'- V'vw —— .- v ._ _
vv‘ ‘ v v v.‘-—.l—..-.o1-.4<o.-.—...-«.---.__ .~._' ‘.. ‘.‘. ' -
l . ---'-” 0“. __—————_
Iv .‘O‘II.0‘-"."-§““.‘w.mwoo-'."‘.1_Vv ““‘ -- “

. .
Y‘vv .V‘L-t“vvvv V v 1". "W

 

| . O.
. _'
IA!"

Of.
110*

 

i-M.
-I
(1.7"

u '

'7':

 

a
.
I

   
   

0

fit!

. MICH'IGAN STAT-E UNIVERSITY
FREIDIA AUGUSTINE BROWN

 

 

   
   
  
  

     

     
   
  

      

.. .. o
.
- " u
.
, .
u I . -
. I
I I . . O ' o
‘ C
.
D
P ' _
‘ u
. ‘ ' ‘ . - r.
G 1 . .
' a , - .
. 1 n l
1 .ll . ... . .0 O
, ‘ - . f ‘ _ .1
o I ‘ ‘ ' ' - . t ' '
. 1r - -_' .
01 ' I .
. ,'
o. .
. ' .
t v ' , - . . . , , .., - .. . .
I . ’ - . ,. ' . .' o .. .
' ' .. .- .. ‘
' ' I.
' . O 9 — " A . '-
. ...o . q . . . , . ..- . . ' _ ' -
. . .
r
. . . . -
' , ,. . ' . v ‘ . '1 . ... . t ' ‘ - . . .
... , ‘ t , . . . .-.. v . ._ I. ‘ '_ , .
' - ... , , . ‘ . ,. Iv . - .0 ° . .
' - - ' - o. ‘ - -
. .1 . ._ ." . l - . . a ' . 1 v I. ' A . . - .o- ,/ ' '
. . - d V
’ _‘ ‘ . ' ' ‘ ' 1 ' ' ‘ ‘ ' O . I o '0 ‘ ' ‘.. ' ..' .I...'.l ' ". ' 7
_ . . . - ,_ ..
' ' . o ' . . ’ ' o ’ I 0‘. O ‘
, - .
. . o, "’ ' - u r I. I. a v v '. " - - _ . ‘ ' 4-..-o . .o
I ’ .. a “ , . . . - - loo 4 '-~ _ 0 -
- .l . l-— n ' O .‘Cv ' 5"‘. , I .
1 '° .4 , g o - ' I - ‘ ‘ ' 'J I (’4‘ o 4- .a . - '
" ' . . , 4 . . —. .1-.- .1 l.-:._ " _ .. ' ._ - _
.. .- g; _ , at. ' ' . .
‘ " t " 'P".' . — .~ . 1 Jill . - o " " _’ . .
. . ',‘o y I O . o .. ' :"- .’.' _- ’ - 1
oo "1- .. . ' .I',' r..‘d.’0 0"! I t.’ -
.v o - _. " . o,' , - - o, I-
‘ . _ - (1" v')‘: 0- y
., '1’: .. ,.,-. , ..v. - .‘
. - . p' t .0 pH! 0-0. Q
. g - . ‘ - . . .
.go. o. 00". . ‘ 1 .' ..- o. '- ’d
- .0...-no - , _ , . ‘ " - “-
.oo. 1 .n. ' . p . .. ‘1 ..
. ,, ala- l ‘ . . .4
' d090,. ' a I"
H. . '. ‘.-~‘ ’-“I .ll..“ -...-—.o‘.t¢tt- .,.
'1 . .. . , , . (- c‘O‘.4C d
. . ' ,,..--| , . ..,. .»
.'.-.l p.(' ," v" . r. Ql
.-.,7.‘,. 0-0,. ,_J( -.r.,7. 1"! -J
- I I '." fl .. ,
D'J'o'l. “0" "" u .0..‘ o-‘lovv '. z
. -.., .1. . , .1 -v i "'
{-Jrv'r..:1c.t.f”;1,-.o -v-’l'r 1, ‘ o'ro" or o
I‘TH.¢O‘1-I.‘I’.4" If! - '1‘. ' '., 1",l"._.',.p-,’l'
-"' ' l/f’p)‘
v-"'
'04::

,

p.) .11 ¢

“-va Hora/J- ""’:';..‘.'
.r- th/'°.""‘ ’9.

f

.r) "' .. ‘. '5' . ’ I. I - . a—lt'l 1" d
' " f” .JIV)"I.’O’ '0: T'. ' ' u I, ‘ I " H“'F”UI" 'nr‘ hiJr’F-v Infl'r" ‘.'
'1 .0 '1-lO'OO’l. . I". 1 -,

a p '

 
  
    

r 'I.J'“'J" "

'(v I ‘1'}
IL’ Olfl’l’l'Jfl’: -‘.'l_’34».t
Wu" I‘I'":' W IF‘(OVO.-’

  
 

a r f 0‘ ’0
,Z’N' ' « ' , frOOJD’O'M’t I r'lorlo
'1‘, " ' ..2,',’.’r’:;v: a" ”I ovuv I foe-o ~I

   
 

    
   
  
 
 
 

 

. nlr'or fi ('Of‘.0’.’
.' - .0 4 I ,3! .0 a”
. .'.}_(7 2:“). ';“;o»{ .rlv;o}l: '2'. ’.,"j"1"’ .."",'.r""JI'OFfJ fl”
...1 rr tlo:1oa.- a, 7' 00’ I tin, ' "'~"
‘.' u . o cw. ~. l-..¢(rl p: a” 'd'
/";""’"'f‘ , "’ "" '8. ”nun-”M ”av/1.3:
.0 .‘OC.OO'.' '
" '3"

'r...x;:/.... .27.,

             

1001 coo-‘Dop’ 1 .
a. 1...: 4’. . .. . .
o‘., 33.3.25, 5"?" ..-‘r'*- 59.2.". ‘ ’ “wruxs‘ ' 9
'U . H6 ~a1‘l‘t/ 1,1 .1 r] '1 .vvr r " ‘ ' ’
. ..".' "m ,:",:’:;‘."‘... ":..‘. all.‘ ,”:I.:u.""’,' /".'r' ,./1..?”'1¢'- .O.- ..”I _I 'f.l;r O
;:‘1”.HM.. 15,10 . 0" 0 fl ,. .
. , . ’,n , , 7 "'.....d""‘l' ”I 7,qy'g,~y,tt...,.~; . cl“
‘ u .71 ll. '3'01.-‘I

 

(4"01...’ ‘ "..-.O ,... ’. t (, ...
I”.’:.. .. 2“. 0", . J‘.“. ‘ “%’o's'- 2 ’J/f’uffl’o l1-f‘x' o u ’4‘; :}1.. o 1 A .1. 'Ail‘(€;-:"I.- :1...' I 9%(}’rvml‘ “I. ‘M1'E‘,’oflzl't;%?;;'" {£2."«'i'd '
‘ 10“.

 

‘mummmlmnnmmnnmmm ‘mmy

3 1293 00992 8544

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

/‘Y

AW /9{

My?

‘ /7‘D awn—«:90,

0

JAN 10 2000

 

 

\it,

Ol-I r

ABSTRACT
RESISTANT BEHAVIOR IN YOUNG CHILDREN
By

Freida Augustine Brown

The effects of a teacher-directed versus a teacher-initiated
condition on the resistance behavior of young children were studied.
Twenty-four young children (12 males and 12 females) between 20 and
40 months of age were presented with four tasks. Half of the sub—
jects were observed in the teacher-initiated condition and half were
observed in the teacher-directed condition. A 2 X 2 (sex X condition)
analysis of variance of resistant behavior revealed no significant
differences. The teacher rating scale proved to be an unreliable
predictor of resistant behavior. Significant other findings indi-
cated that §s displayed more passive resistance than active or vocal.
Males were found to be nore passively resistant in the teacher-
directed condition while females were more passively resistant in
the teacher-initiated condition. Suggestions for additional research

in the area are discussed.

Freida Augustine Brown

Approved é” y m

Committee Chairman

Date L 7 [¢ 7.3

Thesis Committee

Hiram E. Fitzgerald
Lucy R. Ferguson
Lawrence A. Messé

RESISTANT BEHAVIOR IN YOUNG CHILDREN

By

Freida Augustine Brown

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1973

To my mother. Maudline. and my brother, Matt.

Together we can overcome any obstacle.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald, my chairman,
for his support, guidance, and helpful criticisms. A special thanks
goes to Dr. Ellen Strommen for acting as chairman in Dr. Fitzgerald's
absence. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee,
Dr. Lawrence Messé and Dr. Lucy Ferguson, for their helpful comments
and suggestions.

A final thanks goes to the observers: Joyce, Mel, Janice,

and Bobette, for their participation in the study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . ..................... l
Ontogeny of Resistant Behavior ............ 2
Sex Differences ................... 6
Effects of Resistance on Performance ......... 7
Stability of Resistant Behavior ........... 9
II. RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION ............. l2
Relationship between Condition and
Resistant Behavior ................. 12
Relationship between Sex and Resistance ....... 13
Relationship between Teacher Ratings and
Resistant Behavior ................. l4
Purpose of the Present Study ............. 15
III. METHOD. . . .. ......... . ............. l6
Subjects ....................... 16
Observers ...................... 16

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Chapter Page
Apparatus ........... - ........... 17

Definitions of Conditions .............. 17

Definitions of Resistance .............. 17

Procedure ...................... 19

Data Analysis .................... 24

IV. RESULTS ......................... 25
Observer Agreement .................. 25
Experimental Findings ................ 25

Additional Findings ................. 26

Summary of Results .................. T 27

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......... . ....... 28
Implications for Future Research ........... 33

APPENDIX ............................. 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 41

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AMOUNT OF RESISTANT BEHAVIOR

AS A FUNCTION OF SEX AND CONDITION ............ 35

2. MEAN RESISTANT BEHAVIOR BY SEX AND CONDITION ........ 36

3. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AMOUNT OF RESISTANT BEHAVIOR
AS A FUNCTION OF SEX, CONDITION, AND TYPE ........ 37

4. MEAN RESISTANT BEHAVIOR BY SEX, CONDITION, AND TYPE
OF RESISTANCE ...................... 38

vi

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Negativism or resistant behavior is a trait commonly seen among
preschool children. Kahlban introduced the term negativism and defined
it as the “impulsive resistance to every outer influence of the will“
(see Reynolds, 1928). Originally, the term negativism was adopted by
psychiatrists to describe patients suffering from catatonia and schizo-
phrenia. Later, psychologists and educators described negativistic
children as those who displayed behaviors which evidenced noncompliance
with adult-dispensed instructions, requests or commands (Patterson,
Littman, & Brown, 1950). Bridges (1925) described negativism as a
defense against an innate hypersuggestibility or against authority.

Extreme forms of negativism were displayed by autistic children
who failed “to respond because of their unwillingness rather than their
inability to respond" (Cowan, Hoddinott & Wright, 1965). According to
Cowan gt_al, (1965) this failure to respond might be interpreted in
fbur ways: 1) as a lack of capacity; i.e., the child did not have
either the physical or mental ability to do what was asked of him;

2) as a lack of experience; he had not been exposed to a similar

 

 

}

. i
i
I.

‘ A7";-

 

situation or the concepts needed to perform the task requested; 3) as a
lack of general motivation or drive; and 4) as resistance or negativism;
in this situation the child was motivated not to do what was requested.
Bridges (1925) suggested that negativism usually resulted from a "just
revolt in the beginning against an unreasonable, harsh, or intrusive
authority." Negativism might merely be considered a display of the
will, a resentment toward a parent or element in the environment, or
a means of getting attention (Jenkins, 1935).

Resistance is generally viewed by the various investigators as
a refusal on the part of the child to do what is requested of him. The
fact that the child is capable of performing the requested task but.
merely refuses to cooperate has led to research on the development and

frequency of this type of behavior.

Ontogeny of Resistant Behavior

Ausubel (1950) describes negativism as a phase of ego develop-
ment in which the child has a l'need fbr relinquishing the earlier
grandiose and omnipotent scheme of ego organization in favor of.the
satellizing role (i.e., the child identifies in a dependent position
with the dominant parental figure) of later childhood." During infancy

a form of "infantile egoism" develops in which all of the infant's

psychological and biological needs are immediately and unconditionally
satisfied.

His only experience with reality has been with parents who are
generally willing and able to cater to his needs. Once the child is
able to start doing things for himself, his child-centered world soon
diminishes. The child learns of the omnipotence of his parents and
that “the essential quality of his impotence [helplessness] is voli-
tional and not executive1 in nature and that the condition for con-
tinued gratification of his needs lies in conformity to parental
demands.“ This change in ego status results in ego devaluation and
leads to the subsequent negativism displayed in young children between
the ages of two and fbur years.

Gesell (1943) attributes the origin of negativistic behavior
to an incapacity for voluntary choice at the transitional stage of
development in which "life becomes charged with double alternatives.
Instead of following one line he follows two and one of them seems
obstinate to the observer. It is the developmental method by which he
learns opposites . . . . He is learning to make one choice by exer-
cising two." Jersild (1947) interpreted negativism as a child's effort

to achieve self-help and independence and only incidentally as a form

 

1Executive refers to the actual manipulative activity involved
in the satisfication of desires in contradistinction to the volitional
aspect of willing them satisfied.

of opposition to others. "Somewhere between the ages of two and fbur,
children acquire a newly won degree of strength, skills and initiative
[which makes them prone to assert themselves] that is simply not sup-
ported by a comparable mastery of the social pattern of permissions
and taboos“ (Cameron, 1947).

Although some research has been conducted on negativism very
little has been directed toward the ontogeny of resistant behavior.
Levy and Tulchin (1923, 1925) described various types of resistant
behavior characteristic of certain age groups, but no one has reported
a detailed investigation of the development of resistant behavior.
Much of the empirical research on negativism attempted to determine
the onset of negativism and its peaks, the relationship of negativism
to intelligence and sex differences, and the effects of negativism on
intelligence tests and various other tasks. Levy (1925) and Levy and
Tulchin (1923, 1925) reported that resistance began at six months and
reached its peak around thirty to thirty-five months. The earliest
type of resistance around six to seven months was crying and clinging
which usually decreased with age, giving away to more complex reac-
tions such as speech and head shaking.

The crying and clinging to the mother witnessed by Levy and
Tulchin may be merely components of attachment behavior (Bowlby, 1969).

Between the age of six and seven months and sometimes continuing

throughout the second year and into the third the child becomes attached
to his mother-figure. At this time he vieWs strangers with caution,
and may become alarmed and withdraw if approached too rapidly or if
placed in close contact with the stranger. Usually after about three
years of age the earlier phase is followed by a period when the child
forms what Bowlby calls a "goal-corrected partnership" with the mother-
figure. The child learns that mother is not an independent object and
that her behavior is determined by various other variables and motives.
This period is similar to that described by Ausubel in his discussion
of negativism and ego development. For the child this is a transi—
tional period when he is aware of the feelings of others. It is during
this time, between two and four years of age, that.most children dis-
play the greatest amount of resistant behavior. The child develops a
more complex relationship with its mother-figure and learns how to
influence and manipulate her behavior.

The above theories which postulate the onset of negativism have
been supported by some empirical research. Caille (1933) observed
18-45 month old children during free play and found that the peak of
resistance occurred between 36 and 38 months of age. Physical resis-
tance and crying tended to decrease with age, while vocal resistance
tended to increase. The fact that the child is just beginning to

acquire a vocabulary and cannot yet express his desires verbally may

explain her findings. Mayer's findings (1934) tended to support
Caille, in that the greatest amount of negativism occurred at three
years. In contrast to the above findings Reynolds (1928) reported

that negativism reached its peak at two years and decreased with age.

Sex Differences

 

According to Levy (1925) and Levy and Tulchin (1923, 1925)
males show the greatest amount of resistance around 30 months as
compared to 18 months for females. They also reported withdrawal
reactions and resistance to be more frequent in girls and clinging
to the mother to be more frequent in boys. Overall, girls were more
resistant than boys fbr every age except 30 months.‘ Caille (1933)
found boys to be more resistant than girls. Goodenough (1929) fOund
boys were slightly more negativistic, but among the lower social
classes the girls were more negativistic. The contradiction may be
explained by the fact that in the Levy and Levy and Tulchin studies
the population was taken from a lower socio-economic class. Several
other factors may have influenced their results. For example, all
subjects were given the same task regardless of age. This means that
the task may have been more difficult and frustrating for some sub-
jects than fbr others, thereby contributing to the differences in

resistant behavior. Moreover, younger subjects may not have

understood what was required of them which may have caused more nega-
tivism. Another factor which might have influenced Levy and Tulchin's
results was the fact that the study was conducted in a booth during a
county fair with various noises going on outside! Although the above
factors may have contributed to the differences in the two studies both

researchers described negativism generally as a refusal to cooperate.

Effects of Resistance on Performance

Most of the research on resistance was conducted in the early
1920's and 1930's. The investigators' primary concern was with the
effects of resistance on perfbrmance on intelligence tests, many of
which were being developed and perfected during this period. Many
children were penalized by refusals to respond which appeared nega—
tivistic, so researchers were interested in why a child would not
perform a task. Later child development assessment instruments allowed
for refusals and the child was no longer penalized. As a result of
the improved instruments much of the research on negativism decreased.
Why the child becomes resistant around 2 years of age and then relin-
quishes this behavior around 3 or 4 years has yet to be fully explored.

The relationship of negativism to intelligence was investi-
gated by Reynolds (l928) and Caille (1933) but no significant corre-

lation was found. In contrast to their findings, Rust (1929) and

Nelson (1932) both reported a negative relationship between intelligence
and negativism; Cowan gt_al, (1965) found autistic children who complied
initially and those who easily relinquished negativism to have higher

IQ scores than children who tended to remain negative. The poor per-
fbrmance on intelligence tests and other tasks as a function of negativ-
ism might be explained in terms of what Patterson gt_a1, (1968) de-
scribed as negative set. "Negative set" is operationally defined as

the effect which social stimuli have on the child's behavior. They
hypothesized that a child with a strong negative set would attend less
frequently to the behavior of a model, usually an adult, and therefore
would not acquire the desired behavior. If, however, the model's be-
haviors were observed by the child then matching behaviors would tend
not to follow. A delayed reaction might ensue resulting in a perform-
ance which would not be altered until the model was absent. Another
alternative would be a child who consistently mismatched the behavior
of the model (i.e., did the opposite of the model). Patterson gt_al.
(1968) observed their subjects in a modeling situation and all hypoth-
eses were supported. They also concluded that negative set was most
likely to occur in settings that were highly structured and in which

the subjects had previously indicated consistent preference for re-
sponse. Levy and Tulchin (1923, 1925), Nelson (1931), and Rust (1931)
found that the intelligence testing situation usually brought about

resistance.

Levy and Tulchin (1923) concluded that the manifestation of
resistance by infants and children during mental tests was evidence
of some innate behavior pattern. Subsequent investigations lend more
support for resistance as being socially learned. Evidence of varia-
tion in negative behavior associated with sex differences (Maccoby,
1966; Caille, 1933, and Digman, 1963) and with social class differ—
ences (Goodenough, 1929) strongly challenge the biological position
taken by Levy and Tulchin. Increasingly the influence of specific
interactional patterns and of situations upon the negativism of the

child have come to be the focus of concern.

Stability of Resistant Behavior

How stable is resistant behavior displayed by preschool child-
ren? Various investigators have reported that persons tend to main-
tain consistent patterns of interaction in social situations (Bell and
French, 1950; Hanfmann, 1935; Matarazzo, Saslow, and Guze, 1956; and
Matarazzo, Saslow and Matarazzo, 1956). Mayer (1934) stated that the
number of instances of negative reactions at one examining period were
likely to be similar in subsequent periods. Reynolds (1928) also found
a general trend for a child to remain either cooperative or noncoopera-
tive during various tasks. However, Gellert (1962), in her investiga-

tion of the stability and fluctuation in the power relationships of

10

young children did not find stable resistant behavior patterns. She
did however observe stable patterns with regards to dominant and sub-
missive behaviors. Her subjects ranged in age from 46 to 62 months
which may account for her findings since this was an age range in
which most investigators reported the amount of resistance had dimin-
ished. Moreover, Gellert (1961) suggested that perhaps her procedure
should have included more than 3-20 minute play sessions in order to
establish a stable level of resistance fOr each subject.

Resistance appears to be an unstable behavior which varies
from one situation to the next. This leaves the investigator unable
to predict or measure exactly what causes or influences this behavior.
"If observations of social behavior are to be used in assessing per-
sonality the degree of stability to be expected with regards to the
behavior dimensions sampled becomes important. Particularly in the
assessment of individual and group differences among the very young
measures are frequently based upon direct observation" (Gellert, 1961).

In summary, various theories have hypothesized why resistant
behavior appears around 2 years of age and then diminishes. The
explanations range from rebellion against authority to innate behavior
patterns. The age of onset of negativism and one type of situation
(a structured setting) producing resistance have been established.

Few investigators have actually explored the ontogeny of resistance.

11

Most of the research on resistance was conducted during the 20's and
30's and dealt with its effect on performance on intelligence tests.
To date, very little has been done to reveal what causes resistant
behavior, what types of tasks produce resistance or why resistance is
exhibited as a result of a particular situation. The present investi-

gation attempted to shed some light on a few of these problems.

CHAPTER II

RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION

On the basis of the previous overview of theory and research
on resistant behavior, a rationale will now be presented for the

hypotheses developed fbr this investigation.

Relationship_between Condition
and Resistant Behavior

The work of Levy and Tulchin (1923, 1925), Nelson (1931) and
Rust (1931) revealed that resistant behavior was more likely to occur
in a highly structured setting such as an intelligence testing situa-
tion. The conclusions drawn by Patterson gt_al, (1968) indicated that
"negative set" was most likely to occur in highly structured settings.

These findings suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Subjects in the more highly structured teacher-
directed activity will display more resistant behaviors than

subjects in the less structured teacher-initiated activity.

12

13

Relationship between Sex
and Resistance

The work of Baumrind (1971) on patterns of parental authority
and its effect on personality development in preschool children sheds
some light on sex differences in resistance patterns. She reported
that boys showed more hostility to peers, more resistance to adult
supervision, and less achievement orientation than girls. She argues
that independence is more difficult to achieve for girls than boys
and probably requires, even at this young age, a certain amount of
rejection of peer and adult influence, and training in true indepen-
dence according to normative standards. Maccoby (1966) concurs with
Baumrind's assertions. She maintains that girls are more conforming,
more suggestible and more dependent upon the opinion of others than
are boys. Consequently, the child who feels a need fbr affiliation--
that is, seeks approval and is basically dependent on his parents or
an adult figure--is less likely to display negativistic behaviors.
Digman (1963) and Hattwick (1937) reported that boys showed signifi-
cantly more negativistic behaviors than girls. In addition, Caille
(1933) and Goodenough (1929) found boys to be more resistant than
girls. The results of work by Levy (1925) and Levy and Tulchin (1923,
1925) revealed males of thirty months to be more resistant than females

of this age. Moreover, Pedersen and Bell (1970) fbund imitation of

14

adult models was significantly higher for females while males showed
a higher degree of passive nonconformity. 'Although the above authors
use different terminology to describe the behaviors observed, the
concepts are basically the same. They are referring to the refusal
of the child to respond to the requests of behaviors of an adult.

In a situation in which the behaviors of an experimenter are

to be imitated, the following hypothesis was formulated:

Hypothesis II: Boys will display more resistant behaviors

than girls.

Relationship between Teacher Ratings
and Resistant Behavior

Digman (1963) used teacher ratings as a measure of personality
dimensions in early childhood. He concluded that the use of teacher's
judgments represents a valid starting point for the exploration of
child personality structure. Nursery school teacher's ratings were
used by Hattwick (1937) to explore sex differences in behavior of young
children. Although Reynolds (1933) asserts that teacher ratings are
not good predictors of resistant behavior, the author believes that

with an improved rating scale the following hypothesis will hold true:

15

Hypothesis III: Subjects rated as uncooperative by their
teachers will display more resistant behavior than subjects

rated as cooperative.

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the amount of
resistant behavior displayed by toddlers in a teacher-initiated versus
a teacher-directed activity. A second purpose was to determine sex
differences in the amount of resistant behavior displayed by toddlers.
A third purpose was to determine whether teachers' ratings are pre-

dictive of the amount of resistance displayed by toddlers.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects (§s) were 29 children (14 females and 15 males)
enrolled in the MSU Toddler Enrichment Program. Subjects ranged in
age from 20 to 40 months (Mean age = 28.75). Five (3 males and 2
females) S; refused to cooperate with the Experimenter (g) and were
excluded from the sample. Of these, only three were rated as uncoop-
erative by their teacher. Of those remaining in the study, 4 (3 males

and 1 female) were rated as uncooperative.

Observers

A total of 4 observers were trained for approximately one hour.
The sex composition of the observers was 1 male and 3 females. All
were students at Michigan State University; 2 were graduate students
and 2 were undergraduates. Each observer was trained in the use of the
equipment and given a list of the types of behaviors to be observed.
Prior to the actual testing situation each observer was familiarized

with the procedure and the manner for recording resistant behavior.
16

17

Apparatus

The apparatus was an Esterline—Angus event recorder used to
record the occurrences of resistant behavior. All sessions were con-
ducted in a playroom with the observers viewing from an area adjacent
to the testing area.

Materials available in the playroom were a round child-size
table and two chairs, a blank felt face attached to an 11" X 14" felt
sheet, cutout felt figures of eyes, nose, mouth and ears, a set of 9,
one-inch colorful building blocks, and a form board taken from the

Bayley Scales.

Definitions of Conditions

Teacher-initiated activity--in the teacher-initiated activity
the teacher encourages the child to use new materials.

Teacher-directed activity--in the teacher-directed activity

 

the child is asked to follow specific directions.

Definitions of Resistance

Resistance will be generally defined as any refusal to coop-

erate. Three major categories of resistant behavior, active

18

resistance, passive resistance, and vocal resistance, were scored. The
types of behaviors included in each major category were as follows.
Active resistance--any refusal to respond to a given demand or

request in a physical manner such as hitting, pushing, or running away.

Running_away--moving away from the situation rapidly.

Hitting--striking at the §_with fists, hands, or objects.

Throwing--sending any object through the air by a rapid motion

of the arm.

Pushing--pressing against the §_or another §.as if trying to

move them.

Walking away--moving away from the situation either slowly or

at a moderate speed.

Kicking--striking out at the §_with the foot.

Passive resistance--any refusal to comply to a given demand or

request by ignoring the situation, remaining silent, or turning away.

Ignoring--§_continues doing what he is doing, he pays no

attention to the requests made or actions directed towards him.

19

Silence-—§_stops what.he is doing and makes no verbal response

to E,
Turning_away--§_turns his body away from the stimulus.
Turninghead--§ only turns his head away from the stimulus.

Vocal resistance--any refusal to comply to a given request

or demand by means of verbal protests such as "I won't," "No!" . . .

Crying--any loud vocalizations accompanied by the production

and/or flowing of tears.

Screaming--any form of loud, shrill vocalizations without the

presence of tears.

Verbalgprotests--any words used to indicate refusal to perform

a task or in protest of objects being taken away, etc.

Fussing--any fbrm of whining without actually crying, screaming,

or verbally protesting.

Procedure

All subjects (§s) were rated by their teacher as being coop-

erative or uncooperative along a 5-point scale. (See Appendix for

20

rating scale.) None of the S; were rated 1. Therefbre §_was consi-
dered uncooperative if a rating of 2 or 3 was given. S; were classi-
fied as cooperative if the rating was either 4 or 5.

§s were randomly divided into 2 groups: 12 §s (6 males and
6 females) received the teacher-initiated activity (Condition A) and
12 received the teacher-directed activity (Condition B). The procedure
was similar to that used by Reynolds (1928) and took approximately
9 minutes.

The experimenter (E) went to the play area and with the ap-
proval of the teacher selected a subject. §_then said to S, "Come on

(child's name) , let's go play some games." §_chatted with §_and

together they proceeded to the examining area. When §_and §_sighted
the form board E_said, "See the board and blocks over there, let's go
over and play with them.“ §_tried to entice §_to the table to be
seated. As soon as the child entered the room the observer started
the event recorder. Two observers recorded the behaviors at all times.
Three buttons of the recorder corresponded to the three major cate-
gories of resistant behavior. thn §_refused to perform any of the
requested tasks the observer pressed the button which deflected the
pen of the recorder. Each observer continued to press the button until
the behavior ceased. For any passive resistance ten seconds was

allowed following the request before the observer depressed the button.

21

The sessions were terminated if at the end of 5 minutes E_could not
persuade §_to do any of the tasks or §_began to fuss or cry and could

not be quieted after 2 minutes.
Situation 1: Form Board

E tried to get §_to place each form on the board. The form
board was put in front of the child and the figures were placed at

the bottom of the board. E then said to S;

Condition A--"Nould you like to play with these figures?“ “Do
you think they will fit on this board?" "Would you like to place
them on the board?" §_chose any form and after each form was

picked up E would say, "Where would you like to place that?“

Condition B--"Now, I'd like you to place each fbrm where it should
go.“ E picked up the circle (square, triangle) and said, "See,
this is a circle and it will fit in a round hole like this one.
(E pointedtothe round hole.) "Place the circle where it should

go." E followed the same procedure for the square and the triangle.
Situation 2: Making a Face

A blank face was glued to an 11“ X 14" felt rectangle and felt
eyes, ears, nose, and mouth were placed in front of the child. §_was

requested to place the cutouts on the face. E said:

22

Condition A--“Would you like to play with these figures?" "Do you
think they belong on this face?" §_chose any figure and after each
figure was picked up E said "Where would you like to place that

one?"

Condition B~-“Now I'd like you to place each figure where it should
go.“ E picked up the eye and said, "See, this is an eye and it
should go here. (E_pointed to the eye area.) Place the eye where
it should go.“ E gave the figure to E, E_followed the same pro-

cedure for each figure.
Situation 3: Blocks

A box of blocks were emptied on the table in front of the
child. E attempted to get the child to build a tower of six blocks,

knock it down and rebuild it. E said:

Condition A--"See the pretty blocks. 00 you think you can make a
big tower by putting one block on top of another?" E demon-
strated by placing one block on top of another block. "See,
would you like to build a real big tower?" Once §_completed the
tower E_said, “What do you think will happen if you that that
block out? Would you like to take it out and see what happens?"

"Go ahead, you may take it out if you like." After the child

23

toppled the tower E said "Wow! It all fell down. Would you like
to build it again?“ E_used the same procedure as above to get §_

to rebuild the tower.

Condition B--"I want you to make a tower just like this." E built
a six block tower and then knocked it down. "Now, you make one
just like the one I made." "That's right make one just like mine."
After §_comp1eted the tower E said, "Now, knock it down just like

I did. That's right, just knock it down." After §_knocked down
the tower E said, "Now, let's build another one. That's right,

just stack the blocks."

Situation 4: Leaving_

Once §,rebuilt the tower E said, “We're not going to knock

this one down.“

Condition A--“We've finished playing with the blocks and it's time
for us to go. Would you like to go back upstairs?" If §_refused

E said, “Wouldn't you like to come with me?"

Condition B--"We've finished playing with the blocks, now you must

 

go back upstairs." E took E's hand and went upstairs.

24
Data Analysis

The data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance. A
2 X 2 factorial design (sex X condition) was used. The dependent
variable was resistance as measured by the frequency of occurrence
in each condition. Predictability of teachers' ratings were deter-

mined by means of a t-test.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

ObserverAgreement

A total of four observers were used with two observers
observing at all times. Observer reliability was determined by
means of the Pearson product-moment correlation (r) for between
ratings of two observers for each of five, two-hour testing sessions.
Inter-observer reliabilities for the frequency of resistant behavior

ranges from .83 to .99 (mean r = .93).

Experimental Finding§;_
Tests of Hypotheses

Hypothesis I predicted that subjects in the more highly
structured teacher-directed activity would display more resistant
behaviors than subjects in the less structured teacher-initiated
activity. An analysis of variance (see Table l) for resistant
behavior revealed no significant main effects. Examination of the
means in Table 2 suggests that the teacher-initiated activity tended
to produce more resistant behavior than the teacher-directed activity.

25

26

The results not only rejected the hypothesis but tended to suggest the
opposite.

No significant differences were fbund between males and females
in either of the conditions. Inspection of the means (see Table 2)
revealed that there was a tendency for males to be more resistant than
females in the teacher-directed condition and less resistant in the
teacher—initiated condition.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that teacher ratings would be indicative
of the amount of resistant behavior displayed by the subjects. Due to
the small number of subjects rated as uncooperative by their teachers
only males were used in this analysis. Although the mean resistant
score for uncooperative males (14.67/n = 3) tended to be higher than
that for cooperative males (9.44/n = 9), these mean scores were not

significantly different (t = 1.10, df = 11).

Additional Finding;

A 2 X 2 X 3 analysis of variance fbr resistant behavior (see
Table 3) was computed using sex, condition and type of resistance as
the main factors. A significant main effect was fbund for the type
of resistance displayed by the toddlers. Inspection of the means
indicated that passive resistance was displayed more often than either

active or vocal resistance. (See Table 4.) Further analysis revealed

27

a significant difference between the amount of passive resistance as
compared with active and vocal resistance (t = 3.23, df = 46, p < .005;
t = 2.25, df = 46, p < .025).

A significant three-way sex X condition X type of resistance
interaction was found. Table 4 shows the mean resistance for each sex,
condition, and type. A Duncan Multiple Range Test indicated that males
were more vocally resistant in the teacher-directed condition and

females more vocally resistant in the teacher-initiated condition.

Summary of Results

 

In general, the results did not support any of the hypotheses.
There was a tendency fbr §s to be more resistant in the teacher-
initiated activity which rejected hypothesis 1. In fact, the opposite
effect was suggested. The findings suggested that males are more re-
sistant than females and teacher ratings are predictive of the amount
of resistant behavior displayed by the children, though these compari-
sons were not statistically significant.

The following results while not predicted were found to be
significant: subjects displayed more passive resistant behaviors than
either active or vocal resistance. Males were more vocally resistant
in the teacher-directed condition while females were more vocally re-

sistant in the teacher-initiated condition.

‘ CHAPTER v

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that the manner in which a
task is presented does not affect the amount of resistant behavior
produced by young children. Contrary to the findings of other re-
searchers (Levy and Tulchin, 1923, 1925; Nelson, 1931; and Rust, 1931)
who reported more resistance in a highly structured setting the results
of this study imply the opposite. In this study young children tended
to be more resistant in the teacher-initiated condition than in the
teacher-directed condition.

Rust (1931) reported a positive correlation between the diffi-
culty of the test and the amount of resistance displayed. The tasks
required of the children in this study were in the realm of their
capabilities which may account fbr the lack of differentiation in the
two conditions. Also, in the teacher-directed condition it was
apparent to the child what was expected of him, in contrast to the
teacher-initiated condition in which the child had to figure out what
was required. These findings were consistent with those obtained by
Prescott (1973). She conducted a study comparing behaviors of

28

29

children in different day care settings. When compared with children
in a closed structure center, a family day care center, and a home-plus
nursery school, children in an open structured center were highest in
what she termed "active rejection.“ Children in a closed structured
center rated highest in meeting adult expectations.

The resistance displayed by young children may not be an effort
to achieve independence as interpreted by Jersild (1947) or the result
of ego devaluation caused by a change in ego status as described by
Ausubel (1950). The resistance may merely be a product of a lack of
experience on the part of the child or simply the inability to under-
stand or to do what was requested (Cowan gj;gl,, 1965).

The task which seemed to produce the most resistance in this
study was situation three which required the child to act contrary to
his expectations. Gesell (1943) described this transitional period
as a time when the child is unable to modulate his behavior; he wants
things "done the accustomed way.“ In task three the child must in-
hibit his response and not knock down the tower. Gesell maintains
that the nerve cell organization which presides over inhibition is
poorly developed, thus making it even more difficult for the child
to inhibit his response. The work of Luria (1961) gives added support
fbr this assumption. He argues that verbal instructions may initiate

required movements in the child at the beginning of his second year of

30

life, but the influence of this speech-function is limited. Speech is
quite useless when it conflicts with an action already begun. At this
early age the initiating function of speech is already developed but
its inhibitory function has not yet been defined.

Further analysis of the results showed that there were no
significant sex differences in total resistance. Table 2 suggests that
there was a slight tendency fbr boys to have higher total resistance
scores than girls. Nelson reported differences between the sexes to be
negligible with respect to resistance. Goodenough reported that the
mean rating for negativism was higher for the boys than for the girls
at every age. On further analysis of the data, Goodenough found that
no consistent differences in negativism existed between the girls of
one social class as compared with another, whereas among the boys the
greater amount of resistance was found among the upper social classes.
In comparing her results with those obtained by Levy and Tulchin, in
which the girls were said to be more resistant than the boys at every
age except the thirtieth month, Goodenough makes the point that the
subjects used in the Levy and Tulchin study were obtained almost
entirely from the lower occupational classes, the class from which
the least resistant children of her study came.

In the present study, the subjects were from a college popula-

tion, being children of both professors and college students. The

31

results were not significant and therefore did not substantiate Good-
enough's findings or those of Levy and Tulchin.

The rating scale was limited in its assessment of resistant
behavior. There was a tendency fbr children rated as uncooperative
to be more resistant than those rated as cooperative. This difference
was so small that it could be easily attributed to chance. These re-
sults tended to support Reynolds' contention that the rating scale is
limited as a criterion for resistance. Perhaps a more detailed rating
scale should have been used. Digman suggests a number of judgments
should be ordered along a minimum of 7 dimensions.

In general, the failure to find significant differences in the
sample population may be attributed to the small number of subjects
rated as uncooperative. The group of children may be basically less
resistant than the population sample of other experiments. Therefore,
the restricted range of cooperation may in fact “mask“ the effects
of the other variables (i.e., sex, condition, and rating scale).

The significant findings of this study were unexpected ones.
The children displayed more instances of passive resistance than either
active or vocal resistance. This may be attributed to the lack of an
adequate vocabulary on the part of the younger subjects. The room
presented no distractions which would lead the children to actively

move about thereby inhibiting their active resistance. In addition,

32

forms of aggression such as kicking, hitting, and pushing are dis-
couraged at the Enrichment Program.

It would appear that when males are put in a teacher-directed
setting they tend to vocalize more than females who tend to be more
passive. In the teacher-initiated activity females vocalize more
than males who also show more passive resistance. These findings
were contrary to those of Pedersen and Bell (1970) who reported males
showed more passive nonconformity when required to imitate the be-
haviors of an adult model.

It is a frequent finding that females are more passive and
dependent in many settings than comparable groups of males (Ausubel,
1958). In the teacher-directed condition of the present study the
requests were made in the form of an order and Adams (1967) stated
that “suggestions usually produce compliance whereas, orders produce
obedience." The females in the teacher-directed condition seem to be
more obedient than the males. Ausubel described children between
eighteen and 42 months as follows: “Girls apparently manifest less
negativism at this age than boys because they see themselves as more
accepted and intrinsically valued by parents and have a more available
like-sexed person with whom to identify; they can acquire more derived
status." Therefore, in the teacher-directed situation, in order to

please or be accepted the girls were less likely to actively resist

33

resist than the boys. In the teacher-initiated activity the girls

possibly felt freer to vocalize their protests because the request

was made in the form of a suggestion and not an order. The boys in
the teacher-directed activity may have interpreted the orders as an
infringement on their independence and therefore felt a need to

verbally express their independence.

Implications for Future Research

The manner in which a request was made did not significantly
effect the amount of resistant behavior displayed by young children.
These findings could be attributed to the small sample population or
to a need for a longer testing period. It is therefbre suggested
that in future studies the number of subjects and the length of the
testing session be increased to find possible differences in the
manner of presentation.

Since there was only a small number of subjects in this study
in each age more attention should be devoted to developmental trends
in resistant behaviors. The author would hypothesize that the amount
of resistance would reach its peak around 2 years of age and then
begin to decline.

In this investigation differences were found in the types of

resistant behaviors displayed. Further attempts should be made to

34

establish why one type of resistant behavior is displayed more often
than another. It would also be interesting to determine whether
different types of resistant behaviors were displayed at different
ages or in different situations.

Tasks which were contrary to the child's expectations appeared
to.produce more resistant behaviors than tasks the child was familiar
with, suggesting an effect of type or task related to children's per-
ceptions of task demands. It would be beneficial to establish what
kinds of requests, demands or tasks produced the most resistance.

The present research revealed no significant differences in
the two contrived conditions. This may be possibly because the two
conditions were not different enough to produce the desired results.
It would be of interest to investigate the amount of resistance in
young children in a naturalistic setting, such as a day care center,
or to compare different types of day care centers and the frequency

of resistance produced in each one.

35

TABLE 1

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AMOUNT OF RESISTANT
BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF SEX AND CONDITION

 

 

 

Source df MS F P
Total 23
Sex (A) l 60.16 1.10 n.s.
Condition (B) l 23.99 .44 n.s.
A X B 1 60.19 1.10 n.s.

Error 20 54.55

 

36

TABLE 2

MEAN RESISTANT BEHAVIOR BY SEX AND CONDITION

 

 

Sex

 

 

Condition azggd
Male Female

Teacher-

Directed 11.33 5.00 8.17

Teacher-

Initiated 10.16 10.16 10.16

6""d 10.75 7.58

Mean

 

37

TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF AMOUNT OF RESISTANT
BEHAVIOR AS A FUNCTION OF SEX, CONDITION,

 

 

 

 

AND TYPE

Source df MS F
Total 73
Sex (A) l 21.13 1.88
Condition (8) 1 8.68 .77
Type (C) 2 67.62 6.03*
A X B 1 23.34 2.08
A X C 2 8.04 .71
B X C 2 11.76 1.05
A X B X C 2 55.56 4.96**
Error 62 11.20
*p < .005

**p < .025

38

TABLE 4

MEAN RESISTANT BEHAVIOR BY SEX, CONDITION.
AND TYPE OF RESISTANCE

 

 

Male Female

 

 

 

Condition agggd
Vocal Passive Active Vocal Passive Active

Teacher-

Directed 5.16 4.33 2.16 .50 3.83 .66 2.77

TeaCher' 16 8 l6 2 oo 3 83 3 83 2 83 3 46

Initiated ° ° ° - - . .

Grand

Mean 2.66 6.24 2.08 2.16 3.83 1.74

 

APPENDIX
LETTERS TO PARENTS
RATING SCALE

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Department of Psychology, Olds Hall

May 22, 1973
To parents of children at the MSU Toddler Enrichment Program:

We are interested in conducting a study at the MSU Toddler Enrichment
Program this Spring. The general topic of our research is the develop-
ment of resistant behavior in young children. The particular question
we want to answer is, will a child be more willing to perform a task if
he's allowed to do the task on his own with very little direction from
an adult?

We would like to begin our work early next week, and we would like to
have your child participate. The research session will not last more
than about 20 minutes, and we will schedule those sessions, after con-
sultation with the teacher, so that the children will not miss special
events planned by the class. Each child, if he or she participates,
will participate only once.

We would like to stress that we take all necessary means to insure the
privacy of each child who participates. This means that the records

of all individual observations are kept strictly confidential, not only
from the children but also from all other persons not directly associated
with the project. In addition we use a name-coded system so that no
child's name ever appears with his results.

This project has been approved by the Preschool Committee of the Insti-
tute. If you have any questions about the project, or your own child's
participation, please call Dr. Kuipers, Acting Director of the Insti-

tute, at 353-3717, or call either of us at the Department of Psychology.

Yours sincerely,
Hiram E. Fitzgerald

Associate Professor of Psychology
412 Baker Hall (353-3933)

Freida Brown

Graduate Assistant in Developmental Psychology
1128 Olds Hall (355-9561)

39

4O

RATING SCALE

 

 

 

 

 

Name of Child ; Sex
Rater ' Age
Date

School

 

Directions: Please indicate which statement best describes the
above child.

5 Very cooperative. Adapts readily and easily to demands
placed on him.

4__

3 Reasonably cooperative, but often maintains his original
behavior.

2

1 Uncooperative. Very unresponsive to demands. Cannot shift.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, 0. K. The development of social behavior. In Y. Brackbill
(ed.) Infancy and early childhood. New York: Free Press,
1967.

Ausubel, D. P. Negativism as a phase of ego development. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1950, E9, 796-805.

Baumrind, 0. Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental

Bell, G. B. & French, R. L. Consistency of individual leadership
positions in small groups of varying membership. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1950, fig, 746-767.

Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Bridges, K. M. 8. Some observations of contrariness or negativism.
Mental Hygiene, 1925, 2, 521-528.

Caille, R. K. Resistant behavior of pre-school children. Child
Development Monographs, 1933, no. 11.

Cameron, H. C. Psychology of Behavior Disorders: A biosocial
interpretation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.

Cowan, P. A., Hoddinot, B. A. 0 Wright, B. A. Compliance and resis-
tance in the conditioning of autistic children. Child
Develppment, 1965, 3E, 913-923.

 

Digman, J. M. Principal dimensions of child personality as inferred
from teacher's judgments. Child Development, 1963, pg, 43-60.

Gellert, E. Stability and fluctuation in the power relationships of

young children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1961: _6_2_s 8'15.

41

42

Gesell, A. & 119, F. Infant and child in the culture of today. New
York: Harper, 1943.

Goodenough, F. L. The emotional behavior of young children during
mental tests. Journal of Juvenile Research, 1929, 1;, 204-219.

Hanfmann, E. Social structure of a group of kindergarten children.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1935, E, 407-412.

Hattwick, L. A. Sex differences in behavior of nursery school children.
Child Development, 1937, 8, 343-355.

Jenkins, R. C. The management of negativism in young children.

Jersild, A. T. Child Psychology. New York: Prentice Hall, 1947.

Levy, D. M. Resistance behavior of children. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 1925, 4, 503-507.

Levy, D. M. & Tulchin, S. H. The resistance of infants and children
during mental tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1923. p, 304-322.

Levy, D. M. & Tulchin, S. H. The resistance behavior of infants and
children II. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1925, 8,
209-224.

Luria, A. R. Role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal
behavior. New York: Liveright, 1961.

Maccoby, E. The develppment of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1966.

Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G. & Guze, S. B. Stability of interaction
patterns during interviews: A replication. Journal of
ConsultingpPsychology, 1956, pp, 267-274.

Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G. & Matarazzo, R. The interaction chrono-
graph as an instrument for objective measurement of inter-
action patterns during interviews. Journal of Psychology,
1956. 41, 347-367.

43

Mayer, B. A. Negativism reactions of preschool children on the new
revision of the Stanfbrd-Binet. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1934, fig, 311-334. .

Nelson, J. F. Personality and intelligence, Ch. IV. Child Develppment
Monographs, No. 4, 1931.

 

Patterson, G. R., Littman, I. & Brown, T. R. Negative set and social
learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,
8, 109-116.

Pedersen, F. A. & Bell, R. 0. Sex differences in preschool children
without histories of complications of pregnancy and delivery. )
Developmental Psycholpgy, 1970, 3, lO-15. '

Prescott, E. Researcher pins down differences in types of early
child care. Report on Education Research, 1973, 5, 9-10.

Reynolds, M. M. Negativism of pre-school children. Teachers College
Contribution to Education, 1928, No. 288.

 

Rust, M. M. The effect of resistance on intelligence test scores of
young children. New York: Columbia University, 1931.

"1111111 11111111111111 I