu...

iv . . ‘ ‘
4- to your guests help to stimlate year int asset in
:::.a,:.z'r$-'; areas as art,, music9 soienoe9 01" 33033-13105?

 

‘ --- -uzw-n‘

:0 '00 your parents stimflste you to think hinge out
for W?

 

9.90mmt. mmmmmw
‘ Windham-225m?

°D°mmtatrytohawyou2

Do your pant. 13.131; on over and settling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

'u4. .- ... ~.,-—..v ‘

'YKJ'\’ ' . 1

’ f P'» 9-. u. ,_ _.‘ {1% fl , .v. var n..—
— r2 = 9 "r -<- .3, 9. 22'

l a
'y'V-j'l' - “x .1; -.\ ‘ Q

’1' J -\ “V f! i; V .3 .t.‘ .i. ‘9‘.
yidLliT (I ‘1: «It: S. 27.. l."”

0;; :Imn'fios 23:22:93 ‘82, 23:3?

. ’ ’ ’ ~ .1 ‘rgw. . 7 4' ‘ .'._.
f3; xiii-41121) «JO {33219329. U9 ‘5‘}? 23.2:

s 921210;) 2222222222 unzip-93:2.) 2222?;

22681222311! c122. ‘3 ”5‘3"“

"LL ”'1':

'79:}

Lig‘LL-L sfiwuu £32.27“ 2. 0'2}. 231;“?

prey (Arms: .7302: 23 22:2

9 -- il"‘.'— rm: ':-:u: 7" 7'72? .-:'*=- Y. ’.‘.'.'.1.‘*;.:I. .‘ .TJva-Iazmz: . 1-1:. 4:11-1:13: 32-2. 9.27:1 7‘

.25" ”'3' '1"!

‘1'-)
uuvr-y-cnva-m
.‘ -.' -'.

{2272 ‘

u. =23? 3:0 22 :2. 2352‘

91::

81’!‘ Sf?”

..r:

v-(m-. Error-”r ' ' '3‘
(Lo, L TL ”131: $2an21 {Eff'r'}

:;:nii

.2: i L.) 213322.,” "; H. 11': _7 -‘ 31'
v __' ...
=: 5"“udzs 22 21 2
9 H .t’.
,4 ‘- r‘fi 9 I , v
i 51‘ a Y F GA} n"“' I: z.
1.22: 2292 222:2 2:212:22 s and

s .21: 2:22 32: Jensen

r

“2n. . .... .moA' are £22122
T

2:

engine}: 2.220021? e921?

2 . ‘~- ~- 3...?!

:3".

1‘3: “‘5‘."
\

'2.

\

\

I.

5

2' -

x

l
.__.____L._LW_ .- L L 1
O
I
' ’ " for u

2 _ 3 f 9:. cat. , = um; Jar-2201!"; 2.246. ’C’: ‘ Shirl-LL; 2» if, .9 99

. . F - ’.- . . ,- k ' . ~"' _
's ‘ 3 r 31'??? his '20 80.2 2 '4 f; g',
‘ v " a 't:: '7"I“.-Iaé~§vr":: ' - - ' -."= "7.1 '.".‘\".('1’r\‘,‘ - - ,

9 ‘ ‘ .-.
I ‘2 . ." ‘._ I t _ .
o 1:015. 1..- U II: no '3“ 1 . ‘t .- , an“. ,99v_»-Irs ... --O"_v‘.‘~“.'. ‘“ r>"~,.‘-»‘,._ '1" ' _'_.."‘| m‘l'.‘c.f.._.2‘; .. l‘;- b
.._ . ..- -:-,,‘,.“9,,
2 i i : 9 ‘
3 , 2 I 933335“ 2w: 0;; chm... .1 mm and mm mm» nu
*2" ”‘1' r m- r. z, 1’ —- . L

' _' u- I. -c ‘ —. ' db—‘i-o‘+- ‘ ‘ 5"" Wm

 

 

 

 

 

“—— rt- 1...-.. . "__

- . -—“.—-~-_-* - I“- -— . ‘fi—i-

‘ I
p. -

Do you and your parents have so "31017.8 diatomic-as
about religious, pifilosopi'sioal, political, or
social meggons?

Md cmfi “-" ' -

 

Do you and your parents have serious intellectual
discussions about subjects such as art, music,
literature Lor solence': "

.
.
\

l

.: ~19 “Cur-.0;- - ..4-

I ,

 

Do you talk to your paralts about your problems
and worries?

 

31.

Do your parents show an interest in thms that
cmcem you?

 

32.

Do your parents show pleasure at whet you do?

 

33»

Do your parents openly show affection for you by
by word or action?

 

34o

Do your parents enjoy Spending time with you?

 

35-

Do your parents do little things to show
affection and consideration for you?

 

36.

How often do your parents praise you?

 

37.

Are your parents particular about what boys or
girls you associate with?

 

Do your parents give you a good deal of freedom?

 

 

Do your parents give unreasonable commands which
they insist that you carry out?

,1
f
1

 

Do your parents let you decide important things
for yourself?

 

 

Do your parents insist that you do fixings their
way?

 

#2.

‘_

Do your parents try to direct your activities?

¥

n'- m! IF.

I

.‘QW—iv . to] I

. . savanna-ILA:- L-IL-“nm ....‘hr u...-. M
I .
i
ll .
I

 

43.

‘E

Do your parents take your wishes into considera~
tion when plamjng a family trip or vacation.?

I
l

.' ;.S":“‘. cum . ‘. a. to .—
I

‘
- F'wx.
4

 

LP’iv o

 

Do your parents let you help decide everyday
family policies, rules, and ways of living?

k..—

 

l+5..

Do your folks let you help make important. family
decisions?

“b

46.

 

Does your family talk over future family plans

together?

 

47o

 

Does everyone in your family have a say about how
Your home is decorated and what furniture to buy?

\_

 

 

 

 

 

—— -‘- :“>-vr'1‘~l. . o .‘ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"-3- f‘ ..nn'. '-
fiasjg 11oz:- -:-:. no divs)". .L J

...... I

P—L .- Q
n—E‘MH‘JI 4- ._, ‘

$ w r74??? 3'2?‘ 3:50
I ' ... ‘ 4 ~.u .
. ; ~. ; . figi'.j.§.1\{.‘.§.'u!2 uuofl 4.;
‘ Mimi..." ..... _. u-..__--g _ “in __

3 l g i ' goof: 1;?!qu 21:91:01:
3 z " ,

:: i;- E M

i l ,

g i Joel: antes pus

I g e—i

._ -_ , I 1 Q

‘ E uatzn no.5 JO 3 aim

.. ,1 j“ ‘

119012;:ch no]! one

“tomb 5,...4 “Muir

g-

mm-n‘-‘-— . i nun-o. -

.Do your parents expect too much of

an} 9' V9-

want you t o?

a. \d‘J-L. nuns-u w

-
‘ _‘I—fl’- t 'u'.I---‘,-- I-d’ 'l‘l ni‘hn‘ Eb‘.’

ya" '2’

 

Ac

_..

-' hflI—“J

Do your parents insist that you chooses. “soften
type of vocation?

:—-"'..7¢.AAarI.—h-mI--‘m¢ .9T.~ ‘¢.c.a ten:

5
"mur'fi'u .3. _~‘.

 

57o

Are your parents always after you to work hard to
become a success?

I - '. I‘M-\m~1-g

—— w.—w 1:».- .wu— .
I

wane—'- wen-r ..

 

58.

Do your parents keep after you to become an
importzmt person in school affairs?

 

59.

Do your parents keep after you to read more or to
read certain things, whether you want to or hot?

MMIL~' ‘ u

 

""'-=mu'n- t l ~‘u .

 

 

60°

 

Are your parents always trying to get you to study
harder?

 

61.

Do you feel happy and contmted when at how: with .>
your family?

 

62.

Do you like to do extra little things to please
the members of your family?

 

63.

_

Would you like to be the same kind of parent. that
your parents have been? '

---‘-at-.Au-A-po- nun.

 

61;.

Do you consider yourself very close to your
parents?

 

mgr! 11-1 ~.,~;<.

o
.
A
u
I‘L‘r—I-oor', m w)- : ..
I

 

Are your parents good friends and pale to you?

Do you admire your parents?

 

How often do your parents scold you?

 

 

Do your pareats insist that you obey there im -
diately when they tell you to do something? -

 

t- l' “Arturo.
I

 

Do your parents use physical punislment to ref-4:6
you mind?

 

 

Does the way your parents act depend so much on
their mood that you're not sure what to expect?

32mm”: _.
~

 

How often do your parents punish you?

 

Do your parents punish you severely for misbehavior
or disobedience?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
("I-mum " '9
o
-

 

 

-..“nlm'imfi ~'. '4"

.
I
.004- tame-wm‘;- . v ,1

l
J
13» .3: ’— 3
i
v ‘1‘." .‘W 1'“. W

1' new-"1v “.-....— -

|u-—.<

'dol’
\

Us" 4 ID

’ 'V
'-y-:tnml1rt u‘m fl

3
a
i

M“.':M: a;
1
!
g 1
U‘MW-xpwm .- _.
’ 4
i V
:- V.‘M. ."

'0
.-
1:1vuer'a‘m r ;. . .
.
4

§
1
i
i
l
1

I

a
n , o. f. ’
'L ._, I
‘
..
‘x
." x
.. v ‘(
a ‘ '.? 7 '3
.IA J .- 55 ------
J g ‘
‘ ‘ -. “*n(—
1? a ,‘ v ... J‘ ~‘
“ ’1‘.

I? seem

”MT

301') oi no}: Trot; squad:

*-

it oi-{eq on, sonar-rum EU

ova, p {non Ros uoum r:

i

ecu-us "9. WM fimif

 

form tie-13:0 -emog "com-L

"UIO'A

l .4 5"}

L‘.

 

. .x ...V _. ,—.|- .‘_ f3. -.. g‘ 'T . , . , _, l“ _ ‘ .
I , ‘ . . A. .
'0‘ ‘1.- "u \ ._ s . L. ...' s, \d‘;_ ... ,4) L: ... M d . ‘1 ~- ~ . ._- h, ‘ 4 . -l t, . . .
. ... u
4 . . . ~ ~ , -. .... 7..
—‘-—‘ - ism .4. - I. «(o 'm."‘; mar-'43 fin. l.h. 0.
*1 s:— a- .- ‘u-‘JMM “I I 4 ‘¢ I a

Do your parents agree about how the house is to

 

,ud.‘ in»; >'~.| .‘I

 

 

 

.a'
be run? 5
... W (.-.... - 2
...-9 Do your parents ever go places by thwolves? i if
2.. Do your parents agree with each other in their 5
general ideas about life? i 5
Y fir-12.1.1833. {:WJM—Kmu . '1‘. -‘ -
‘30 Do your parents openly show affection or con- i 5
sidersticn for each other? , f,
-‘.'., Do your parents agree about met you are allowed. 5
to do? _ my”?

 

 

Are your parents cheerful and happy when together?

 

0

Do your parents object to some of your activities
with your friends and acquaintances?

 

1.). Do your parents like you to bring your friends
into your home?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

._ r. Do your parents irritate you by teasing you about
your interest in the opposity so a?

 

 

77?). Do your parents kg? for.» s going to club 83:! school
meetings?

 

"h... Does your home over seem to get disorganized?

 

 

 

P

E
a

5

,.-:.. Are household tasks in your home done on a
regular routine?

 

a). Are your meals served at regular hours?

 

'?. Do your parents approve of your friends?
5.3.. Do your parents approve of your going to dances i

and parties when you want to? _
5‘?

Ln.‘ .. if e'

.. ‘..". X

"L l.‘u m ".

_1

I. «(11" \.
.

 

in Are wings kept in their proper lace at how?

 

 

. ’o‘. Do the members of your family get up at a regular

time 2

’5‘

 

 

T6. Do you go to bed at a regular hour on school
nights?

'5—

 

 

 

 

 

 

k

V-uv‘au‘uvma'.‘

.—.n.ml\ m>,‘ soot! tau-... .—“.“ .

m-“‘h—. V -1... 009.4 ..All. \a\‘

 

«If.

\ < r r s-
h .
. .
0 Ag<-- . x 4 _O I. 'LV' '5‘ . .V'O‘ JL I ' " v“. | "'3~ I‘LC- ‘52:? A ‘ 'K ' -‘wgl‘u—I..u.:.rk‘.:".mh“
. .l -
- . , , - .. . .
0 , ‘ ~ .- . .
‘ ’ ' b. .’
‘ i ' i ‘J - .‘
o '. I
. r ‘1
J 3‘ ' - ‘ ;‘ '1 I‘\ - I
.5 i .1 -"‘“'e;"— '.n a! o.
a . l t . , n
. i y '1
. O o ,.
z ' ~ '
k .
'1 -* c ’ ' at )9' -" u ' ‘E ".‘l - -‘.'. .— ,5?!“ ' 'a 1- .o ' 5.91‘. . bl" ’-’-~ .‘u:outing»;.x.x\.uau1—~rc.~.nm';=l
1
i

«M .-rCW-m'
“wuf'
‘r ah" '."’A‘.".'O-;

-I
.L , 3 2‘
. ..
"'1
. 2“
. .' ‘

. |-1

C’s
; .'
-'_
("
~LI
,
,a
v“)
‘ I
':~
'-

g‘
I

 

.
v . wa- .. J . 'Lfi-n ”bk-finlu-m‘nu-EC‘J.‘ ¢,~ _..a-..-.-u:r.o-,'ugm."....
I . . ..- - .. - - a . ~1
. ‘ -) 1;”. 5: ‘ N ' *' -
‘ ~ ' 'v .3. ‘ . . a b - ‘.'.
?
I - - F Iv.- .- an. " --- I
. - ‘ 0 [-fi‘ "1 o. n - -~.vP
- I”. - '.' .. "D "\‘ ' I. “ t
v.- ,u ' “ r) ‘. ‘-‘ “4; "
. r - v - . I
_,- _- I ‘ . l 4n—1< I’vl h‘) ' '0 lo- . ~“ 4, . ."' ‘0 2 .A "... - o. ‘ ' ‘\.‘I"’J ¢_A \_"‘G-W~"W~ ' -IIJ unah‘fiur
-
— I _l
‘ . I
V _ I

APPENDIX B

-55-

-55-

 

 

 

 

 

 

mamumam mmmuoom wmm-awa mamaoam .mqwmmmtmmmmwmmmmwemm
o.m-o.H o.m-o.H o.:-o.m o.:-o.m mmaao>< pcfiom cease
0-:H ob ~-mam mxja 0» puma m-:H op a-ma :.:a co ~-mH “.moz . mnwowv - oma
oma-ama o:a-mma m:a-mma omauama oncogene cocomfiaaoch
Evade. whom mHAHwL a - _\ {whom cameras?
macaw eon anomo monl1

 

 

 

 

.mm<mm>< enema oze .moa ..d.H zH mmozam-m% Mam<e

a

 

-57-

TABLE #u - FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS

Hig w otal

 

 

 

 

__‘Qgggpation Grou.2_W Groug
Teacher/Minister 2 1 3
Storekeeper/Clerk 3 2 5
Clerical 1 O 1
.Skilled Laborer O 2 2
(welder, furnace man)

Factory Worker h 5 8
Farmer 2 1
Other (mail carrier,

chicken hatchery, l 2 3

truck driver)

Deceased 2 O 2
Unknown 0 3 3
TOTAL 15, 15 30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11313 a? 5- ._
www.mcommo 10 1.0. sconas

 

 

 

 

 

‘ L HIGH ACHIEVFRS -
Grade Graaa
Boys 1.0. Pb. 13a Girls 1.0. Pt. _Ag9___
1. George 159 h.0 13-9 1. Ann ‘ 11:2 h.0 1h-3
2. Ronald 137 3.0 13.10 2. Kathy 137 3.0 111-5
3. Chuck 133 3.0 1h-h 3. Incy 131 3.0 13-8
h. John 133 3.0 111-2 h. Dana 127 3.0 lh-o
5. Ted 131 3.0 13-7 5. Georgia. 125 3.0 13-10
6. Andrn 129 3.0 1h-1 6. m 123 3.0 13.7
7. Joe 125 3.0 13-9 7. Gail 122 3.0 13.11
8. “lyler 121 3.0 114-0
TABLE #6
Ede low ACHIEVERS $517866
92:8 1.0. Pt. 59‘ Girls 1.0. Pt. 53
1.. Jake 1&6 2.0 13.10 1. Janet 139 - 2.0 11-1
2. Jerome .. 139 2.0 154-0 2. Jack 129 2.0 13-7
3. Hwy 138 1.0 111-2 3. Virginia 129 2.0 11-6
1.. Steve 137 2.0 13-7 1.. Mares 127 2.0 13.7
5. Rick ' 131 2.0 13.11

6. Keith 131 2.0 1).-5
7. Robert 130 2.0 11-1.
'8. Danny 127 2.0 13-8

90 min 127 100 11-"9
10 . Dick 130 2.0 13-10
11. Bay 125 1.0 Elly-0

.58-

.Hopofl mo. on» dachon pascamfiowfim moeoomup *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo. See flag: SEQ 2365 .. 2.89
mo. oHHSO CH awoke Hmpcoawm umafi
mo 0mm. ooHHoHomHQ Hensoawm a0 unapo>om umafi
mo. 301:.N pco§o>ofino¢ so cocopmfimCHAo>o Mo xowq noa%
mo .ooo.a mmoCo>Hpofiapmom prCkom u 5%
mo. *Omo.o moodoowmcoo use maooH mcfiewnm u m%
mo. *mmm.: pooEo>oH£o< no pooEomoaooocm ofiponpwofihm I m%
me Now. Hw>oaoo¢ Hopooawm a N%
a 5 p 3.8m oo 03:.

 

mmm>mHmo<

BOA Qz< mem mom measmmm 9mmelp I N% mqmde

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES

31293006436426