— —_ ."-O¢-.v..-uc'. IC‘Q‘O‘- -. n o o . 04‘In \ouflu unv 0' Jili‘ ‘ 'O;flv' ‘i WIN.- ".H' 5v ‘t g v o. toyr. . n 4 ._-'A'-., —————————_ '0 - "~' ~ ‘ o-uu..-.~.o ~-. ‘ ..| .o. . .r9 «0 0 'cv ~-.-. —o....o,-n . . . - - . . I I . . - - - . . . . . - . . . o . - . . . . u . . . . . . — ‘ . ‘ . ~ . . , v a o . ' . . ‘ DIMENSION-S 0F SENSITMTY T0 CHILDREN AND _ . i UNDERGRADUATES’ RESPONSES TO AD-ULTeC-HiLD r PROBLEM SSTUATIONS : g Thesis for the Degree of M. A.; ‘ . MICHIGAN STATE umverzsm ‘ ROL HOPE SATU-RAN-SKY - . .1972 - » — ; - . . . . . _ - ‘ _ . ‘ - I _ - . - - _ . - - .- . _ - . . 0' ' , C -0 v '- . , . - - Iv - — _ _ - ‘ . - .1-‘ . - - __ . . . . , . . I . . ‘ . ’ ' l . . . ._ . . D o . . ... . . . 1 ' . _ - 6 v - I . ' . 7-— - - I - - . to ‘ ‘ ' .0. . . - .. ‘ ’ -' I . . Q ‘ ‘ C 0 - -—. . - . ' ‘~ ".'I _. _ . . _.' .. . .- ' .. . , .' n . - ‘ u‘ I - s ’ C v ....,., ‘I|¢tcl‘0 "§ -oo..... .o.Io s“‘.-o . mzmm I m u {WWW ~ L 3 1293 00997 6782 ~ ABSTRACT DIMENSIONS OF SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN AND UNDERGRADUATES' RESPONSES TO ADULT-CHILD PROBLEM SITUATIONS By Carol HOpe Saturansky In the face of a dearth of studies which deal with fatherhood and fathering behavior, it is questioned whether or not males are as sensitive to children as females seem to be. Cultural stereotypes and some psychological litera- ture suggest the hypotheses that females are more sensitive to children than are males and that there is an interaction between the sex of the parent and the sex of the child in determining some of the parental behaviors. This study was concerned with testing these hypotheses. Subjects were 337 undergraduates from Michigan State University who had volunteered to take part in a project which dealt with "learning about and practicing techniques to increase their sensitivity and ability to communicate with children." Ninety-five subjects were males and 242 were females. These subjects responded to two question- naires. The first was the Sensitivity to Children (STC) questionnaire developed by Stollak; a 16-item projective Carol Hope Saturansky device which requires the subject to read a short description of an incident concerning a four- to six—year-old child, to put himself or herself into the role of the parent and to write down the way in which he or she would respond. The STC was scored by a total of four raters for four categories of sensitivity : conveying understanding of the child's feelings, conveying acceptance of those feelings, expressing the adult's feelings and suggesting a constructive alterna- tive of behavior which would more suitably express or fulfill the needs of the child. The second questionnaire administered was the short- ened version of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (Schaefer and Bell, 1958; Coopersmith, 1967). Ten out of 64 E-tests performed for the STC data were significant. Eight of these ten were in favor of males scoring higher than females. This contradicts the main hypothesis. However, in terms of overall scores, no significant differences between males and females were found. Also, no overall correlations between the STC and the PARI yielded significant values, and none of the data which dealt with sex interaction were significant. The most interesting aspect of the results, in terms of average scores, was that both sexes scored relatively low, although what was used was an admittedly "idealized" set of scoring criteria. This suggests that at least before parenthood Carol Hope Saturansky itself, adults are lacking what may be considered basic qualities necessary in effective parents. “ DIMENSIONS OF SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN AND UNDERGRADUATES' RESPONSES TO ADULT-CHILD PROBLEM SITUATIONS BY Carol Hope Saturansky A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you, committee chairman Dr. Gary Stollak, and thank you, committee members Drs. Joel Aronoff and Lawrence Messe, for your guidance and understanding. I would also like to acknowledge Martha Kent, who inspired many varied lines of thought. Finally, thanks to Chris Gilbert, my firsthand model of a scientific investigator. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Behaviors of Fathers . . . . . . . . . 1 II. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES . . . . 5 III. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Theoretical Studies of Fathering Behavior . . . . . . . . . 7 Empirical Studies of Fathering Behavior . . . . . . 10 Empirical Studies of Mothering and Fathering Behaviors . . . . . . . . . 14 Studies Which Reveal Interactions Between Sex of Parent and Sex of Child . 16 IV. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Sensitivity to Children . . . . . . 22 Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 V. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 STC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 STC and PARI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 VI. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 STC and PARI . . . . . . 39 Some Thoughts on the Meaning of this Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued CHAPTER Page VII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 GENERAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 APPENDICES A. PARENTAL ATTITUDE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT . . . . . 50 B. SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . 59 C. SCORING FOR THE STC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Sex differences on each item of the STC within each mode of scoring: means, standard deviations and F-values . Male—female differences for individual and combined STC scores: means, standard deviations and E-values . . . Interaction of sex of child and sex of subject on the STC within each mode of scoring: means, variances and t-values Interaction of sex of child and sex of subject on STC within each mode of scoring and with the modes combined: means, variances and t-values . . . Mean scores on selected PARI items of High and Low scorers on the STC Page 26 29 31 32 34 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As the world changes, and masculine and feminine roles perhaps are also beginning to change in our culture, it is interesting to examine the possibility of differences that may exist between men and women and their relation- ships with children. Many theorists have examined parent- hood and childrearing practices to see in which ways, and through which kinds of experiences within the family, the child is influenced in his or her behavior and personality, and how he or she thus becomes part of the larger society or culture. One question which may be asked is, in what way does a child learn sensitivity to others, understanding of others and the ability to empathize? For some possible answers, one might examine parent—child interaction in general, to see whether these kinds of personality character- istics are somehow influenced or encouraged by particular kinds of childrearing practices. The Behaviors of Fathers There are several possible points of view from which to look at parenthood. One of these is through the eyes of children: how does the child perceive his or her 1 2 parents (Gardner, 1947; Heilbrun and Orr, 1966; Davids, Anthony and Hainsworth, 1967; Heilbrun, Harrell and Gillard, 1967)? Psychologists have also looked at parenthood through directly investigating the parents' own self-descriptions of their childrearing attitudes (Gardner, 1943; Becker, 1960; Eron, Banta, Walder and Laulicht, 1961; Heilbrun, Orr and Harrell, 1966). Interestingly, in most psychological studies of parenthood, the investigators have seemingly ignored the part played by the father as a parent; the word parenthood has been used almost synonomously with mother- hood. Is this because the father's role as parent is per- ceived of as identical with that of the mother? Or is it that the role of the father as parent is seen as relatively insignificant when compared with that of the mother? Per- haps the answer is that the investigation of fatherhood is neglected because of practical reasons: fathers are rarely available for participation in psychological investigations, being at work, or very often not at home, or for other numerous reasons, unwilling to take part in research. Yet, this answer seems inadequate in view of this paradox: while most of the literature on parenthood is focused on mothers, and very little focused on fathers, there is a dearth of studies which describe women, or feminine psychology in general, while there exists an abundance of studies using male subjects exclusively. Nash (1965), in noting that scant attention is given to fathers, stated: ”Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957), in their study of childrearing 3 practices in certain parts of the United States, open with the comment that because science is mostly a male preroga- tive, it has failed to interest itself very much in children; note the assumption that interest in children is 'unmascu- line.'” In reviewing Josselyn (1956), Nash mentioned the idea that "Whereas (the literature) assumes the woman to have some deep psychological roots of motherliness, it does not make similar assumptions in relation to the father. . . . Since society does not recognize fatherliness as a male counterpart of motherliness, the father who shows tenderness and nurturance towards his children is regarded as effemin- ate: regarding child care as emasculating, the father is handicapped in achieving a proper relationship with his children” (page 263). Miller and Swanson (1958) wrote The Changing American Parent: A Study in the Detroit Area, solely in terms of the behaviors of mothers, but they did include fathers within the general discussion of social class and historical issues. It is interesting to note that the book focused exclusively on maternal behaviors and attitudes, yet under the heading "Ethnic Background of the Family," for instance, the only question asked was, "What was the original nationality of your husband's family on his father's side?" On one hand, the mother is the person who is acknowledged as the sole childrearer and caretaker, but, on the other hand, the historical influence and background 4 of mothers is ignored. Apparently, the mother may rear the family, but the father has title to it. The actual practice of fatherhood in our culture bears investigation, as does the area of interaction and communication between adult males and children in general. ~_ CHAPTER II STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES From the following general review of research con- cerning mothering, fathering and childrearing in general, two specific questions are noted. The first concerns the role of the father as a parent. One question that can be asked is, are adult males less sensitive, understanding, empathic to the feelings and needs of children than are females? Another question is, what differences exist in interaction between the sex of the parent and sex of the child? The hypotheses with which this study was concerned were: 1. Males and females significantly differ in their "sensitivity" to children's needs, feelings and wishes, as defined by (a) the conveying of understanding by reflecting an action and/or feeling of the child, (b) the conveying of acceptance of the feelings of the child (but not, neces- sarily the actions), (c) the statement of his or her own feelings about the child's actions and/or feelings, (c) the statement of a constructive alternative to the child's actions and/or feelings. 6 2. Females are significantly more sensitive to children than are males. 3. Males respond more sensitively to female children than to male children. 4. Females respond more sensitively to male children than to female children. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Studies of Fathering Behavior For the purpose of this research it is important to review some of the theoretical and empirical work that has been done concerning fathers and fathering behavior, since it relates to hypotheses one and three particularly. To begin with anthropological sources, Mitchell (1969), reporting on paternal behavior in primates, noted that the sex of the infant is important in affecting paternal behavior: more paternal behavior is apparent with female infants, yet the mother seems to be the dominant parent. Paternal behavior seems to vary with the time of year: peak is in the delivery season; no consistent phyletic trend is apparent with regard to the quantity or quality of paternal-like behavior displayed. In the area of human fathering, Gardner (1943) commented: Malinowski states that the sociological pattern of fatherhood existed earlier than the physiological pattern; for, among such primitive tribes as the Trobrianders, there was ignorance of paternity the father was essential to protect the pregnant woman from sex . . . to receive the child into his arms and to care for the child at all times (page 15). Mead (1951) wrote: It is generally recognized that biological specificity of mother—child ties, and even father- child ties--inasmuch as expectant fathers often have certain biochemical responses during their wives pregnancies--may be expected to be closest during pregnancy, delivery and the immediate neo— natal period, and that culturally diversified conditions may be expected to exert more and more influence the greater the distance from the birth. The tie between man and his wife's child can be established any number of arrangements: he may not see the child for a month after it is born; it may be attributed to him because he, among his brothers, several of whom share the same wife, per- formed the paternity-acknowledging ritual years ago and no other brother has performed it. He may claim it when it is born three months after he has returned after a year's absence, on the theory that it ”hurried up to see its father's face”; in modern, rather than primitive terms, after agreeing to artificial insemination, the mother's husband may insist, "he really looks like me." Thus, father- hood is a cultural construct, based upon a man's relationship to the children borne by a woman with whom he has had sex relations (page 51). Turning to theoretical considerations of fatherhood from psychological sources, Tasch (1952) has conceptualized the paternal role as "something that is acted out." He sees the paternal function in terms of actions, such as, in childrearing, the father gets involved with routine-like activities; he is also the economic provider; and he is disciplinarian through activity-related things such as assignment of chores and punishments. In a study (Tasch, 1952) in which fathers were interviewed for their opinions of their wives as mothers, the criterion that they tended to judge wives on was competence in child and home manage- ment, while the wives, in judging their husbands, stressed 9 the fathers' companionable relationships with their children as the measure of goodness. Nash (1965) has historically traced the origins of the present day family structure to the economic changes of the Industrual Revolution, showing how it was left up to men to provide for economic survival, through child labor laws and restrictions of women's working hours. He asserted that the father-son relationship which once existed in our society has now been disrupted. He also questioned whether or not fathers themselves really agree with the current stereotypes of their role. Psychoanalytic literature includes much discussion about maternity, and some on paternity which is mostly centered around the idea of the father's hostility toward his son. Lederer (1967) outlined some of the precautions which fathers have taken, in myths and in history, to fend off the dangers inherent in such a relationship. He asserted that there exists a tradition of kings who are threatened by their sons as heirs, or who are warned by soothsayers that the son born to them will murder them, so that measures are taken by the king accordingly. Often, death for the son was a form of eating by the father. Sometimes, though, fathers avoided direct action and chose others to carry out the murders, left infants to perish, or placed them in other families so that they would never know their true identity. Lederer, through this, pointed 10 to the growth of a matrilinear system, in which no son or grandson of any king may succeed him; the successor had to be an outsider who marries the princess. He also noted that initiation rites, which serve the function of estab- lishing peace and intimacy between father and son, also serve the function of allowing deep hostility to be ritually vented for the last time, thereafter to be forever bound. Physical separation insures peace between men, "so it is practiced in many societies that all men children, as well as girls, belong to the mother, to her hut and her magico-religious realm; whereas the grown men live physically apart, or at least have no dealings with the young and uninitiated.” The energy of father-son hostility is then deflected to out groups (wars) or to specific animals which are killed in rites. Economic and cultural factors are important influ- ences on family structure and the behaviors of fathers, and from psychoanalytic sources it is noted that hostility and competition between father and son is emphasized. Thus, it would seem that in our culture, adult males would have their share of unconscious hostility and competitive feelings for male children and be not as understanding or sensitive as women may be, at least with male children. Empirical Studies of Fathering Behavior In a study whose purpose it was to investigate the assumption that similar attitudes exist between fathers 11 and sons, Sprague (1966) found that there was a lack of effective communication between fathers and sons in the entire area of family attitudes. It was noted that college-age students appeared to understand their fathers better than their fathers understood them. Some studies concerning identification factors in children seem to relegate the function of the father to this place, and then to infer specific kinds of personality characteristics which might then necessarily go with it. A son's adult vocational behavior was found by Bell (1969) to be related to both occupational and overall role modeling of their fathers in the ninth grade. Mussen and Distler (1960) found that fathers of more masculine boys had stronger affectional bonds, and acted more affectionately toward their sons. The trends in the data suggest that the fathers of the highly masculine group played a greater role in their sons' upbringing. A significant criticism of this study is that all of the data come from mothers: fathers were neither observed nor interviewed. The mothers' perceptions of the fathers' involvements in childrearing might be quite biased. Gardner (1943) collected data from 300 personal interviews with fathers and observed that 48 percent of the 300 fathers said that they tease small children (12 percent omitted the item). She concluded that "teasing probably represents one of the vices of fatherhood . 12 as a result of teasing, children practice oversensitiveness, inferior and angry reactions . . . he has often laid a basis for inferiority, social timidity and temper tantrums as well as produced hours of unhappiness for his child." Thus, it was no surprise that this sample of fathers also said that the children were closer to the mother and brought their problems to her more often. There is no evidence from this research that teasing is not also present in the mothers' behaviors, however. In a study of children's fantasies about their fathers, Bach (1946) compared the father fantasies of father-separated children with those of children whose fathers were living with them, and found that the father fantasies of the father-separated children were typically idealistic pictures of the father as more affectionate, less authoritarian and as having a good time with the family. The controls placed significantly more emphasis on the punitive function of the father and his contribution to hostility within the family. Bach concluded that children have a strong drive for possessing a loving, generous father. It might be inferred that the control group was more reality-based, and that fathers are, generally speaking, more punitive than loving or generous in reality. Pederson and Robson (1969) attempted to describe some aspects of fathers' participation in infancy. Their l3 conceptualization was of the father figure as a relatively novel stimulus to the infant, therefore having great stimulus value. The focus of the study was on infant differences in anxiety to strangers and separation anxiety. Although fathers were the supposed sample of interest, the data consisted of interviews with the mother, concerning the father. From this questionably apprOpriate sample, fathers were found to spend an average of slightly under eight hours a week in time playing with their babies, and the authors note that this figure may have been inflated by the possible inclusion of "being with" time as "play” time. Rebelsky and Hanks (1971) taped the verbalizations surrounding ten two-week-old infants once every two weeks for three months. They found that fathers spend relatively little time interacting verbally with their infants: the mean number of interactions was 2.7 per day and the average time per day was 27.7 seconds! Furthermore, the amount of time spent decreased as the infants grew, and by the end of the study, when the infants were three months old, vocalizations had decreased to a level less than they had been when the infants were one-and-a-half months old. They compared these data with that of Moss (1967) which des- cribed the verbalizations and interactions of mothers with their infants. In Moss' study it was found that mothers spent considerably more time vocalizing with their infants, l4 and they increased vocalization time during the first three months of life. There seem to be few of these studies which exclude maternal behavior and concentrate solely on paternal behavior, but from those reported in the above section, paternal behavior seems limited in positive behaviors to little more than passively serving as role model. More information about fathering behavior is found in the studies which follow and include maternal behavior. It is these studies which are related to hypotheses one and two. Empirical Studies of Mothering and Fathering Behaviors Peterson, Becker, Hellmer, Shoemaker and Quay (1959) studied the differences in parental attitudes among parents of children seen in a clinic and of those who were not. The differences between clinic mothers and nonclinic mothers approached significance in the tendency for clinic mothers to be either very strict or very permissive. The fathers differed in that fathers of clinic children were more prone to make suggestions than were the fathers of nonclinic children, and also, they were highly active and rigidly organized, or they were relatively inactive. The authors concluded that "it is again apparent that the paternal role is fully as important as the maternal one, and if the figures given above are reproducible, fathers may play a slightly more crucial part than mothers in determining not 15 only whether children have problems or not, but the kinds of problems they are likely to develop. The average correlation over all attitudes and problems is .24 for fathers and .19 for mothers." One factor overlooked here is that for the clinic sample, there were twice as many male children as females, which might have some significance in view of the possibility of interaction between sex of the child and the sex of the parent modifying the behaviors which might exist between the two. This area of sex inter- action will be described in the next section of this review. Kagan and Lempkin (1960) examined differential per- ceptions of mothers and fathers by young children (aged three to nine) with respect to power, punitiveness, compe- tence and nurturance (sensitivity per se was not explicitly included). The hypothesis was that the mother's role is primarily concerned with maintaining warm, integrated interpersonal relations, while the paternal role called for instrumental skills and the ability to adapt to the environment. This was confirmed: mothers were seen as more nurturant but less punitive, less fear arousing and less competent than fathers. Baumrind (1967) studied the family interaction patterns of four-year-olds who were identified as either Pattern I: self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative and content; Pattern 11: children who were significantly less content, more insecure and apprehensive, less affilia- tive toward peers and more withdrawn and distrustful; and 16 Pattern III: children who had little self-control or self-reliance. By comparison with fathers of Pattern III children, fathers of Pattern I children accepted a more important role in the disciplining of their children. The parents of Pattern II children were, in general, firm, punitive, and unaffectionate, and no mention of father behavior in particular was given. Mothers of Pattern III children lacked control and were moderately loving while fathers of these children were ambivalent and lax in disciplining the children. Studies Which Reveal Interactions Between Sex of Parent and Sex of Child This final review section deals with studies that relate to hypotheses three and four. Reviewed first are those studies that dealt with the behaviors of the parents primarily and specified how the behaviors varied according to the sex of the child. In a study of 100 families by Livson (1966), parents were rated high or low on authority, affection, parental involvement and reliability. The rating was by a single rater who reviewed case records which contained extensive reports of yearly interviews with the mothers, other family members, and bi-yearly interviews with the children. Significantly more sons showed high involvement with their fathers than with their mothers. Daughters showed no such significant same-sex preference for involve- ment. For boys and girls alike, the child's involvement 17 with the mother was related to the mother's involvement and to her level of affection. Involvement with the father for girls was a function of the level of paternal involvement, but for boys, no relationship between any aspect of the father's behaviors and the son's involvement with him was found. The boys who showed high involvement with their fathers exclusively had mothers who were generally authori- tative and unaffectionate. These fathers were rarely authoritative, but were strikingly affectionate and involved, in contrast to all the other fathers. Boys who were highly involved with both parents had mothers who were authoritative, affectionate and not very involved. Fathers of these boys were not as highly affectionate or involved, but were highly authoritative. Boys who were involved only with their mothers had highly affectionate mothers, but their fathers were almost shadows of figures, seeming especially in the background of the family. Similar kinds of data are reported for girls' involvements with father only, mothers only, and both parents. It is interesting to note that the level of involvement boys had with their fathers was mainly related to aspects of their mothers' behavior. Levine, Fishman, and Kagan (1967) examined the effect of the sex of the infant and the level of education of the parents on maternal behavior, and they found that while social class differences were associated with minimal 18 differences in maternal behavior, sons were handled more roughly than daughters. The upper class, educated mothers were also more stimulating with their sons, tending to delay longer before ministering nurturance when the child cried. Additional data from the previously described Rebelsky and Hanks study are pertinent in this section. They found that fathers decreased their vocalizations to their infants over the three month time period; however, this decrease was more marked for fathers of female infants. The Moss (1967) data is contrasted: at three weeks, the mothers of male infants vocalized more than mothers of female infants, but by the end of three months it was found that the mothers of female infants vocalized more than those of male infants. The following are several investigations of parents' and children's perceptions of each other. Marshall and Mowrer (1968) administered the Strong Vocational Interest Blank to 30 male high school seniors and their parents. The parents were instructed to respond to the items in the manner in which they thought their sons would respond. The results of this study strongly suggest that there is a high relationship between the interests of the students and their parents' perception of these inter- ests. However, the son-mother agreement on the son's interests is generally higher than the son-father agree- ment. The authors attributed this result to the possible 19 significance of the fact that the mother is generally responsible for rearing the children. An alternative explanation is that the mother is more aware of the son's needs. Gardner (1947) obtained questionnaires from 388 children between the ages of ten and twelve. Sixty-seven percent of these children liked the mother better than the father; 14 percent liked the father better than the mother. No sex differences in liking were found, although more boys preferred to omit the item response. Only 9 percent of the sample felt that the father understood them better than the mother; 35 percent thought that the mother under- stood them better and 52 percent were impartial. Thirteen percent thought the father was "better natured and easier to get along with,” 34 percent thought the mother was, and 47 percent were impartial. In response to the question, "Who is the bigger boss?” 58 percent said the father was and 25 percent said the mother was. Gardner concluded: "Greater sensitivity, perhaps dissatisfaction with the father-Child relationship was expressed by boys.” These data of children's perceptions tend to support the data gathered from the point of view of the parents, emphasizing the father's role as mainly the authority figure. Funkenstein, King and Drolette (1955) administered a questionnaire to Harvard students to find out their per- ceptions of their parents. The results indicated that the 20 father was perceived as chief source of authority and the mother as chief source of affection. Kagan (1956) observed that Harvard students may be a biased sample, so in his study, 217 six-to-ten-year-olds in a Columbus, Ohio public school were used. The majority of boys and girls perceived the mother as friendlier, less punitive, less dominant and less threatening. A trend was also noticed toward having a more threatening perception of the same-sexed parent. It was suggested that differential handling of boys and girls may account for this difference. Through the use of symbolic picture pairs, Kagan, Hosken and Watson (1961) found that boys and girls (from six to eight years old) agreed that the father in relation to the mother was significantly stronger, larger, more dangerous, more dirty, darker and more angular. Girls then said that the father was meaner and more punitive than the mother, but this was not significantly distinct for boys. No significant differences were perceived between parents for nurturance, coldness or competence. In summarizing a review of the literature, Becker (1964) noted that (a) the mother is usually seen as more loving and nurturant than the father; (b) father is per- ceived as being stricter; (c) mothers are viewed as using more psychological control, especially with girls; (d) fathers are viewed as using more physical punishment, especially with boys; (e) the opposite-sexed parent is 21 rated as more likely to grant autonomy than the same- sexed parent; (f) boys feel they get punished more; (g) the same-sexed parent is seen as being less benevalent and more frustrating; (h) father is viewed as more fear-arousing. In general, the studies reported here support the possibility that an interaction exists between the sex of the child and that of the parent which influences the childrearing behavior of the parent toward that child. Mitchell (1969) noted this possibility in primate behavior; from a psychoanalytic point of view, Lederer (1967) sug- gested reasons for father-son hostility through an examina- tion of myths and literature. The remainder of the studies reviewed here similarly suggest the four hypotheses of the present investigation. CHAPTER IV METHOD Subjects Early in 1970-1971, an advertisement was placed in the Michigan State newspaper asking for sophomore and junior level volunteers who were interested in learning about and practicing techniques to increase their sensi- tivity and ability to communicate with children. Approxi- mately 400 students attended discussion meetings and completed two inventories: a modified version of the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (Shaefer and Bell, 1958) to evaluate parent-child attitudes (see Appendix A) and a Sensitivity to Children projective questionnaire developed by Stollak (see Appendix B) designed to assess parent-child behavior. Data from the 337 subjects who completed the two questionnaires were examined; 95 were from males and 242 were from females. Comments on this disproportionate sample of females to male subjects will be discussed later. Sensitivityito Children The Sensitivity to Children (STC) questionnaire is a l6-item projective device, requiring the subject to read 22 23 a short description of an incident concerning a four- to six-year-old child, to put himself or herself into the role of the parent, and to write down the way in which he or she would respond to the child in each situation, using the exact words or actions as if it were a script for a play or movie. The STC was designed with 11 situations centered around a male child and five which dealt specifically with a female child. Each protocol was scored one point each for (l) conveying of understanding of the child's feelings, (2) conveying acceptance of those feelings, (3) the ex- pression of the adult's feelings, (4) the inclusion of some constructive alternative course of action as a possible solution to the problem. A copy of the scoring guide may be found in Appendix C. Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) The Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) was deve10ped by Schaefer and Bell (1958) and the shortened version used here is the one constructed by Coopersmith (1967). The format of the PARI involves the use of third- person statements about childrearing such as: "People who think they can get along in marriage without arguments just don't know the fact"; "Children who are troublemakers have most likely been spanked too much"; "More parents should teach their children to have unquestioning loyalty 24 to them.” Four responses are permitted: strongly agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree and strongly disagree. Several factor analyses have been done in examining the structure of the PARI (Schaefer and Bell, 1957, Zuckerman, Ribback, Monashkin, and Norton, 1958; Schaefer, 1961; Nichols, 1963). For the purpose of this study, each item of the PARI was analyzed in terms of correlations with STC scores. CHAPTER V RESULTS Inter-rater reliability was found to be .66. Four raters scored the 337 STC protocols, each protocol scored a total of two times, each time by a different rater. Thus, each item on every protocol was scored twice, and the correlation of .66 is between each set of scores for all of the protocols. SIC The first way in which the data were analyzed was in terms of sex differences on the scores of each of 16 STC situations in each of the four categories of under- standing, acceptance, adult feelings and constructive alternatives. Ten out of 64 F-tests performed were sig- nificant; eight of these ten in favor of males scoring higher. These results are reported in Table l. The significant results indicated in Table 1 can be generally interpreted as males responding somewhat more sensitively than females, and it partially supports hypothesis one (males and females differ in their sensi- tivity) but contradicts hypothesis two (females are more 25 26 NO. O0.0 NH. NO. OH. NO. NO. OH.O NN. NO. HN. OO. OH NH. OO.N ON. HN. HN. NH. NH. NN.N OO. NN. NN. OH. NH NN. HN.O OH. NO. NN. OO. HO. O0.0 NN. OO. NN. OO. OH ON. NH.O NH. OO. ON. NO. ON. ON.H NH. NO. ON. NO. NH ON. ON.O ON. ON. NN. NN. HN. OH.O ON. NN. NN. NN. NH ON. O0.0 NH. NO. HH. NO. NO. N0.0 NH. NO. NH. NO. HH NH. NO.N ON. NH. NN. NO. ON. OO.H ON. NH. NN. NO. OH ONO. N0.0 HO. NN. OO. ON. ONO. ON.N OO. NN. NO. ON. O NH. OO.N NN. OH. NN. OH. ON. N0.0 HN. OH. HN. OH. O NN. O0.0 NH. OO. OH. NO. HN. NH.O OH. OO. OH. OO. N HN. NO.O NN. HH. NN. NO. NH. OO.N HN. NH. NN. OO. O EOO. H0.0H NO. HO. NN. OO. «HO. OO.H NO. HO. ON. OO. N NO. NN.O ON. NN. ON. NN. NN. OH.O NN. ON. ON. NN. O HO. O0.0 HN. OH. NN. OH. HO. O0.0 HN. OH. NN. OH. N «NO. NN.O OH. OO. HN. NO. OHO. ON.N OH. NO. NN. OH. N ON. N0.0 NH. NO. NH. NO. OH. OO.H NH. OO. HH. NO. H .NHN N ON M ON M .NHN N ON M ON M wOHmEmm mofimz mmHmfiom mOHwE EOHH mocmumooo< mcflwcmpmhowca .wosaw>-m cam mdoprH>ow ugmwcwwm .mcwoe “mcfihoum mo owos :owo OHOHHZ 09m emu mo Emuw dome do mmuOOHOMMHw xom .H OHQOH 7 2 ON. OO.H NN. NN. OO. NN. OO. ON.O NN. NN. NN. NN. OH NN. NN.O NO. OO. NO. NO. NH. NO.N NN. OH. NN. OH. NH ON. HO.O NN. NH. NN. NH. ON. N0.0 NO. ON. OO. NN. OH NO. OO.N ON. NH. NN. NH. «NO. NN.O NN. NO. NN. NN. NH NN. HN.O HO. NO. NO. HO. HO. NN.O ON. ON. ON. ON. NH ON. NH.H NN. NN. NO. NN. NH. NN.N NN. OO. HN. OH. HH NN. OO.O OO. ON. HO. NN. ON. ON.O ON. ON. NN. NN. OH OHO. ON.O NN. HN. ON. NN. HN. NO.H NN. NH. NN. NN. O NN. NH.O NO. NN. OO. NN. NN. NN.O ON. NN. NN. NH. N NO. NO.N OO. NO. NO. NN. NO. HN.N OH. NO. ON. NH. N «HO. ON.O OO. NO. NN. ON. OO. OH.O NN. HN. NN. OH. O HH. NO.N NO. ON. NO. OO. NH. OO.N ON. ON. NN. NH. N NH. ON.N NO. OO. HO. HO. NN. N0.0 ON. OH. NN. NH. O ON. NO.H NO. OO. OO. ON. ONO. ON.O ON. NH. NN. OH. N OO. ON.O NO. ON. NO. OO. NH. NO.N NN. ON. ON. OH. N NO. NN.O ON. NN. NN. NN. OO. OO.N NN. NN. HN. ON. H .NHN N ON N ON N .NHN O ON N ON N mOHmEmm WQHMZ mOHmEmm mmHmE EmuH No>HuOONouH< o>Nuo3Hpmaou NNOHHOON NHOOO OOOOHHOOO--H OHOON 28 sensitive than males). An issue here may be in the sampling procedure. The population of male undergraduates who would volunteer to participate in a learning experience with children are probably very different from the population of male undergraduates in general; they may be a more sensitive group of people. Even so, it might be argued that the female undergraduates (also a select group) should still have performed better than the males, given the basic societal role of future mother. Significant Es were found in all four categories: situations two, five and nine in the understanding category; situations two, five and nine in the acceptance category; situations three and thirteen in the adult feelings category; and situations six and nine in the constructive alternative category. Females scored significantly higher on situation thirteen in the adult feelings category and on situation six in the constructive alternative category. It is observed that for situation nine, males responded significantly more sensitively in three out of four modes of scoring (excluding "adult feelings"). This situation deals with masturbation: "Before going to bed at 10:00 PM, you go into your son Bert's bedroom to see if he has the blanket over him and to tuck him in, if neces- sary. You find him awake and masturbating. He sees you looking at him and as you approach him he stops and pulls the blanket up to his chin.” Two other situations on which 29 males scored significantly higher are situation five (son caught stealing) and three (daughter involved in sex play with friends). All of these deal with issues of sociali- zation of children, and it is possible that the females felt more incompetent and uncomfortable in such situations than did the males. The second way in which the STC data were analyzed was in terms of the scores for males and females across the situations but within each category. These results are reported in Table 2, which contains the mean scores of males and females and the F values of analyses of variance con- ducted on the data. Table 2. Male-female differences for individual and combined STC scores: means, standard deviations and F- values. Under. Acc. Ad.F. Con.A1t. N males 75 76 96 95 N females 213 203 245 245 X males 2.493 2.375 9.817 6.368 X females 2.185 2.046 9.865 6.348 SD males 1.921 1.895 1.794 3.379 SD females 1.799 1.643 1.718 2.992 F statistic 1.567 2.024 0.051 0.554 F lev. sig. 0.209 0.152 0.805 0.464 Total X Total SD F stat. F lev. sig. overall 14.216 7.209 0.034 0.831 males 1 1 0 87362- females 14:262 6.725 30 No significant differences were found between males and females on any of the four areas of sensitivity, including the overall score (sum of four areas). The absolute scores point to the fact that it seems as though sensitivity to children, as measured by this instrument with the present scoring system, is not readily displayed by either males or females; out of a possible top score of 64 on the STC, the mean across the sexes is 14.22, a very low figure in comparison to what was possible. It may be speculated that the scoring system of four "ideal" component points for each of 16 situations is simply "unrealistic." However, as a system of "ideal” ways of responding, it may be argued that a mean of 14.22 still lies very much below what might have been expected from a sample such as this one, since many of the respondents have probably read Ginott's Between Parent and Child and other similar works. The sex difference in overall means is certainly not significant, and yielded only a somewhat larger mean for females: 14.26 as opposed to 14.10 for males. Thus, though males did score significantly higher than females on those situations dealing with socialization issues (masturbation, stealing and sex play), it may be inter- preted as the females feeling even more incompetent and uncomfortable than the males. Table 2 also shows a trend for the average scores of ”adult feelings" and ”constructive alternatives” to be 31 noticeably higher than those of "understanding" and "accep- tance." There are several possible reasons for this: first, it may be easier to judge when a response is an "adult feeling" or "constructive alternative" than when it is "accepting" or ”understanding," resulting in scoring for the former more of the time. Secondly, "understanding" and "acceptance" may be two words for what is basically judged as the same thing, at least in terms of trying to score responses. This may result in close similarities of scores and the smaller numerical values for these two modes. The third analysis considered what, if any, inter- actions with sex of child might be present. The 16 situa- tions were divided into the 11 male and five female oriented groups, and the scores of the same sex responding to each situation versus that of the opposite sex were examined by t-tests. First this was done in terms of male and female pairs: Table 3. Interaction of sex of child and sex of subject on the STC within each mode of scoring: means, variances and t-values. Under. Acc. Adult. F. Con. Alt. Xmale/male .102 .158 .253 .384 s2 .008 .038 .037 .026 Xmale/female .155 .147 .206 .423 $2 .005 .005 .007 .021 t 1.093 .116 .487 .428 Rfemale/female .171 .148 .196 .434 §2 .005 .005 .011 .030 Xfemale/male .096 .088 .278 .386 $2 .007 .006 .043 .038 t 1.639 1.394 .792 .444 ("male/male” = male subject/male child) 32 None of these results were found to be significant, nor were those in Table 4: Table 4. Interaction of sex of child and sex of subject on STC within each mode of scoring and with the modes combined: means, variances and t-values. Under. Acc. Adult. F. Con. Alt. R(same sex) .124 .155 .229 .400 X(cross) .115 .106 .256 .397 s§(same) .008 .027 .030 .028 5 (cross) .007 .006 .033 .033 t .291 1.043 .421 .040 MM MF FF PM I, .224 .232 .237 .211 s .038 .021 .025 - .039 tmm/mf = .181 tmm/ff = .295 tmf/fm = .477 tff/fm = .590 These results do not support hypotheses three and four (males more sensitive to female children, and females more sensitive to male children, respectively). It is interesting to note, however, that the t-score is consistently greater in the female analyses; sex of child may be more important in 33 determining responses from the females in this sample than it is for the males. This again may be due to the bias of our sample, the possibility that these males on a whole are different from most college males in the population at large. STC and PARI No significant correlations were found between scores on the STC and items on the PARI. However, subjects were grouped using an STC total score of 20 or above, and nine and below, as cutting points, and further comparison was made with individual items on the PARI. This division yielded a group of 47 "Highs” (19 males and 28 females) whose scores had a mean and sd of 27.23, and 5.77, respec- tively, and 71 "Lows" (31 males and 40 females) with a mean and sd of 5.31, and 2.19, respectively. Those t-test comparisons, made for each of the 78 PARI items between "High" and "Low” STC scorers, which were significant (p<.05) can be found in Table 5. These results suggest that those subjects who were able to more clearly convey understanding and acceptance of children's feelings and provided constructive behavioral directions for emotional expressions as well as clearly expressing their own feelings, also have a more strongly felt "liberal," "child-oriented” attitude to child behavior and adult responsibility. These attitudes and practices have been related to positive mental health in children 34 Table 5. Mean scores on selected PARI items of High and Low scorers on the STC. PARI HIGH LOW Item Number N=47 N=7l p 1. Children should be 2:1.23 i=1.46 .21 .03 allowed to disagree with sd= .05 sd= .06 their parents if they feel their own ideas are better. 11. Most children should 3.32 2.85 .88 .005 be toilet trained by 15 .78 .93 months of age. 19. Children are too often 1.62 1.93 .07 .04 asked to do all the > .74 .84 compromising and adjustment and that is not fair. 25. Parents who are inter- 3.42 3.05 .31 .02 ested in hearing about .74 .92 their children's parties, dates and fun help them grow up right. 27. The earlier a child is 3.36 3.01 .30 .02 weaned from its emotional .70 .86 ties to its parents, the better it will handle its own problems. 28. A child should be weaned 3.40 3.07 .25 .03 away from the bottle or .65 .88 breast as soon as possible. 34. Children should never learn 3.94 3.68 .51 .01 things outside the home .32 .65 which make them doubt their parents' ideas. 43. It is more effective to 3.96 3.76 .15 .03 punish a child for not .29 .57 doing well than to reward v him for succeeding. 35 Table 5--Continued PARI HIGH LOW t Item Number N=47 N=71 p 44. Children who are held to 3.40 3.10 2.04 .04 firm rules grow up to be .85 .77 the best adults. 48. A child's ideas should 1.34 1.74 3.04 .03 be seriously considered .48 .80 in making family decisions. 49. The child should not 3.81 3.46 2.83 .006 question the thinking .45 .77 of the parent. 50. No child should ever set 3.57 3.10 3.04 .003 his will against that of .65 .94 his parents. 51. Children should fear 3.45 3.08 2.36 .02 their parent to some .72 .88 degree. 64. Parents should be careful 2.94 2.57 2.52 .01 lest their children .76 .78 choose wrong friends. 67. Children should have a 1.30 1.73 3.39 .001 say in the making of .62 .72 family plans. Scoring of PARI Items Strongly Agree - score 1 Mildly Agree - score 2 Mildly Disagree - score 3 Strongly Disagree - score 4 36 (Baumrind, 1967) and have relevance for research directed toward developing and evaluating parent education programs. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Peterson, Becker, Hellmer, Shoemaker and Quay (1959) suggested that the paternal role is fully as important as the maternal one. Unfortunately, since the psychological literature reveals very few studies which deal with father- ing (Nash, 1965), little is actually known about the real behaviors of fathers in this culture. However, there is nothing in this research which would tend to contradict the above suggestion by Peterson, et al. This study showed no overall significant differences between men and women under- graduates in the ability to communicate sensitively to children. These results stimulate curiosity about the role of the father, and one wonders, as did Nash (1965), whether or not fathers themselves agree with the current stereo- types of their role (which may be briefly described as mainly the economic provider and disciplinarian of the children). If men and women, before they become parents, are equal in their ability to communicate sensitively with children, then do males, when they become fathers, inhibit this ability in favor of other behaviors, "since," as Nash 37‘ 38 pointed out, "the father who shOws tenderness and nurturance toward his children is regarded as effeminate: regarding child care as emasculating, the father is handicapped in achieving a proper relationship with his children” (page 263)? If the lack of studies of fathers' behaviors is partially due to the assumption that sensitivity to children is more "natural" to women, then on the basis of the results of this study, that assumption is found to be false. Research such as Baumrind's (1967), undertaken with closer attention paid to the fathering traits that are associated with different patterns of child behavior, would greatly benefit the state of knowledge in this area. The hypotheses concerning the interaction of sex of adult and child were not confirmed by this research, thus adding no support to the studies which found sex inter- action to be a factor in at least the child's perceptions of the parents (Kagan, 1956; Gardner, 1947). A probable explanation of this discrepancy, in light of this study's results, is that fathers might communicate less sensitively with their sons than with their daughters, such that this kind of behavior would then perpetuate the father stereo- type in the future generation, as the son eventually models after his own father. The assumption being made here is that the male can be as sensitive, in as limited (unfor- tunately) a way as the female can, but for cultural 39 influences (see Nash, 1965), chooses to inhibit this, especially when with male offspring. Fathers would not necessarily be seen as more sensitive to daughters, but as even less sensitive to sons. These problems point to the need for a study in which men and women who are already parents, as opposed to college students, are measured for sensitivity to children, and their children are also asked to rate their parents on such qualities as understanding, warmth and acceptance. From such an investigation, the potentials for sensitive behavior may be distinguished from the actual occurrence of such behavior, as would be evidenced in the children's ratings of the parental sensitivity. It would also be useful to have measures of sensitivity of the parents taken before they became parents, to see if parenthood, as an external and culturally defined event, might have caused any changes or modification in their scores. STC and PARI Since none of the overall correlations or F-tests performed between these instruments yielded significant values, it is interesting to hypothesize why that is so. On one hand, the STC is a projective test, requiring the subject to describe his behavior in several situations, leaving him or her with an infinite number of ways of describing himself or herself, or what they would do in a situation. The PARI, however, is more objective, requiring 40 the subjects to express by a check mark their attitudes and opinions about themselves and childrearing. Further- more, the PARI taps intellectual opinions and ideas while the STC is more directly measuring behaviors (although it is still one step away from measuring actual behaviors, such as if the subjects were observed in each of the STC situations in real life). The lack of correlation between the two may be an illustration of how often people say one thing and do another, or how they don't really think much about the behaviors they perform. The scoring system of the STC used for this study admittedly reflected idealized responses, but the implica- tion that parent training or education on a large scale is necessary is clear from the extremely low average scores of the subjects, and it is not unlikely that since these subjects were admittedly interested in childrearing, this average score is even greater than that which would measure the population at large, including those people who are already parents. What the low scores likely reflect is an inability of most people, parents, students, businessmen and housewives alike, to express their own and others' feelings in an interpersonal relationship directly and clearly. Some Thoughts on the Meaning of this Research Feelings in this culture seem to be second class phenomena; emotionality in white men has been typically Ill-Ell I. [[l.[!l'll[[[ [all [ll—[III 41 ”downplayed," but blacks and women are "allowed" or "expected” to be emotional, such that these two groups often must rely on crying or eruptions of anger and aggression to satisfy basic needs. The ability to, and primary importance of, reason belongs to the white male, stereotypically speaking. Pre-late-nineteenth century man, or, roughly, pre- Freudian man, believed in a world which was totally based on reason. Man's behaviors were explained as rationally determined, and they were accounted for solely by rational kinds of motivations. Due to Freud, unconscious motiva— tions began to receive increasing attention from students of behavior as the major contributors to a man's actions in life; along with this came a de-emphasis on rationality. However, this seems to have had less influence on the non- students of behavior, or Western man in general. Modern man still wishes to believe that feelings are unimportant, and, as seen especially in research such as the present one, acts accordingly. Thus, while women and blacks are allowed to express their feelings more often, to the extent that they share the values of the culture at large, they will be as insensitive to feelings as any white man. To the extent that people believe that feelings are bad and should be hidden from each other's notice, there will be wide and irreparable gaps between individuals, parents and their children, races and generations. l ‘l .I III (III III! I I l I I CHAPTER VII SUMMARY From this research it might be inferred that males are not less sensitive, understanding or empathic than females, but sometimes can be more so than females. Furthermore, there does not seem to be an important inter- action present between the sex of the child and the subjects' sensitivity. The design of this research poses some crucial problems. The first is in the area of scoring: the system of scoring may not be clear enough, especially for the first two modes scored for, "acceptance" and "under- standing.” The next problem deals with the items on the STC. Out of 16 items, only five centered around female children, while 11 emphasized a male child. Statistical problems are encountered because of this, plus there is the possibility of the subject forming a set of "male child" in responding to the items. Finally, the problem of sampling should be noted, for this may really be crucial in explaining the lack of significance of at least the sex differences. It may be argued that for women to volunteer for such a program, they might be simply filling 42 43 their roles as future mothers, without putting too much prior recognition into the fact that they may be, or may not be, especially interested in children. For men to volunteer for this research, it might be that much more thought and more sincere interest in children is present in these male subjects. The more important point to be noted as a final remark is that the average scores (obtained by what may be judged as a scoring system based on an ideal response set to children) were very low for both men and women, indicating that even in this admittedly biased sample of people who were interested in children, the ability to communicate sensitively with them is generally lacking. Ilf‘ullll‘lll III BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bach, George R. Father—fantasies and father-typing in father-separated children. 'Child DevelOpment, 1946, 17, 63-80. Baumrind, Diana. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of behavior. Genetic PsychologyMonograph, 1967, 75, 43-88. Becker, Wesley. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline, in Hoffman and Hoffman, Review of Child Development Research, Vol. 1, New Ybrk, Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, 169-208. The relationship of factors in parental ratings of self and each other to the behavior of kinder- garten children as rated by mothers, fathers, and teachers. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24(6), 507-527. Bell, Alan P. Role modeling of fathers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16, 30-35. Davids, Anthony and Hainsworth, Peter K. Maternal attitudes about family life and child-rearing as avowed by mothers and perceived by their underachieving and high achieving sons. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31(1), 29-37. Eron, Leonard D.; Banta, Thomas J.; Walder, Leopold O.; Laulicht, Jerome H.‘ Comparison of data obtained from mothers and fathers on child-rearing practices and their relation to child aggression. Child Development, 1961, 32, 457-472. Funkenstein, D. H.; King, 8. H.; and Drolette, M. E. Perception of parents and social attitudes. Paper read at meeting of Amer. Psychopath. Society, June, 1955. Gardiner, L. Pearl. A survey of the attitudes and activi- ties of fathers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1943, 63, 15-53. 44 45 . An analysis of children's attitudes towards fathers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1947, 70, 3-28. Ginott, Haim. Between Parent and Child. The Macmillan Company, 1965. Heilbrun, Alfred B., Jr.; Harrell, Samuel N.; Gillard, Betty Jo. Perceived maternal child-rearing patterns and the effects of social nonreaction upon achievement motivation. Child Development, 1967, 38(1), 267-281. ; Orr, Helen. Perceived maternal child-rearing history and subsequent motivational effects of failure. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 109, 75-89. ; Orr, Helen; Harrell, Samuel. Patterns of parental child-rearing and subsequent vulnerability to cognitive disturbance. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 30(1),_51-59. Josselyn, Irene M. Cultural forces, motherliness and fatherliness. American Journal of Orthopsychiatgy, 1956, 26, 264-271. Kagan, Jerome. The child's perception of the parent. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 257-258. ; Hosken, Barbara; Watson, Sara. Child's symbolic conceptualization of parents. Child Development, 1961, 32, 265—236. and Lemkin, Judith. The child's differential perception of parental attributes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61(3), 440-447. Lederer, Wolfgang. Historical consequences of father-son hostility. Psychoanalytic Review, 1967, 54(2), 52-80. Levine, Janet; Fishman, Claire; Kagan, Jerome. Social class and sex as determinants of maternal behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967, 37, 397. Livson, Norman. Parental behavior and children's involve- ment with their parents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1966, 109, 173—194. 46 Marshall, Jon C. and Mowrer, George E. Validity of parents' perceptions of their sons' interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, 15(4), 334-337. Mead, Margaret, in Bowlby, John (ed.). Maternal Care and Mental Health. Schocken Books, New York, 1951, 45-62. Miller, Daniel R. and Swanson, Guy E. The Changing American Parent--A Study in the Detroit Area. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958. Mitchell, G. D. Paternalistic behavior in primates. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 399-417. Moss, H. A. Sex, age and state as determinants of mother- infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 19-36. Mussen, Paul and Distler, Luther. Child-rearing ante- cedents of masculine identification in kindergarten boys. Child Development, 1960, 31, 89-100. Nash, John. The father in contemporary culture and current psychological literature. Child Development, 1965, 36, 261-297. Pederson, Frank A. and Robson, Kenneth S. Father partici- pation in infancy. American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 1969, 39(3), 466-472. Peterson, Donald R.; Becker, Wesley; Hellmer, Leo A.; Shoemaker, Donald J.; Quay, Herbert C. Parental attitudes and child adjustment. Child Development, 1959, 30, 119-130. Rebelsky, Freda and Hanks, Cheryl. Fathers' verbal inter- actions with infants in the first three months of life. Child Development, 1971, 42(1), 63-68. Sears, Robert R.; Maccoby, Eleanor E.; Levin, Harry. Patterns of Child Rearing. Row, Peterson, New York, 1957. Sprague, Helmar D. Perceptions of family attitudes among male college students and their fathers. Disserta- tion Abstracts, 1965, 26(6), 3482. Tasch, R. J. The role of the father in the family. Journal of Experimental Education, 1952, 20, 319-361. GENE RAL REFERENCE S GENERAL REFERENCES Baumrind, Diana. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88. . Socialization and instrumental competence in young children. Young Children, 1970, Vol. XXVI, No. 2. . Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 1971, Vol. 4, No. 1, Part 2. Burghum, Mildred. The father gets worse: a child guidance problem. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1942, 12, 474-486. Cline, Victor B.; Richards, James M., Jr.; Needham, Walter. A factor analytic study of the father form of the PARI. Psychological Record, 1963 (13), 65-72. Davidson, P. O. and Schrag, A. R. The role of the father in guidance clinic consultations, Journal of Psychology, 1968, 68, 249-256. Eisenberg, Leon. The fathers of autistic children. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1957, 27, 715-725. Freedheim, Donald K. and Reichenberg-Hackett, Wally. An experimental investigation of parent-child atti- tudes with PARI scales. Child Development, 1959, 30, 353-361. Gershberg, Jack M. The concept of empathy and the develop- ment of affect patterning. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1967, 41, 658-682. Guerney, Bernard, Sr.; Stover, Lillian; DeMeritt, Stephan. A measurement of empathy in parent-child inter- action. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1968, 112, 49-55. 47 48 Heilbrun, Alfred B., Jr.; Harrell, Samuel L.; Gillard, Betty Jo. Perceived child-rearing attitudes of fathers and cognitive control in daughters. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1967, 111, 29-40. Hetherington, B. Mairs and Frankie, Gary. Effects of parental dominance, warmth and conflict in imitation in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 119-125. Honzik, Marjorie P. Environmental correlates of mental growth: prediction from the family setting at 21 months. Child Development, 1967, 38(2), 337-364. Jackson, Philip W. Verbal solutions to parent-child problems. Child Development, 1956, 27(3), 339-351. Kates, Solis L. and Diab, Lufty N. Authoritarian ideology and attitudes on parent-child relationships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 5T, 13-16. Koutrelakos, James. Authoritarian person's perceptions of his relationship with his father. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 967-973. Lebovici, S. in Bowlby, John (ed.). Maternal Care and Mental Health. Schocken Books, New York, 1951, 285. Leonard, Marjorie R. Fathers and daughters. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1966, 47, 325-334. Rebhun, Martin. Parental attitudes and the closed belief- disbelief system. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 260-262. Rubenstein, Judith. Maternal attentiveness and subsequent exploratory behavior in the infant. Child Develop- ment, 1967, 38(4), 1089-1100. Rubin, Dorothy. Mother and father schemata of achievers and underachievers in primary school arithmetic. Psychological Reports, 1968, 23, 1215-1221. Schaefer, Earl S. and Bell, Richard Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development, 1958, 28, 339-361. Shapiro, M. B. Some correlates of opinions on the upbringing of children. British Journal of Psychology, 1952, 43, 141-149. 49 Starr, Bernard D. Disciplinary attitudes of both parents and authoritarianism in their children. Disserta- tion Abstracts, 1965, 26(6), 3482. Stern, George G.; Caldwell, Bettye M.; Hersher, Leonard; Lipton, Earle L.; Richmond, Julius B. A factor analytic study of the mother-infant dyad. Child Deve10pment, 1969, 40(1), 163-181. Symonds, Percival M. The Psychology of Parent-Child Relationships. D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, 1939. Walsh, Richard P. Parental rejecting attitudes and control in children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24(2), 185-186. Zuckerman, Marvin; Ribback, Beatrice; Monashkin, Irwin; Norton, James A., Jr. Normative data and factor analysis in the PARI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22(3), 165-171. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A PARENTAL ATTITUDE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 50 NAME AGE SEX DATE QUESTIONNAIRE On the following pages are statements about parents and children. Indicate your opinion by drawing a circle around the ”A" if you strongly agree, around the "a" if you mildly agree, around the ”d" if you mildly disagree, and around the "D” if you strongly disagree with the state- ment. It is best to work rapidly. Give your first reac- tion. If you read and reread the statements, it tends to be confusing and time-consuming. There are no right or wrong answers, so answer according to your own opinion. It is very important that all questions be answered, even if they don't seem relevant to your immediate life. Many of the statements will seem alike, but all are necessary to show slight differences of opinion. 51 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree 1. Children should be A a allowed to disagree with their parents if they feel their own ideas are better. 2. It's best for the A a child if he never gets started wondering whether his mother's views are right. 3. Parents should adjust A a to the children some rather than always ex- pecting the children to adjust to the parents. 4. Parents must earn the A a respect of their children by the way they act. 5. Children would be A a happier and better be- haved if parents would show an interest in their affairs. 6. Some children are A a just so bad they must be taught to fear adults for their own good. 7. Children will get on A a any woman's nerves if she has to be with them all day. 8. One of the worst A a things about taking care of a home is a woman feels she can't get out. 9. If you let children A a talk about their troubles they probably will end up complaining even more. Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D 52 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree 10. There is nothing A a worse for a young mother than being alone while going through her first experience with a baby. 11. Most children should A a be toilet trained by 15 months of age. 12. The sooner a child A a learns to walk the better he's trained. 13. A child will be A a grateful later on for strict training. 14. A mother should make A a it her business to know everything her children are thinking. 15. A good mother should A a shelter her child from life's little difficulties. 16. There are so many A a things a child has to learn in life there is no excuse for him sitting around with time on his hands. 17. Children should be A a encouraged to tell their parents about it whenever they feel family rules are unreasonable. 18. A parent should never A a be made to look wrong in a child's eyes. 19. Children are too A a often asked to do all the compromising and adjust- ment and that is not fair. Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D I [fllfl .ll.Illl 20. As much as is reasonable, a parent should try to treat a child as an equal. 21. Parents who are interested in hearing about their children's parties, dates, and fun help them grow up right. 22. It frequently is necessary to drive the mischief out of a child before he will behave. 23. Mothers very often feel that they can't stand their children a moment longer. 24. Having to be with children all the time wi probably give a woman a feeling her wings have been clipped. 25. Parents who start a child talking about his worries don't realize that sometimes it's better to just leav well enough alone. 26. It isn't fair that woman has to bear just about all the burden of raising children by herself. 27. The earlier a child is weaned from its emoti ties to its parents, the better it will handle it own problems. 28. A child should be weaned away from the bottle or breast as soon as possible. 53 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree A a A a A a A a A a 11 A a e a A a A a onal s A a Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D S4 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree 29. Most young mothers A a are bothered more by the feeling of being shut up in the home than by any- thing else. 30. A child should never A a keep a secret from his parents. 31. A child should be A a protected from jobs which might be too tiring or hard for him. 32. Children who don't A a try hard for success will feel that they have missed out on things later on. 33. A child has a right A a to his own point of view and ought to be allowed to express it. 34. Children should never A a learn things outside the home which make them doubt their parents' ideas. 35. There is no reason A a parents should have their own way all the time any more than that children should have their own way all the time. 36. Children seldom ex- A a press anything worthwhile; their ideas are usually unimportant. 37. If parents would have A a fun with their children, the children would be more apt to take their advice. 38. A wise parent will A a teach a child early just who is boss. Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D 55 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree 39. It's a rare mother A a who can be sweet and even- tempered with her children all day. 40. Children pester you A a with all their little upsets if you aren't careful from the first. 41. A wise woman will do A a anything to avoid being by herself before and after a new baby. 42. Children's grades in A a school are a reflection of the intelligence of their parents. 43. It is more effective A a to punish a child for not doing well than to reward him for succeeding. 44. Children who are held A a to firm rules grow up to be the best adults. 45. An alert parent should A a try to learn all her child's thoughts. 46. Children should be A a kept away from all hard jobs which might be dis- couraging. 47. Parents should teach A a their children that the way to get ahead is to keep busy and not waste time. 48. A Child's ideas should A a be serious considered in making family decisions. Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D S6 Strongly Agree 49. The child should not A question the thinking of the parent. 50. No child should ever A set his will against that of his parents. 51. Children should fear A their parents to some degree. 52. When you do things A together, children feel close to you and can talk easier. 53. Children need some A of the natural meanness taken out of them. 54. Raising children is A a nerve-wracking job. 55. One of the bad A things about raising children is that you aren't free enough of the time to do just as you like. 56. The trouble with A giving attention to children's problems is they usually just make up a lot of stories to keep you interested. 57. Most women need A more time than they are given to rest up in the home after going through childbirth. 58. A child never sets A high enough standards for himself. Mildly Mildly Agree a Disagree d Strongly Disagree D Strongly Mildly Agree 59. When a child does something well we can start setting his sights higher. 60. It is a mother's duty to make sure she knows her child's inner- most thoughts. 61. I liked my child best when I could do everything for him. 62. The sooner a child learns that a wasted minute is lost forever, the better off he will be. 63. When a child is in trouble, he ought to know he won't be punished for talking about it with his parents. 64. Parents should be careful lest their children choose the wrong friends. 65. A child should always accept the decision of his parents. 66. Children should do nothing without the consent of their parents. 67. Children should have a say in the making of family plans. 68. It is sometimes necessary for the parent to break the child's will. 69. It is natural for a mother to "blow her top” when children are selfish and demanding. A 57 Agree a Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D 70. A young mother probably feels "held down" because there are lots of things she wants to do while she is young. 71. Children should not annoy their parents with their unimportant problems. 72. Taking care of a small baby is something that no woman should be expected to do all by herself. 73. Some children don't realize how lucky they are to have parents setting high goals for them. 58 Strongly Mildly Agree Agree A a A a A a 74. If a child is pushed A a into an activity before he is ready, he will learn that much earlier. 75. Unless one judges a child according to strict standards, he will not be industrious. 76. It is a parent's business to know what a child is up to all the time. 77. Children are better off if their parents are around to tell them what to do all the time. 78. A child should be rewarded for trying even if he does not succeed. Mildly Disagree d Strongly Disagree D APPENDIX B SENSITIVITY TO CHILDREN QUESTIONNAIRE 59 STC NAME: AGE: SEX (M or F): Telephone No.: DATE: Instructions A series of series situations will be found on the following pages. You are to pretend or imagine you are the parent (mother or father) of the child described. All the children in the following situations are to be considered between £923 and gig years old. Your task is to write down exactly how you would respond to the child in each of the situations, in a word, sentence or short paragraph. Write down your exact words and/or actions, but please do not explain ghy you said or did what you described. Again, write down your exact words or actions as if you were writing a script for a play or movie (e.g., do not write ”I would reassure or comfort him"; instead, for example, write "I would smile at him and in a quiet voice say, 'Don't worry, Billy, Daddy and I love you.'"). If you have children, their names and ages: Name Age 60 You are having a friendly talk with a friend on the phone. Your son Carl rushes in and begins to interrupt your conversation with a story about a friend in school. You and your husband (wife) are going out for the evening. As you are leaving you both say "good night" to your son, Frank. He begins to cry and pleads with you both not to go out and leave him alone even though he doesn't appear sick and the babysitter is one he has previously gotten along well with. 61 After hearing a great deal of giggling coming from your daughter Lisa's bedroom, you go there and find her and her friends Mary and Tom under a blanket in her room with their clothes off. It appears that they were touching each other's sexual parts before you arrived. Your daughter Barbara has just come home from school; silent, sad-faced, and dragging her feet. You can tell by her manner that something unpleasant has happened to her. 62 5. You walk into your bedroom and find your son Bernie putting your wallet (pocketbook) down with a $10.00 bill in his hand. It is clear from his actions (looking shocked at your arrival, putting his hand with the money behind his back) that you have caught him steal- ing. 6. After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go there and find your daughter Susan hitting her two year old baby sister. 63 7. It is 8:00 p.m., and that is the time you and your son Gary have previously agreed is his bedtime for that evening. But he wants to stay up and play. 8. When emptying the garbage can, you find at its bottom the broken remains of a toy you had given your son David two weeks ago. It is clear that he didn't want you to find out about its being broken. 10. 64 Before going to bed at 10:00 p.m., you go into your son Bert's bedroom to see if he has the blanket over him and to tuck him in, if necessary. You find him awake and masturbating. He sees you looking at him and as you approach him he stops and pulls the blanket up to his chin. Bill and Joan are visiting your son Art in your home. You have just noticed how quiet it has become in the family room where they are playing. You go there and find them smoking a cigarette. 11. 12. 65 You have completed shopping in a local super market, and as you are checking out your son Lee says he wants a candy bar. It is close to dinner time, so you say "No" to his request. He then lies down and begins screaming and kicking at you. You are helping your daughter Ruth with an arithmetic problem and she seems to be having difficulty. She suddenly exclaims: "I am so stupid! I never know the answers to any of the questions the teacher asks me. I don't want to go to school anymore.” 66 13. While you are sitting and watching television, your son Fred comes over to you and asks in a quiet, con- cerned voice: "Do you love me?" 14. Your spouse has just punished your daughter Lillian for some rule infraction. Lillian becomes hysterical and runs to you crying. 15. 16. 67 Your son Albert has come home from school full of anger. His class had been scheduled to go to the zoo for weeks and he was very eager to go. However, it rained today and the trip had to be rescheduled. He angrily exclaims: "I hate that school. Just because it rained we couldn't go.” Upon returning home from school your son Joe excitedly tells you about how his friend Mark was pushed into a rainfilled puddle by some older boys. Joe says that they were just walking home from school when all of a sudden three sixth graders ran up from behind and shoved Mark into the puddle and ran away laughing. APPENDIX C SCORING FOR THE STC 68 SCORING FOR THE STC One (1) point is given if in the answer the writer specifically conveys understanding by reflecting an action and/or feeling of the child. (e.g., "You must be very disappointed," "That must make you very angry," "You wish you could have the candy now," "Sometimes you must feel we don't love you.") The feeling words must be written down and not implied from the answer. One (1) point is given if in the answer the writer specifically conveys acceptance of the feelings of the child (but not, necessarily, the actions). (e.g., "I can understand that you are angry at the baby, and I would be angry too if she broke my toy, however," ”I guess that it is really exciting to smoke a cigarette, but . . .") One (1) point is given if in the answer the writer specifically states 913 or ESE feelings about the child's actions and/or feelings. (e.g., "I get angry when I see anyone hit someone else," "I am so pleased that . . .," "It makes me so sad to see . . .") Again, the feeling words must be written down and not implied from the answer. One (1) point is given if in the answer the writer specifically states a constructive alternative to the child's actions and/or feelings. (e.g., "You can have the candy bar after dinner," "If you're angry hit the bobo doll," "When you need money come to me and we'll talk about it.") The alternatives or solutions must be constructive. (e.g., "Stop that" is not constructive unless some direction follows.) And, again, must be written down and not implied from the answer. 69 The general characteristics of a "good" or "sensi- tive” or ”educating" answer, therefore are: (1) (2) (3) a clear, unambiguous, verbal response indi- cating to the child that his (the child's) feelings and underlying meanings of his actions are understood and accepted, a clear, unambiguous, VEFEal communication of the adult's feelings and thoughts about the child's feelings and actions, and the adult providing a constructive alternative or solution or outlet for the expression of the child's feelings. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRARIES |||lllllllllllIIIHII|||||l|||l|||ll||ll!llllllllllllllelllllzllll 3129300997678