'.-§..Q. ..

LE8 ERAL" A D

THE RESPONSES 0F “
‘BONSERVATIVF PARENTS TO FR L '

TUATEONS INVOLVING A YOUNG CHM)

SI

  

0.....
.

—.lo.

... . -.

....

Mlcmw STA-TE- UNIVERS

:.¢....

00.
....Li........o......_. ......

  

ROBERT JAY GREEN

 

.1973

......nd 4..

....
..0.........\.,...

 

..o...-.o..~...bvfo

‘0...

......XJO... ...... 7......

 

    

.. . .. . . . . ... y .. .
. l . ... . o ...(o.4f.al.q."

. . ... . . ......_ ...... c. 0.. ... p .. '0 . ..0. 9‘1 W's:

. . . . .. o .... .. ....o: .0nv\'l.\a..v”.l...4
. . . . ... ....vt . . 0 5.4..4cd... '

. . . 4.. . . a . ..... 01...... t. .

. . .0. . ... .* 8. ... .

. . . .

~ _

 

 

r . cl . .. '
c..4'.‘ I
. ro. . ..oo .o .0 .:4.Uv
.. O r . :0 pr;r a .
... . o...o.. ..
. 1-0.. .. ...
. Z 1:5.-.
l . 1
. 0 far]! .40‘
. . .....
<I - .. G
v 0 . ... .v .a
0v. I.l
0.1 u. .
.. . 0 .r
x . . 0.. .30 I. o. .
.... .. ..r..OOo.vp ...", 8d. I...I/..¢.’s.. .0. I
a . n . . .0. 1‘... ..005 ..
. . . v . .‘l 4. . .'0b 0- ('0JV‘Jp. ..
o . It . 0 Ir! .
. . 3
. ..
.. .. u . . ..
.o o . t. ..
. .n o r
. J...
.
. ... 7.
o -
.0.n I
. .
.
.C
y. o .. 01.1.
. . o 1 ‘ .1
.I. 1 .. . .r
u I r. I a I
' .v. .p. . .0}. .
... .t t . cl... .
. . . ... ....I.I.4..
. . ._ 9..
. . ' . I . _. .v. .. . ...
r . . u o. .
. 0 . . .... 0!. .
. . v .v’lyi .J
I. .0.
a I. . u ..0 i
- [\ld [- '0l' ( D
u ‘1. o . .
.. o '0 00.. . 0..
a l .v'D'-P '
o v . t .... .
i . .0 . .
. o
_ . | 04/0. '.'.
v v.0..'a"vA-I.l.
. .0
a.
4
0 .' D v.41'...‘
. .
. . a ....- ..0 I .
n . x
I . 4 I... .0.
n I -\I
. . .l . l2..'
0 I 0 A
.... I . ... .
v . I. .I .
.8
. . .(.l.v
. 3 r0. .0
n - I III
. o
..
... I
. I. .. O
0' . a ‘.
.- .1 I.» .I-
-. . .. n I
l 1.. . .v
I ' N .
’ u I l
.
a y .-
. v. . .1.. o
l O l I . .
00p .. 4
I 4 o. a: .V
. .a
. . .. 1 ..r.
. . n It
. . A . a...
. .
I 0 I
V 7
. t
. .-
.. r. .
. ..l
.1
c
(f n
' O 0'.
v
0 .
. o r u
u
. .
:0 a.
.. . .
P
..
. .n .
1 .
. . .
.
. . . . .
. .
.

...-t.
a .v-tr. ..\.\.98\....,..:..0._.

0‘.

...»...xu/lmw” .. Xv.)

 

 

 

 

  
   
 

 
    
   

BINDING av “‘3
HUAG 8 SDNS' ;
“3&3: 31‘JUF9Y i=4": ‘1

l r' xy-l‘f‘flu

..__.. ”J

 

 

THE RESPONSES OF "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE"
PARENTS TO PROBLEM SITUATIONS
INVOLVING A YOUNG CHILD

BY

Robert Jay Green

The present study investigated the responses of young
parents expressing "liberal" or "conservative" social
attitudes to a series of hypothetical parent-child problem
situations. A total of 40 families, with both parents under
30 years of age and with at least one child of 4 years,
responded to an advertisement in a university town newspaper.
Two groups ("liberals" and "conservatives") of ten couples
each were selected for study based on their responses to a
lZ-item, socio-political telephone questionnaire. The
difference between groups was significant on the telephone
questionnaire (p < .001).

Each § also filled out a Sensitivity to Children
(STC) questionnaire. Parents' responses to the problem
situations on the STC questionnaire were coded on two
orthogonal dimensions (love-hostility and autonomy-control)
by two trained assistants. The data were analyzed by means
of a 2 (groups: liberal/conservative) X 2 (dimensions:
love-hostility/autonomy-control) X 16 (problem situations)

analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last two

Robert Jay Green

factors. Analyses of simple effects were performed in those
instances where significant interactions were found.

The responses of parents expressing liberal social
attitudes were found to be significantly more toward the
"love" end of the love-hostility dimension than were
responses of parents expressing conservative attitudes.

The analyses also revealed that parental responses were not
consistent across problem situations. The utility and
limitations of the present methodology in contributing to
our understanding of parental liberalism-conservatism,
parental consistency, and child development were discussed.

The results clearly indicate that social attitudes
of parents affect their behavior in hypothetical parent-child
problem situations. Furthermore, variables in the child's
behavior across problem situations are powerful determinants

of parental response consistency.

THE RESPONSES OF "LIBERAL" AND "CONSERVATIVE"
PARENTS TO PROBLEM SITUATIONS

INVOLVING A YOUNG CHILD

BY

Robert Jay Green

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1973

a;

.... 35‘s.

1
“TR.“ ‘3

For Loretta

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to Dr.
Gary E. Stollak, a limitless source of inspiration and
encouragement throughout my graduate training. Thanks also
go to Dr. Lawrence Messé, a constant in a sea of variance;
and Dr. Arthur Seagull whose wit and sensitivity abound.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to Loretta,
my wife, for her kind patience and astute editorial sug-

gestions.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Liberalism-Conservatism . . . . . .

Social Attitudes and Parent-Child Interaction

Dimensions of Parental Behavior Affecting
Socio—Emotional Development of Children
Research Questions . . . . . . . .

METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subjects and Procedures . . .
Scoring the Independent Variable .
Scoring the Dependent Variables. .
Reliability . . . . . . . .

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Analysis of Variance . . . . . . .
Groups X Dimensions Interaction. . . .
Dimension X Items Interaction . . . .

DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Overview . . . . . . . . . .
Liberalism-Conservatism and Dimensions of
Parental Behavior. . . . . . . .

Parents' Behavioral Consistency Across Problem

Situations . . . . . . . . . .
Methodological Considerations . . . .
Implications of the Study. . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .

iv

the

Page
vi

vii

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O I O O O O O O O

APPENDICES
Appendix

A. Advertisement in Newspapers . . . . . .
B. SES Hollingshead Index. . . . . . . .
C. Telephone Questionnaire . . . . . . .
D. STC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E. Definitions of Rating Categories for Scoring
the STC . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Sample STC Scoring Sheet . . . . . . .
G. Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients . . .
H. Circumplex Graph of Liberal and Conservative

Parents' Mean Scores on the Love-Hostility
(X) and Autonomy-Control (Y) Dimensions .

Page

58

61
62
63
66

70
73
75

76

LIST OF TABLES

1. Responses to Telephone Questionnaire--
Conservative Parents and Liberal Parents .

2. Comparison of Liberal and Conservative
Responses to Individual Items on
Telephone Questionnaire. . . . . . .

3. Comparison of Husband-Wife Responses to
Individual Items on the Telephone
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . .

4. Comparison of Total Scores Between Groups
on Telephone Questionnaire. . . . . .

5. Results of Analysis of Variance. . . . .

6. Analysis of Simple Effects: Group X
Dimensions Interaction . . . . . . .

7. Analysis of Simple Effects: Dimensions X
Items Interaction. . . . . . ._ . .

8. SES Hollingshead Index. . . . . . . .

9. Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients . . .

vi

Page

28

30

31

32
36

38

39
62

75

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Circumplex of Maternal Behaviors . . . . . . 18
2. Consequences of Parental Warmth Versus

Hostility and Permissiveness Versus

Restrictiveness on the Behavior of Children. . 20
3. Sample STC Scoring Sheet. . . . . . . . . 73
4. Circumplex Graph of Liberal and Conservative

Parents' Mean Scores on the Love-Hostility
(X) and Autonomy-Control (Y) Dimensions . . . 76

vii

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The tremendous social and political upheavals during
the last decade have changed the character of American
society irrevocably. Social critics daily fill our maga-
zines with reports of the endless polarizations and
confrontations between disparate segments of the population.
No longer is the United States described as a "melting pot."
Now we speak of the "pluralistic" society.

One major social division is in socio—political
attitudes: liberalism versus conservatism. The Left
emphasizes protection of civil liberties, rejection of
material goals, humanitarian aims secured mainly through
social legislation, economic and social equality based on
the fundamental dignity of all men, and a preference for
collective organization and regulation of the economy. The
Right is characterized by emphases on the importance of
property values, a dislike of social welfare legislation, a
devotion to socio-economic inequality based on a belief in
the inherent inequality among men, and disapproval of
government regulation of the economy. Critics see in this
ever-widening division between liberals and conservatives

various consequences for the future.

One consequence may be that differences in their
socio-political attitudes will lead liberals and con-
servatives to establish different kinds of interpersonal
relations (e.g., communal living). Of primary importance
would be the interactional patterns these two groups
developed in their emotionally intimate relations, par-
ticularly within the family. Thus, the socialization of
future generations might be affected differentially by
parental attitudes, both liberal and conservative.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether
differences in parents' expressions of liberal or conservative
social attitudes would lead to differences in their behavior
toward children in parent-child problem situations. The
remainder of this chapter is devoted to a review of the
research literature on (1) liberalism-conservatism, (2)
social attitudes and parent-child interaction, (3) dimensions
of parental behavior affecting the socio-emotional develop-
ment of children, and (4) the research questions of the

present study.

Liberalism-Conservatism
In 1950, the authors of the Authoritarian Per-
sonality reported a major study on social attitudes and
specifically on a constellation of attitudes they termed
authoritarianism as measured by the F (fascism)-scale
(Adorno; Frenkel-Brunswick; Lennison; and Sanford, 1950).

High F scores were characterized by (1) rigid adherance to

conventional values, (2) exaggerated needs to submit to
authority, (3) underlying hostility toward in-group
authorities, (4) displaced hostility onto out-groups
(prejudice), (5) anti-intraception, (6) superstition and
stereotyping (tendency to think in rigid dichtomies), (7)
emphasis on power and toughness in relationships, (8)
cynicism and destructiveness, and (9) a punitive moralistic
attitude toward sex (Sanford, 1972). A number of other
factors were found to be related to authoritarianism.

Among these related factors was political-economic
conservatism (PEC) as measured by the various forms of the
PEC scale. High scorers on the PEC expressed a high degree
of "support of the status qua and particularly of business;
support of conservative values; desire to maintain a balance
of power in which business is dominant, labor subordinate
and the economic functions of government minimized; and
resistance to social change" (Adorno, 33 31., 1950, p. 157).
Several theoretical and methodological criticisms of the
relationship between authoritarianism and conservatism
followed.

Shils (1954) argued that the F-scale measured only
right-wing attitudes. He demonstrated the qualitative
similarities of the Right and the Left in existing political
systems, notably fascism and communism. He believed that
rigid low scorers on the F—scale could be characterized as

authoritarians of the Left rather than as non-authoritarians.

Rokeach (1960) further argued that the F-scale was slanted
toward right wing attitudes and developed his own theory on
the importance of dogmatism in social behavior.

He hypothesized that a high degree of dogmatism was
shown by (l) sharp distinctions between beliefs and dis-
beliefs, contradictory beliefs, and little differentiation
among disbeliefs; (2) a basic outlook of pessimism, fear,
and concern with power; and (3) a belief in the absolute
nature of authority, intolerance of disagreement, and party-
line thinking. These characteristics theoretically formed
a core to which a variety of specific beliefs could be
attached, i.e., a high degree of dogmatism could be con-
comitant with extreme conservative or extreme liberal
ideology (Kirscht and Dillehay, 1967; Rokeach, 1960).
Rokeach then developed a Dogmatism scale which claimed to be
politically neutral and two Opinionation scales, one
measuring vehement intolerance of Leftist views and the
other measuring intolerance of Rightist views. He demon-
strated that his Dogmatism scale, unlike the F and PEC
scales, correlated positively with both Right and Left
Opinionation scales. However, he notes that both the
Dogmatism and combined Opinionation scale show a weak but
consistently positive relationship to conservatism and that
Dogmatism in all of his samples shows a somewhat closer

affinity to Right than to Left Opinionation.

Another study comparing conservatives to liberals
was conducted by McClosky on a sample of 2,000 respondents
from Minnesota (1958). His major findings were:

By every measure available to us, conservative
beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed,
the poorly educated and so far as we can determine, the
less intelligent. . . . Conservatism, in our society at
least, appears to be far more characteristic of social
isolates, of people who think poorly of themselves
. . . who are submissive, timid, and wanting in con-
fidence . . . the extreme conservatives are easily the
most hostile and suspicious, the most rigid and com-
pulsive, the quickest to condemn others for their
imperfections and weaknesses, and the most intolerant,
the most inflexible and unyielding in their perceptions
and judgments (McClosky, 1958, 35-38).

Thus, from the research on conservatism, it seems that
conservative views among adults are less likely to be
rationally, consciously, and independently conceived and
more likely to be motivated by fear and "neurotic" anxiety

than are more liberal views (Bay, 1967).

In their theories of contemporary liberalism and
particularly student radical activism, social scientists
have expressed essentially two interpretations (Block,
1972; Keniston, 1968). One interpretation has been named
the "Radical-rebel" hypothesis (Keniston, 1968). In this
view, radical student protest is based on: (1) rebellion
against and hatred of all parental and societal authority;
(2) displaced aggression resulting from unresolved family
conflicts (e.g., Oedipal) wherein the student acts-out his
intrapsychic conflict in generational rebellion against the

establishment-as-parental-surrogate; (3) permissive

child-rearing from which the student failed to acquire the
necessary ego-controls for the constructive expression of
aggressive impulses; (4) the feeling of youth that they

"have no future, i.e., that modern technological advances
obviate the necessity for young men to constructively
strive toward bringing about needed social reform; (5)
extended dependency upon parents and/or school authorities
after adolescence; (6) a desire to do better than parents
who were weak in their beliefs and a simultaneous wish for
parental approval; (7) experience with the "emptiness" of
middle class values and life-style (Bettleheim, 1969;
Block, 1972; Feuer, 1969; Keniston, 1968). According to
the "Radical-rebel“ hypothesis, student protest is seen as
having little relation to rational motivation or realistic
social problems.

Another interpretation of social protest along
liberal dimensions holds that the parents of student
activists are themselves politically liberal, active, and
socialize their children toward political activism (Block,
1972; Flacks, 1967; Keniston, 1968). The similarity between
parental and child values indicates that identification
with, rather than rebellion against, the parents is a
predisposing force in student protest and liberalism. In
this view--which has more empirical support than the
radical-rebel hypothesis--political activism is based on
rational criticism of the society and a humanitarian

commitment to social change.

Thus data collected by Flacks (1967), in an interview
study of student activists and their parents (N = 100) and
in another study of participants and non-participants in a
large scale campus revolt (N = 117), support the view that
the parents of activists are affluent, highly educated, and
extremely liberal in their politics. Such parents

tend to transmit to their offspring values and life
styles which emphasize intellectual, aesthetic and
humanitarian concerns and de-emphasize occupational
and material achievement. An important component of
this type of family is a democratic and "permissive"
authority structure (Flacks, 1967).
Presumably, this socialization pattern predisposes offspring
to resist acts of authority perceived to be arbitrary or
hypocritical.

Furthermore, Keniston (1968) delineates two types of
liberal student dissenters: the "alienated" student and
the “activist" student. The "alienated" student is charac-
terized by private demonstrations of dissent: non-conformity
through behavior, dress, ideology; personal experimentation
and emphasis on subjective experience; hatred and pessimism
toward politics and society; withdrawal and a tendency to
"drop-out" of society (e.g., school). Alienated students
are more likely than activist students to be psychologically
disturbed, to avoid responsibility, and less likely to be
as committed to academic achievement. They reject parental
values, see their fathers as having sold out to materialism,

and are sympathetic toward their over-solicitous, con-

trolling mothers.

On the other hand, activist students tend to value
academic, non-vocational interests. They are generally
outstanding students, seldom drop out of school, and
frequently go on to graduate school. They espouse
humanitarian, expressive, and self-actualizing values and
are non-dogmatic, non-authoritarian. Such students seem
to have an unusual capacity for nurturant identification.
Activists are relatively satisfied with their college
education although dissatisfied with the civil-libertarian
defects of university administration. They are committed
to social change along liberal-radical dimensions and are
politically involved. They tend to identify with their
parents and live out expressed but unimplemented liberal
parental values. The parents are egalitarian and encourage
independence.

Some support for this alienated-activist differ-
entiation comes from a study by Block (1972). Students
from the University of California at Berkeley, and San
Francisco State College (N = 1051) were divided into two
groups: a generational continuity group (those rejecting
society but identifying with their parents) and a gener-
ational discontinuity group (those rejecting both society
and their parents). In studying the self and ideal-self
(Q—sort) descriptions as well as the students' perceptions
of parents for both groups, Block obtained the following

results: (1) The male continuity subjects described

themselves as being somewhat less unconventional, and as
more responsible, masculine, orderly and practical than

the male discontinuity subjects who regarded themselves as
creative and amusing. (2) The female continuity subjects
characterized themselves as having vitality, confidence,
independence, assertiveness, talkativeness, being more
informed, perceptive, and responsible as compared to the
discontinuity females who described themselves as rebellious,
doubting, shy, self-denying, stubborn, needing approval, and
worrying. (3) The male continuity subjects emphasized the
ideal of values of foresight, self-control, criticalness,
argumentativeness; while the male discontinuity subjects
emphasized genuineness and authenticity, creativity,
artistry, playfulness, and loving as their ideals. (4)

The female continuity subjects placed value on being logical,
considerate, and foresightful; the female discontinuity
subjects placed value on being adventurous, aloof and un-
involved, calm, reserved and shy, being free and not "hung-
up." (5) The parents of continuity subjects were described
by the undergraduates as being more candid, encouraging
individuation, placed less emphasis on authoritarian

control of impulse and affect, more comfortable in parental
roles, and showing greater inter-parent consistency on child-
rearing principles than parents in the discontinuity group
who were described as more authoritarian, tense, and

inconsistent.

10

Thus the research on liberalism seems to suggest
that liberal views among young adults may be adopted for
various reasons: (1) they are rationally, consciously, and
independently arrived at through education and greater
knowledge; (2) they are based on non-authoritarian, non-
dogmatic beliefs in humanitarian values; (3) they are the
result of identification with liberal parents; (4) they are
motivated by an unusual capacity for nuturant identification;
or (5) they are motivated by rebellion, fear, or "neurotic"
anxiety.

Social Attitudes and Parent-
Child Interaction

 

There has been little research conducted specifically
on the relationship between liberal-conservative social
attitudes and parent-child interaction. In this section, we
will review three studies on authoritarianism and parental
attitudes toward child rearing (Block, 1955; Hart, 1957;
Rates and Diab, 1955); two studies on liberal-conservative
social attitudes and parental opinions on child rearing
(Block, 1972; Shapiro, 1952); and one study on liberal-
conservative social attitudes and parent-child interaction
(Edwards, 1970).

In a study of authoritarian ideology and attitudes
on parent-child relations, Kates and Diab (1955) studied 61
male and 111 female students at the University of Oklahoma.

Each student was given the F (Fascism), E (Ethocentrism),

ll

PEC (Political-Economic Conservatism), and A (ambiguity
tolerance) scales; asked several questions about being a
potential parent; and given the University of Southern
California Parent Attitude Survey. Analysis of the data
indicated that, particularly for female students, authori-
tarian ideology was related to attitudes of dominance and
possessiveness toward children. Such attitudes implied
complete parental control over children's behavior, lack of
reSpect for children's rights, and subordination of children's
needs to parental needs.

Another study on authoritarian personality and child
rearing attitudes was conducted by Hart (1957). He inter-
viewed 126 mothers and found that those low on authori-
tarianism selected love~oriented disciplinary techniques
while those high on authoritarianism selected non-love-
oriented disciplinary techniques. He also found that
authoritarian child rearing practices were unrelated to:
the mother's age; the child's age, sex, and birth order; and
number of children in the family.

Another study, by Block (1955), was conducted as
part of a larger research project on 100 military officers.
The 20 highest scoring fathers (restrictive) on the Child
Attitude Scale and the 20 lowest scorers (permissive) were
selected as contrasting groups. Each subject then underwent
a three day assessment procedure after which each was

evaluated by means of a Q-sort personality description. The

12

results indicated that restrictive fathers tended to be
constricted, submissive, suggestible persons lacking in
self-assurance (i.e., the authoritarian personality).
Permissive fathers were evaluated as self-reliant, ascendant,
and as functioning effectively. However, Block cautioned
against the generalizability of these results since military
officers are hardly a group representative of the general
population.

In a study of 197 working and middle-class males
and females, Shapiro (1952) administered the Parental Attitude
Inventory which measures parental behavior in terms of two
theories of child development: psychoanalytic theory and
"restrictive—permissive" theory; and the Social Attitude
Inventory which measures radicalism (political opinions) and
tendermindedness (humanitarian values). The major finding
was that a person's political opinions were Significantly
related to opinions on matters affecting the child's free
expression of his wishes. Specifically, the lower an
individual's score on radicalism, the more likely he was to
be restrictive of the child's freedom of expression.

Block (1972), utilizing a political attitude question-
naire and the Child Rearing Practices Report (9l-item Q-sort
on parental values and behavior), studied three types of
university students and their parents. She administered the
tests to both the undergraduates and their parents. Com—

parisons among the three parental groups yielded many

13

significant results: (1) Liberal parents of liberal
children ({generational continuity? group,_N = 28) evidenced
greater comfort in parental roles and were more candid with
their children. They encouraged individuation, placed less
emphasis on authoritarian control of impulse and affect
(except for aggression), and showed greater inter-parent
consistency than the "generational discontinuity" group.

(2) Conservative parents of conservative children ("gener-

 

:ational continuity" group, N = 28) emphasized discipline and
self-control. The fathers in this group were more authori-
tarian and focused upon power and status differentials
between parents and children. The mothers were more con-
cerned with competition and achievement. These parents
encouraged guilt and the suppression of impulse and affect.
They also showed greater inter-parent consistency than the
discontinuity group. (3) Conservative parents of liberal
children ("generational discontinuity" group, N = 17) were
more tense in their parental roles. They were more concerned
with authoritarian controls, discipline, and suppression of
impulse and affect. The mothers in this group were overly
involved with their children and exercised authoritarian
control over the child's actions. The fathers were incon-
sistent and somewhat conflicted about setting limits on the
child's actions. The couples in this group showed less
inter-parent agreement on child rearing practices than

either of the "generational continuity" groups.

14

Lastly, Edwards (1970) studied conservative-liberal
ideology and parent-child interaction. According to their
responses to a socio-political telephone questionnaire, 20
upper-middle class families with a child between four and
five years old were selected to form liberal and conservative
groups. Each family was videotaped as they interacted freely
in a playroom for 20 minutes. Parental behavior was coded on
20 objective and 2 subjective behavioral units. The two
groups were then compared on each of the 20 specific
behavioral units; on global scores based on combinations of
units in three areas--warmth, empathy, and genuineness; and
on the 2 subjective categories of warmth and genuineness.

The few t-test values that reached statistical
significance indicated that liberal parents scored signifi-
cantly higher than conservative parents on the specific
behavior category of "giving help," the combined category
of "warmth," and the subjective category of "genuineness."
The conservative parents did not score significantly higher
than the liberal parents on any categories. Edwards con—
cluded that: "In view of the general non-significance of
results . . . liberal and conservative parents do not
demonstrate many differences in parental behavior as
measured in this study" (1970, p. 52).

It should be noted that the observation period was
only 20 minutes in length in a free play situation. No

data were collected in parent-child problem situations. It

15

is possible that differences in parental behavior would
more likely be observed when the child and parent were in
conflict. Thus the present study focused on this question.
In summary, the small amount of research on authori-
tarianism, social attitudes, and parent-child interaction
presents a fairly consistent picture of differences between
liberal and conservative parents. Attributes apparently
associated with parental conservatism are dominance;
possessiveness; non-love oriented discipline; restrictive-
ness of the child's free expression of needs; emphasis on
authoritarian control of impulse and affect, power,
competition, guilt; and in some cases, inconsistency and
anxiety in parental roles. Parental liberalism seems to be
associated with permissiveness of the child's free expression
of needs; greater comfort and consistency in parental roles;
honesty with children; encouragement of individuation; less
emphasis on control of impulse and affect (except for
aggression); helpfulness; warmth; and genuineness. However,
the significance of these results is tempered when con-
sidering the methodologies through which they were obtained.
With the exception of Edward's (1970) study, the
research relating parent's liberal-conservative social
attitudes to parental behavior has relied on retrospective
questionnaire and interview data rather than direct
observation. There are a number of problems involved in

the generalizability of results from such research, notably:

16

the influence of social context factors (conformity or social
desirability) on attitudinal expressions were not assessed;
and there is no empirical evidence indicating a clear,

positive relationship between expressedgparental attitudes

 

and actual parental behavior (Bell, 1958).

Furthermore, in Edwards (1970) study, observing the
family in free playroom interaction for 20 minutes may not
have allowed enough time or provided enough stimulation for
subtle aspects of parent-child interaction to emerge
(esPecially the kind of parent-child conflicts of needs that
occur naturally in day-to-day family life). With these
methodological considerations in mind, the conclusions
reached in the above research must be regarded, at best, as
tentative.

Dimensions of Parental Behavior Affecting
the Socio-Emotional Development
of_Children

A number of researchers have suggested that parental
behavior can be described adequately by combinations of the
two orthogonal dimensions: autonomy versus control and love
versus hostility (Becker, 1964; Bierman, 1969; Carson,

1969; Schaefer, 1959). In this section, we will examine
some of this research suggesting a Circumplex model of
parental behavior and its relationship to the positive
socio-emotional development of children.

Schaefer (1959) re-analyzed several sets of data on

maternal behavior previously studied by himself and others.

17

The data consisted of ratings of 56 mothers interacting with
their children; ratings from home interviews with 34 mothers;
intercorrelations among eight behavioral traits of 48
families rated on "parental press"; and intercorrelations
among the 19 variables of the Fels Parent Behavior Rating
Scales. Factor analysis of the first three sets of data
yielded two factors accounting for most of the variance.
Schaefer labeled these two factors autonomy-control and
love-hostility. Data from the Fels Scales were less
impressive but generally supported the notion of two
factors.

Maternal behaviors associated with the first factor
were autonomy at one pole and maternal anxiety, intrusive-
ness, concern about health, achievement demands, excessive
contact, fostering dependency, strictness, social isolation,
and wish to control at the other pole (Control). On the
second factor, one pole (Love) would be characterized by
positive evaluation of the child and expression of affection
while the other pole (Hostility) would be characterized by
ignoring, punitiveness, perceives child as a burden, irri-
tability, use of fear to control, and aggression. Schaefer
then placed the two orthogonal dimensions in a hypothetical
Circumplex believing that the data could be characterized
more adequately in this form than in discrete dimensions

(See Figure l).

18

 

 

AUTONOMY
Detached Free
Indifferent Democratic
Neglecting Cooperative
Rejecting Accepting
HOSTILITY LOVE
Demanding- Overindulgent
Antagonistic Protective-
indulgent
Authoritarian- Overprotective
dictatorial
Possessive
CONTROL

Figure l. Circumplex of maternal behaviors.

Source: From E. S. Schaefer, "A Circumplex Model for Maternal
Behavior," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1959),
59, 232.

19

Becker (1964), following Schaefer's lead, conducted
a comprehensive review of parent-child interaction research.
He organized the findings around the orthogonal dimensions:
warmth versus hostility and restrictiveness versus per-
missiveness. Thus, a number of child characteristics were
discovered to be associated with different kinds of parental
discipline as described in the quadrants on the Circumplex
(see Figure 2). In summarizing this portion of his review,
Becker (1964) states:

The counter-aggression generating properties of
hostility are apparent in the child of both permissive-
hostile and restrictive-hostile parents. In the former,
the aggression is expressed directly with little control.
In the latter, the aggression is expressed in certain
safe areas (with peers), but is more likely to be
inhibited and turned against the self, or be revealed
in manifestations of internal conflicts. On theoretical
grounds, the restrictive-hostile conditions would be
expected to produce the most defensive identification or
identification with the aggressor. The many parallels
between the effects of this condition with the results
of the authoritarian personality studies should be
apparent.

The findings for the warm-permissive condition are
consistent with the recommendations of child-rearing
specialists concerned with maximizing socially out-going
characteristics and individuality. The child with warm-
permissive parents is socialized mainly through love,
good models, reasons, and a trial and error learning of
how his actions . . . have an impact on others (p. 198).

He also reviews findings on consistent and inconsistent
parental discipline of children.

Thus he notes that several approaches have been
taken to study parents' disciplinary inconsistency: con-
glomerate ratings of the stability in parent-child inter-

actions, the individual consistency of disciplinary behavior

20

 

 

PERMISSIVENESS
Active, socially outgoing,
creative, successfully
aggressive; facilitates
Delinquency adult role-taking
Non-compliance Minimal rule enforcement for
boys; minimal self-aggression
Maximal aggression for boys
Independent, friendly, creative,
low projective hostility
HOSTILITY WARMTH
Submissive, dependent,
Neurotic problems polite, neat, obedient
Maximum rule enforcement;
More quarreling minimal aggression
and shyness with
peers
Socially with- Dependent, not friendly, not
drawn creative
Low in adult role Maximal compliance
taking
Maximal self-
aggression for
boys
RESTRICTIVENESS
Figure 2. Consequences of parental warmth versus hostility and per-

missiveness versus restrictiveness on the behavior of
children (Becker, 1964, p. 198).

21

over time for a parent; and comparisons between spouses on
severity of demands placed on the child (Becker, 1964).
Surveying the literature, particularly on delinquency, he
observes: "Inconsistent discipline apparently contributes
to 'maladjustment,' conflict, and aggression in the child.
There is obviously a need for more carefully controlled
research on different kinds of inconsistency . . ." (Becker,
1964, p. 200). In this context, it is surprising that
researchers have not compared disciplinary techniques in
different areas of child behavior, e.g., sex exploration,
sibling rivalry, inconsiderateness, stealing, and so on.
The present study attempted to examine in what ways child
behavior variables affected the behavior of parents and
parental consistency.

Lastly, Reif and Stollak (1972), in reviewing
client-centered approaches to child therapy and various
studies on parent-child interaction, arrived at a set of
adult behaviors assumed to facilitate effective child
functioning. Facilitative adult behaviors seem to be

(1) behaviors associated with understanding the child,
e.g., Reflection of verbal content, Reflection of
feelings, Reflection of motor behavior, and Interpre-
tation; (2) behaviors associated with the expression of
positive feelings towards the child, e.g., Praise of
behavior, Affection, and Warmth; (3) behaviors associated
with appropriate control and participation, e.g.,
Setting limits with explanations, Orienting, Clarifying
compliance, Giving help, and Reciprocal participation
in Fantasy behavior; and (4) behaviors associated with
the [Adult's] expression of himself as an individual,

e.g., Statements of own emotion and Genuineness (Reif &
Stollak, 1972, p. 19).

22

On the other hand, non-facilitative adult behaviors toward
children appear to involve "behaviors associated with non-
acceptance of the child" and "behaviors associated with over
or under control of the child" (p. 19).

Hence the research on parent-child interaction
indicates that parental actions promoting the positive
socio-emotional development of children are those associated
with the Love-Autonomy quadrant of the Circumplex model
(acceptance, understanding, and appropriate limit-setting).
More specifically, it seems that consistent, democratic and
cooperative_parental behaviors are the most effective in

successful socialization of the young (see Figure l).

Researchgguestions

In view of the above research, the present study
attempted to measure the interrelationships among three
variables: parental liberal and conservative social
attitudes; parental behavior toward children in terms of
two orthogonal dimensions (love-hostility and autonomy-
control); and the consistency of parental behaviors in
response to various problem situations involving a young
child. More specifically, we wished to examine (in terms
of love-hostility and autonomy-control) the responses of
"liberal" and "conservative" parents to problem situations
in the following areas of child behavior: inconsiderate-
ness, separation anxiety, peer sex exploration, sadness,

stealing, sibling rivalry, protesting limits, concealing

23

actions, masturbation, smoking, anger and frustration,

feelings of failure, need for love and reassurance, upset

over punishment, disapointment, and fear of peer aggression.

The following questions were considered:

In terms of the two dimensions of parental behavior
(love-hostility and autonomy-control), do parents
expressing liberal attitudes differ significantly

from parents expressing conservative attitudes?

With respect to each of the 16 problem situations,
do parents expressing liberal attitudes give
significantly different responses from parents

expressing conservative attitudes?

In terms of the two dimensions of parental behavior
(love-hostility and autonomy-control), does each of
the 16 problem situations elicit significantly
different responses than the other problem situ-

ations?

In terms of the two dimensions of parental behavior
looked at separately and with respect to each of the
16 problem situations taken separately, do parents
expressing liberal attitudes give significantly
different responses from parents expressing con-

servative attitudes?

METHOD

The data for this study were originally collected
and some of them analyzed by Edwards (1970) and by Liberman,
Stollak and Denner (1971) in State College, Pennsylvania.
However, the data for the dependent variables analyzed in
the present study (parental responses to problem situations
involving a young child) were not analyzed previously. The
following descriptions of the data collection process and
analysis of the independent variable (liberal-conservative

social attitudes) are based on the report by Edwards (1970).

Subjects and Procedures

Two groups--one expressing liberal and the other
expressing conservative attitudes--of 10 couples each were
selected from a group of 40 families who responded to
advertisements in local and campus newspapers (see Appendix
for a copy of the advertisement). In all families, husband
and wife were white, 30 years of age or under (the mean age
being 27.55 years). The mean age of their children was
4.58 years. There were 5 male and 5 female children in the
"conservative" group and 6 male and 4 female children in

the "liberal" group. As determined by the Hollingshead

24

25

Index (Hollingshead, 1957), the socio-economic status of
the families was Group II or upper-middle (see Appendix B).
The two groups (liberal and conservative) were
selected from the extremes of scores obtained on a twelve-
item telephone questionnaire (see Appendix C for a copy of
the questionnaire). Two psychologists agreed on the face
validity of the twelve items in assessing conservative and
liberal attitudes on such issues as American foreign policy,
virginity, use of marijuana, sex-role signs, interracial
marriage, etc. The questions were carefully constructed
using suggestions by Bell (1958) so that response set and
social desirability of the response would not intervene.
Three investigators received the calls in a specified
manner and administered the questionnaire according to a
fixed format as follows:
Hello. Thank you for calling. This is Miss
secretary to Dr. . As you noted in the ads, we
are interested in talking to families concerning certain
aspects of family life. I would like to ask you some
questions now. Your answers will be used to select
families for the main study, and if you are selected to
participate, you will be paid $25.00 for your family's
time. All of the questions I will ask you have the same
form. I am going to read you a statement. I would like
you to respond by saying either, "I strongly agree, I
moderately agree, I moderately disagree, or I strongly
disagree."
These statements touch upon many attitudes and values.
Of course, your answers will be kept strictly confi-
dential and eventually all answer sheets will be
destroyed. Any questions?
First: Do you strongly agree, moderately agree,
moderately disagree, or strongly disagree with the

following statement. . . . What are your feelings about
this statement. . . . This is the last one . . .

26

Will you please give me your name, address and telephone
number. . . . If you are selected, we will be calling
you to make an appointment for you and your family.
Thank you very much for your help.
The 20 families finally selected were contacted by telephone
and invited to participate further in the study. None of
these families refused to participate in the second phase.
However, four of the families selected by the rank ordering
could not be reached by phone. Four alternate families with
comparable scores (within one point) were chosen to replace
them so that there would be ten families in each group.
Convenient times for mother, father, and child to come to the
psychology clinic together were arranged.

At the time of the family's arrival, a "permission
concerning participation in research" form and the Sensi-
tivity to Children (STC) questionnaire (Stollak, 1972) were
completed by each parent (a copy of the STC can be found in
Appendix D). The parent who had not responded to the
telephone questionnaire also completed this task in written

form at the clinic. The families than participated in other

tasks not relevant to the present study.

Scoring the Independent Variable
The independent variable (liberal or conservative
social attitudes) was measured by the 12-item telephone
questionnaire and analyzed by Edwards (1970). Scoring was
accomplished by awarding 4 points for "strongly" conservative

responses and 3 for "moderately" conservative ones.

27

"Moderately" liberal responses received 2 points. "Strongly"
liberal responses received 1 point. The ten families with
the highest scores were considered conservative while those
with the ten lowest scores were considered liberals for the
purposes of the study. The responses of each subject may
be found in Table 1.

The group means after averaging both husband and
wife scores were 34.35 and 19.95 for conservatives and
liberals respectively. The scores had a range of 13 to 43
points with a maximum possible range on the questionnaire
of 12 to 48 points. T-tests of significance were applied
by Edwards (1970) to the scores of the selected couples.
These grouped scores were found to be significantly differ-
ent at the .001 level thus assuring that the two groups
selected for this study were significantly different in
their responses on the lZ-item social attitudes question-
naire. Results of these t-tests are reproduced in Tables 2,
3, and 4.

As shown in the tables, liberal families and con-
servative families were not two monolithic groups. Thus
the husband in couple "0" (liberals) was more "conservative"
than the husband in couple D (conservatives); the wife's
score in couple N (liberals) was equal to the husband's
score in couple D (conservatives). Conservative husband's
attitudes toward communal living and virginity did not

differ significantly from liberal husband's attitudes in

28

 

 

MN. mm. mm. mm mm. mm. mm. mm .Hm mm
NN N H H N N N N N N N can xmmuHc: .NH
NN N N H N H N N H N N mcHummu uHHno .HH
ON N N N N N N N N N N mcHumou oHHno .OH
HN N H N H N H N N N N Hmsmsmov muoumuHma .N
NN N N N N H N N N N N 6mm mcHuo> .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N mHHmmmm cmHmuom .N
HN N N N N N N N N N N Nuum>om .N
ON N N N N N N N N N N mmcsseoo .N
NN N N H N N N N N N H NuNchuH> .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N HmHomnumuaH .N
ON N N N N N N N N N N mcmsNHumz .N
mm m N m m m m m m H m mum coaumnocmw .H
Am>fiuw>ummcouv mm>a3
mm mm mm mm mm mm hm mm mm. mm
NN N N N N N N H N N N cam xwmuHao .NH
NN N N N N N N H N N N maHummu oHHno .HH
NN N N N N N N N N H N mcHummu nHHao .NH
NN N N N N N N N N N H Amsmsmov muoumuHma .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N mom mcho> .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N muHmNNm :mHmnom .N
ON N N N N N N N N H H Nuum>om .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N mmcsssoo .N
NN N N N N H N N N H H NuHchuH> .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N HNHomuumuaH .N
NN N N N N N N H N N N mamsNHumz .N
NN N N N N N N N N N N mam coHumumcmo .H
Am>flum>nmmcouv mnsmnmsm
Hmuoe n H m o m m a o m a mcoHummao
.mucmumm

Hmumnflq tam mpcmumm m>Huw>HmmGOUIIoHNmacowummso ozonmmama on noncommmmll.H Manda

29

 

 

bm .mpwH .mH .NH _bm NH .mm .mm mm .NH
NH H N H H H H N N N H can xmmuHcD .NH
N.NH N N.H N H H H H N H N NcHuNmu NHHno .HH
NH N H H N N N H H N H NcHummu NHHzo .NH
mH H H H H H H N H H H HmsmEmuv muoumuHmm .m
mH H H H H H N N H N H mmw msHu0> .m
mH H H H m N m H N H H mHHmmmm cmHmuom .h
NN N N N H N N N N N H Nuum>om .N
NN N H N H N N N N N N mmnsssoo .N
NH H N N H H H H H H H NanHmuH> .N
NH H N H H N H N N N H HmHoNHumucH .N
mH N H N H H H N N N H mamanHHmz .N
NH .H H H H N N N H N H mam coHumnmcmu .H
HHNnmnHHV mo>Hz
.rH mhmH mm. .NH up. Hm. .pm NH .MH MH
NH H N H H H N H H H H can xmmuHcs .NH
N.NH H N.H N H H N N H H N maHummu NHHso .HH
NH N H N N N N N H H H quHNmH NHHao .0H
OH H H H H H H H H H H Hmsmsmov NHoHNHHNN .N
NH N H N H H N H H H H mom NaHuo> .N
NH H H N H N N N H H H NNHNHNN cNHmuom .N
NH H N H H N H H H H H Nuum>om .N
NN N H N N N N N N N N mmcsssoo .N
NH H N N N H N N H H H NuHcHNuH> .N
NH N N N H H N H N H N HmHoNHnmucH .N
NH H H H H H N H N H H chNNHHNz .N
NH H H N H N N N H H H mam coHuNumcmo .H
HHNHNQHHV Noamnmsm
Hmuoa a N m o N o z s H s NcoHuNmso

 

.cmscHucooau.H mHmme

30

TABLE 2.--Comparison of Liberal and Conservative Responses
to Individual Items on Telephone Questionnaire.

 

 

Conservative Conservative
Husbands Wives
No. Questions Liberal Liberal
Husbands Wives
t-Tests t-Tests
1. Generation gap 3.2* 2.7*
2. Marijuana 6.6* 15.0*
3. Interracial 3.2* 4.0*
4. Virginity 0.6 2.4*
5. Communes 2.2 2.9*
6. Poverty 3.8* 1.6
7. Foreign affairs 4.4* 3.0*
8. Voting age 4.2* 2.8*
9. Agitators (Campus) 5.6* 1.8
10. Child rearing 2.2 3.1*
11. Child rearing 2.8* 2.1
12. Uni-sex fad 3.1* 2.4*

 

*p < .05.

31

TABLE 3.--Comparison of Husband-Wife Responses to Individual
Items on Telephone Questionnaire.

 

 

Conservative Liberal
No. Questions Husbands-Wives Husbands-Wives
t-Tests t-Tests

1. Generation gap 1.1 0.2

2. Marijuana 2.0 1.4

3. Interracial 0.4 0.5

4. Virginity 0.7 1.0

5. Communes 2.2 0.6

6. Poverty 0.2 2.7*

7. Foreign affairs 0.3 0.6

8. Voting age 0.2 0.6

9. Agitators (Campus) 1.0 1.0
10. Child rearing 0.8 0.0
11. Child rearing 0.8 0.3
12. Uni-sex fad 0.2 0.7

 

*p < .05.

32

TABLE 4.-—Comparison of Total Scores Between Groups on
Telephone Questionnaire.

 

Groups t-Test Value

 

Conservative Husbands vs.
Liberal Husbands 8.0*

Conservative Wives vs.
Liberal Wives 8.0*

Conservative Husbands vs.
Conservative Wives 0.6

Liberal Husbands vs.
Liberal Wives 0.9

All Conservatives vs.
All Liberals 11.0*
(Using average of husband and
wife score)

 

*p < .05

these areas. Liberal and conservative wives‘ attitudes on
poverty did not significantly differ. Nevertheless, the
liberal couples as a group held significantly different
attitudes from conservative couples as a group when their

opinions on all 12 items were considered.

Scoring the Dependent Variables
The dependent variables for the present study were
parental responses to 16 parent-child problem situations as
described on the STC. Problem situations were used to elicit
parental responses because such events in the course of
family life were more likely to elicit distinctive features

of parental behavior than were free-play and other naturalistic

33

situations. Parent-child verbal interaction and need
arousal is often infrequent and of low order in such
encounters.

In this study, the types of parental responses to
the problem situations were differentiated according to a
scoring system the author derived from Schaefer's (1959)
"Circumplex model." The coding system consisted of be-
havioral and attitudinal categories representing various
combinations of levels on two orthogonal, bipolar dimensions
of parental behavior toward children: autonomy-control and
love-hostility. Each dimension was subdivided into five
levels that were assigned numerical values representing the
opposite poles of the dimension and points in between.

Thus, the autonomy-control dimension was subdivided
into: laissez-faire (+2); freedom with limits (+1); une
scorable (0); narrow limits (-1); and rigid limits (-2).
The love-hostility dimension was broken into: acceptance
(+2); mild acceptance (+1); unscorable (0); mild rejection
(-l); and rejection (-2) (see Appendix E for more specific
definitions of the rating categories).

Two assistants were given written descriptions,
practice examples, and questions designed to pinpoint the
subjective effects on the child of the various types of

parental behavior.* They were asked to commit the

 

*The assistants were Deletha Crum and Mary McCaslin.

34

categories and descriptions to memory. The parental
response to each problem situation on an STC was given two
numerical ratings by each coder: one rating on the love—
hostility dimension and another on the autonomy-control
dimension. Thus these two numerical scores formed the co-
ordinates of some point on a Circumplex graph of the two
intersecting, bipolar dimensions. The placement of this
point determined what quadrant was most descriptive of the
response and to what degree (see sample scoring sheet in

Appendix F).

Reliability

After approximately 12 hours of practice coding and
further discussion of the categories, the two assistants
each scored the 40 experimental STC's (20 from liberal and
20 from conservative couples). When scoring was completed,
inter-coder reliability was calculated using Pearson
product-moment correlations. The correlations for each
dimension of the responses to each problem situation are
presented in Appendix G. They ranged from .18 to .88 with
a mean of .55 on the love-hostility dimension. For the
autonomy-control dimension, the correlations ranged from

-.21 to 1.00 with a mean of .47.

RESULTS

The dependent measures selected for analysis in this
study were the responses of liberal and conservative parents
to 16 problem situations involving a young child (STC
items). Two trained coders independently scored the 40
parents' STC's on the dimensions of love-hostility and
autonomy-control so that inter-rater reliability could be
obtained. From these 80 STC scoring sheets, 40 were selected
for the analysis. Twenty of the first coders' scoring
sheets representing 10 liberal and 10 conservative parents
were randomly selected. The other 20 scoring sheets came
from the second coder's ratings of the other 10 liberal and
10 conservative parents' responses. These data were analyzed
by means of a 2 (Political Orientation: liberal-conservative)
by 2 (Dimensions: love-hostility/autonomy-control) by 16
(Items: STC problem situations) analysis of variance with
repeated measures on the last two factors. A summary of the

analysis of variance is presented in Table 5.

Analysis of Variance
The analysis of variance revealed significant main

effects for Groups and for Items. It also revealed a

35

36

TABLE 5.--Resu1ts of Analysis of Variance.

 

 

Source df MS F
Political Orientation (A) 1 30.63 6.14*
BE within A 38 4.99 -
Dimensions (B) l .32 .52
AB 1 6.04 9.90**
B x §§ within A 38 .61 —

STC Items (C) 15 17.48 18.80***
AC 15 1.46 1.57
C x BE within A 570 .93 -
BC 15 4.13 9.18***
ABC 15 .27 .60
BC x _s__§_ within A 570 .45 -

 

*p < .025.
**p < .005.
***p < .001.

37

significant Groups by Dimensions interaction and a signifi-
cant Dimensions by Items interaction. These interactions
were explored further through analysis of the simple effetts.
Specifically, the simple effects of Dimensions within each

Group and Dimensions within each Item were examined.

Groups X Dimensions Interaction

Table 6 presents cell means relevant to the simple
effects analysis that was performed to explore the signifi-
cant Dimensions X Groups interaction. The analysis revealed
that Liberals tended to respond significantly higher on the
Love-Hostility dimension than did Conservatives (F = 11.41,
p < .005). On the Autonomy-Control dimensions, however, a
significant difference between Liberals and Conservatives
was not found (F = 1.69).

In addition, the cell means were compared to 0 to
see if they significantly differed from the neutral point on
the dimension in question. Error terms for these comparisons
were derived from the appropriate Mg error following a
procedure suggested by Winer (1971, p. 385). These com-
parisons indicated that both Liberals and Conservatives were
significantly more accepting then rejecting of the child and
more permissive than restrictive of the child's actions.

A Circumplex graph of Liberal and Conservative
parents' mean scores on the two dimensions can be found in

Appendix H. The graph (along with the analyses above)

38

TABLE 6.--Analysis of Simple Effects: Groups X Dimensions

 

 

 

Interaction.
Groups
Dimensions _ _
Liberals (X) Conservatives (X)
Love-Hostility .73a .28a
Autonomy-Control .56a .39a

 

aValue differs significantly (p’< .05) from 0.

indicates that both groups are located significantly in the

Love-Autonomy quadrant of the Circumplex.

Dimensions X Items Interaction

 

Table 7 presents cell means and F values relevant to
the simple effects analysis of the significant Dimensions X
Items interaction. The analysis revealed that in parent-
child problem situations involving the child's Sadness,
Feelings of Failure, Need for Love and Reassurance, and Upset
over Punishment, parents responded higher on the Love-
Hostility than they did on the Autonomy-Control Dimension.
In addition, F-tests comparing the cell means to 0 indicated
that parents' responses in these situations were signifi-
cantly more toward the Love and Autonomy poles of the two
dimensions except in the case of Upset over Punishment where
there was no significant difference between Autonomy and

Control.

39

TABLE 7.--Analysis of Simple Effects:

Dimensions X Items Interaction.

 

Dimension Means

 

 

Item
Love-Hostility Autonomy-Control F

. a a
1. Incon51derateness .53 .95 7.87**

. . a a
2. Separatlon Anx1ety .53 .60 .26
3. Peer Sex Exploration .10 .32a 2.22
4. Sadness 1.33a 1.00 4.61*
5. Stealing -.08 .32a 6.96**
6. Sibling Rivalry -.13 .30a 7.87**
7. Protesting Limits .28 .18 .43

. . a a
8. Conceallng Actions .40 .70 3.91*
9. Masturbation .50a .45a .11
10. Smoking .18 .50a 4.61*
11. Anger and Frustration -.70a -.60a .43
12. Feelings of Failure 1.37a .77a 15.65***
13. Love and Reassurance 1.67a .38a 73.48***
14. Upset Over Punishment .35a .03 4.61*
15. Disappointment .83a .95a .70
16. Fear of Peer Aggression .93a .73a 1.74

 

aValue is significantly (p_< .05)

*p < .05.
**p < .01.

***p < .001.

different from O.

40

The simple effects analysis also revealed that in
problem situations involving the child's Inconsiderateness,
Concealing Actions, Cigarette Smoking, Stealing, and Sibling
Rivalry, parents responded higher on the Autonomy-Control
than they did on the Love—Hostility dimension. F-tests
comparing the cell means to 0 indicated that parental
responses in all these situations were significantly more
permissive than restrictive. In the situations involving
Inconsiderateness and Concealing Actions, parents were also
significantly more accepting than rejecting. Parental
responses were not significantly more accepting than
rejecting in the Cigarette Smoking, Stealing, and Sibling
Rivalry situations.

For problem situations involving the child's Anger
and Frustration, Separation Anxiety, Peer Sex Exploration,
Protesting Limits, Masturbation, Disappointment, and Fear of
Peer Aggression, the simple effects analysis revealed no
significant differences in the emphasis parents placed on
the Love-Hostility versus the Autonomy-Control dimension.
However, comparing the cell means to 0 indicated that in the
problem situation involving the child's Anger and Frustration,
parents were significantly more rejecting than accepting and
more restrictive than permissive toward the child.

Furthermore, the comparisons of cell means with 0
showed that situations involving the child's Separation

Anxiety, Masturbation, Disappointment, and Fear of Peer

41

Aggression elicited significantly more Love than Hostility
and more Autonomy than Control responses from parents. The
Peer Sex Exploration item showed that parents tended to be
significantly more permissive than restrictive of their
child's actions but not more accepting than rejecting.
Lastly, in the situation involving the child's Protesting
Limits, comparisons of cell means with 0 revealed that
parents were not significantly more accepting or rejecting
nor were they more permissive or restrictive of the child's

behavior.

DISCUSSION

Overview

The present study was undertaken to explore whether
parents expressing liberal social attitudes differed
significantly from parents expressing conservative attitudes
in terms of their responses to children in various problem
situations. This section contains a discussion of: (l)
liberalism-conservatism and dimensions of parental behavior;
(2) parents' behavioral consistency across problem situ-
ations; (3) methodological considerations affecting the
results; and (4) the implications of the present study for
child development and future research.

Liberalism-Conseryatism and
Dimensions of Parental
Behavior

One of the major questions of this study was whether
parents who expressed liberal attitudes differed signifi-
cantly from parents who expressed conservative attitudes in
their behavior toward children. Viewing parental behavior
along two dimensions, we found that the liberal parents in
this study scored significantly more toward the love end of

the love-hostility dimension than did conservative parents.

42

43

Although both groups tended to be more accepting than
rejecting, liberal parents were significantly more accepting
of their children's needs and feelings than were conservative
parents.

This finding was consistent with previous research
indicating that liberal persons and liberal parents had a
high capacity for nurturant identification, selected love—
oriented disciplinary techniques, encouraged the child's
free expression of needs and feelings, gave more help to
their children, and were warmer (Hart, 1957; Keniston, 1968;
Shapiro, 1952). However, the results did not support
previous research on authoritarian-conservative persons and
parents which indicated they tended to be hostile; cynical;
destructive; punitive-moralistic; quick to condemn others
for their imperfections; lacking in respect for children's
rights and needs; non-love oriented in discipline; discourag-
ing the child's free expression of needs; and encouraging
guilt (Adorno, 23 31., 1950; Block, 1972; Hart, 1957; Kates
and Diab, 1955; McClosky, 1958; Sanford, 1972; Shapiro,
1952). The "conservatives" in this study were not hostile-
rejecting but merely less accepting than "liberals."

It could be hypothesized that the conservative
parents were generally more fearful than liberals of feelings
of failure, disappointment, anger, sexual curiosity, etc.,
and were less accepting of such feelings in children. We

could speculate that the authoritarian's rigid adherence to

44

conventional values and high anti-intraception left him
slightly threatened by many of the child's feelings presented
on the STC.

Another finding of the present study was that a
significant difference did not occur between liberal and
conservative parents on the autonomy—control dimension.

Both groups of parents tended to be significantly more
permissive than restrictive. This finding contradicted
previous research which indicated that conservatives (as
compared to liberals) tended to place more emphasis on power
and toughness; to be more dominant with children; to be more
restrictive with children; and to emphasize suppression,
discipline, status, and self-control in child rearing
(Adorno, gp‘al., 1950; Block, 1955; Block, 1972; Kates and
Diab, 1955; Sanford, 1972; Shapiro, 1952).

To determine if comparisons between the more extreme
members of these socio-political groups might have yielded
evidence of a difference on the autonomy-control dimension,
the data were studied impressionistically. Taking the STC
responses of the six most extreme liberals (3 males and 3
females) and the six most extreme conservatives (3 males and
3 females), no striking contrasts were found on the autonomy-
control dimension. Furthermore, such contrasts were not
evident in gas; of the comparisons between extreme groups

on the love-hostility dimension.

45

From this sample of 12 subjects, two parents (con—
servatives) were extremely hostile toward the child in most
of the STC situations while the four other conservative
parents seemed to respond much more similarly to the
”moderately accepting" liberal parents. Impressionistically,
then, some conservative parents seemed more rejecting than
liberal parents but most conservatives seemed as accepting
as liberals. These comparisons gave further evidence of the
heterogeneity within groups and illustrated the difficulty
in making accurate behavioral predictions for the individual
who expresses liberal or conservative attitudes.

We could speculate that the lack of significant
differences between groups on the autonomy-control dimension
was a function of the methodology, particularly the low
inter-rater reliabilities. Although the commonly accepted
statistically significant difference (i.e., p < .05) was not
obtained, the groups did differ at the p < .10 level on the
autonomy-control dimension, with conservatives scoring more
towards the "control" end than liberals. Perhaps this
indicates a trend, which might have reached statistical
significance (p < .05) had reliability been greater, or the
subject pool larger.

An alternative explanation could be that previous
research has failed to observe the parental behavior of
liberals and conservatives on the Egg salient dimensions.

Thus most of the previous research has focused simply on

46

global permissiveness versus restrictiveness, and results
based on the ratings of this one dimensions could well have
been confounded by the love-hostility factor inherent in all
parental behavior. These explanations are speculative, and
the test of their efficacy must wait for future research
based on more reliable methodologies.
Parents' Behavioral Consistency
AcrossLPESBIEE_§ituations

Another major question explored in this study con-
cerned parental inconsistency, i.e., whether different
problem situations would elicit different kinds of responses
from parents. The significant dimensions X items interaction
indicated that parents were not responding consistently from
one item to the next. In an attempt to explain why certain
items seemed to elicit similar parental responses, the
results of the simple effects analysis will be discussed
below in terms of "problem-ownership" (Gordon, 1970; Stollak,
Scholom, Kallman, and Saturansky, in press).

Parents gave significantly higher "love" than
"autonomy" responses in situations involving the child's
sadness, feelings of failure, need for love and reassurance
and Epset over punishment. These problem situations seemed
to have in common the child's personal discomfort and
"psychic" pain. They fit Gordon's (1970) criteria for
"child-owned" problems: "The child has a problem because he

is thwarted in satisfying a need. It is not a problem for

47

the parent because the child's behavior in no tangible way
interferes with the parent's satisfying his own needs"
(p. 64).

Thus it seemed that in parent-child problem situations
where the child "owned" the problem, parents were likely to
emphasize the love dimension by communicating acceptance,
understanding, and by giving support and encouragement to
the child. In child-owned problem situations, parents were
more likely to convey acceptance of the child's feelings
than to set limits on his behavior. This finding supports
previous research findings by Stollak, £2.21. (in press),
that in child-owned problem situations involving sadness,
feelings of failure, and upset over punishment, parents
focused their communications on the child's feelings.

On the other hand, in problem situations involving

the child's inconsiderateness of a parent's private con-

 

versation, concealing actions from the parent, cigarette
smoking, stealing from the parent, and sibling rivalry,
parents were more likely to emphasize the autonomy-control
dimension than the love-hostility dimension. They were more
likely to set some kind of limit on the child's actions than
to communicate their acceptance of his feelings. These
problem situations seemed to have in common an acting—out,
"troublesome" aspect for the parent and thus fit Gordon's
(1970) criteria for an "adult owned" parent-child problem
situations. Thus it seemed that in adult-owned parent-child

problem situations (where the child was "troubling" to the

48

parent rather than being "troubled"), parents were more
likely to set limits on the child's behavior than to
communicate acceptance and understanding of the child's
feelings.

Further support for the problem-ownership theory
came from parental responses to the anger and frustration
(temper tantrum) situation in this study. This situation
was obviously a "troublesome," adult-owned problem, and
parental responses were significantly more hostile than
loving and more narrowly restrictive than permissive. Thus
in the adult-owned problem situation involving the child's
anger and frustration, parental responses could be character-
ized as equally rejecting and over-controlling.

The remainder of the problem situations--separation

 

anxiety, peer sex exploration, protesting limits, mastur-
bation, disappointment, and fear of_peer aggression--elicited
a pattern of parental responses that emphasized equally the
two dimensions of love-hostility and autonomy-control.
However, they did not seem to fit as a group into either the
adult-owned or child-owned problem categories defined by
Gordon (1970). Each of these problem situations will be
discussed separately below.

Parental responses to the problem situation involving
separation anxiety tended to be more accepting than rejecting
and more permissive (i.e., reasonable limits) than restrictive

(i.e., narrow limits). This situation involved the child's

49

crying and pleading with the parents not to go out for the
evening. It seemed that under such circumstances concerning
the child's "psychic" pain as well as the parent's desires
to leave, parents equally took their own and the child's
needs into account. Hence, they tended to be accepting and
understanding of the child's feelings and to set limits on
the child's demands so that their own needs could be met.
This situation might best be described as parent-child
equally owned.

In the peer sex exploration situation, parents were
significantly more permissive (i.e., setting appropriate
limits) than restrictive (i.e., narrow limits) but were not
more (or less) accepting than rejecting. This situation
involved three young children exploring each other's sexual
parts who were discovered by a parent. The children in the
Vsituation were obviously enjoying their play so it would
seem that this situation represented an adult-owned problem.
However, the results did not clearly support Stollak,
gp'gl.'s (in press) findings that parental responses to peer
sex exploration (an adult-owned problem) would be more
insensitive and destructive than in child-owned problem
situations. Perhaps for actual parents--as compared to the
childless college students employed in Stollak, gg.gl.'s
research-~this situation was not as troublesome as one might
expect. Or perhaps parents were giving a socially desirable
response based on information they had obtained on sex

education for children.

50

In the problem situation concerning the child's
protesting limits (bedtime), parental responses were not more
accepting than rejecting or more permissive than restrictive.
The lack of significant results may be accounted for by the
parent-child equal ownership nature of this situation.

Parental responses to the problem situation involving
the child's masturbation were significantly toward the love
and autonomy poles of the two dimensions. This situation
would seem to be defined as a parent-owned problem; thus the
results do not support Gordon's (1970) theory that parents
would be less constructive in adult-owned problem situations.
Perhaps, along with sex exploration, the child's mastur-
bation is no longer troublesome to actual parents.

The last two situations involved the child's dig:
appointment and fear of peer aggression. Both were defined
as child-owned problems since they were troubling to the
child rather than troublesome for the parent. Responses to
this situation tended to be accepting and permissive (i.e.,
appropriate limits). These results supported previous
research by Stollak, BE 31. (in press), which indicated that
parental responses to these child-owned problem situations
tended to focus on understanding the child's feelings and
helping the child express his feelings appropriately.

Looking at the results above in terms of adult-owned
versus child-owned problem situations does not entirely

support the theory that parents' responses are more accepting

51

and permissive in child-owned problem situations. The

parents involved in this study were not consistent across

all problem situations. They seemed to be only somewhat

consistent within adult-owned or child-owned problem situ-

ations. These facts strongly argue for a more situational

interpretation of the results. As Gordon (1970) himself

states:
. . . parents will be inconsistent. How could they be
anything else, when their feelings are changing from day
to day, from child to child, from situation to situation? g
. . . The traditional admonition to parents that they '
must be consistent with their children at all costs

ignores the fact that situations are different, children
are different . . . (p. 21).

 

Thus it seems that specific variables in the problem situ-
ation itself and in the specific child as presented on the
STC item were the most potent elicitors of specific parental
behavior.

Situational variables would seem to account for more
of the variance in parental behavior than would problem-
ownership. Similarly, powerful differences in each of the
situations may have obscured the less potent behavioral
differences of liberal versus conservative parents within
each item (non-significant groups X items interaction).
These explanations must also remain only tentative pending

further research on parental consistency.

Methodological'Considerations

 

The use of parents' written responses to problem

situations involving a child was, at once, a major strength

52

and a major limitation of the present study. All children

frequently encounter situations that arouse their anger,

disappointment, fear, and other forms of discomfort. In

these situations, we can learn important information con-

cerning parental responses affecting the child's "coping"

behaviors and feelings toward himself and others (Stollak,

gp'gl., in press). Often we cannot gain such information

about parent-child interaction through brief laboratory or i
home observation where need arousal is infrequent, as was
the case in Edwards' (1970) study.

However, the use of hypothetical problem situations
to elicit parental "projective" responses is open to the
same criticisms previously made of parental attitude
research. There is no evidence in this study that parents'
projective responses are predictive of their actual inter-
personal behavior. The effects of a social desirability
.response set in completing the STC was not assessed. The
adult's mood and the current affective state of the actual
parent-child relationship were unspecified variables that
could have influenced the parents' responses.

Another limitation of this study concerns the
generalizability of results. The subjects were not a random
sample representative of the general population of parents
but were a highly select group of upper-middle class,
extremely "liberal" and extremely "conservative" parents who

were willing to participate in psychological research for

53

pay. The selection of these parents leaves uncertain the
degree to Which the simple effects analysis of dimensions X
items is applicable to other parents. The inclusion of a
group of parents expressing "moderate" social attitudes
might have shed further light on the discussion of parental
consistency which follows. Thus moderate parents may have
turned out to be more consistent than either extreme group
suggesting that extremism, rather than problem situations,
accounted for a significant part of the variance in the
dimensions X items interaction. Furthermore, a moderate
group might have differed significantly from extreme
liberals or conservatives on the love-hostility and autonomy-
control dimensions. For the present, at least, these
questions must remain unanswered.

Finally, the low inter-rater reliabilities obtained
as well as the manner of selecting ratings for the sta-
tistical analysis could have seriously affected the signifi-
cance levels of results. In the absence of higher inter-
rater reliability, a more reliable method of analysis would
have involved using the mean of the two assistants' ratings
of each parent. The present method of using only half of
each assistant's ratings was likely to increase random error
and variance. This increase would tend generally to lower
the significance of results. It is thus somewhat surprising
that the obtained results reached statistical significance
in so many instances. Perhaps a more objective scoring

system would have increased inter-rater reliability.

54

Implications of the Study

 

The present study has implications for future
research on parental liberalism-conservatism and parental
consistency. The major finding that parents expressing
liberal social attitudes responded significantly more
toward the "love" end of the love-hostility dimension as
compared to conservatives, suggests that liberals would be
somewhat more facilitative of the child's positive socio-
emotional development (Becker, 1964). This finding implies
that, in terms of need, conservative parents constitute a
higher priority target group for parent education courses,
pre-parent education courses, and so on, than do liberals as
a group. Methods for identifying conservative couples before
they have children (e.g., telephone questionnaire) could be
developed to identify an appropriate target group for
intervention within a community. This group could then be
taught methods of conveying acceptance and understanding to
children.

However, the task still remains of determining to
what extent conservative or liberal parents' responses to
the 16 STC problem situations is predictive of actual
parental behavior with children. Future research also must
be directed toward clarifying the relationship between
parental liberalism-conservatism and autonomy-control. The
present study did not support previous attitude research

suggesting that conservative parents would be more restrictive

55

than liberals. Perhaps more reliable methodologies will
yield a significant difference between groups on the
autonomy-control dimension as well.

In addition, the lack of parental behavioral con-
sistency across problem situations involving a child implies
that future research on parent-child relations must place

more emphasis on situational and child temperament and

 

behavior variables (Thomas, Chess, and Birch, 1968).
Parents' responses to children seem to be determined not
only by parental characteristics (i.e., attitudes toward
child rearing, personality variables, and the like) but by
powerful situational and child behavior variables eliciting
specific responses. Thus previous research in limited
contexts of parent-child interaction may not be wholly
generalizable to other parent-child situations. The theory
.of "problem ownership" developed by Gordon (1970) may provide
one way to account for the variance across situations.
However, this theory is difficult to operationalize.
Perhaps a more useful taxonomy of child-behavior variables
influencing parental responses would include: (1) child
aggression and "anti-social" behavior; (2) child attachment
and dependency behavior; (3) child achievement behavior;

(4) child sex-appropriate behavior; (5) child age-

appropriate behavior; and (6) child prosocial behavior.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study investigated the responses of young
parents expressing "liberal" or "conservative" social
attitudes to a series of hypothetical parent-child problem
situations. A total of 40 families, with both parents under
30 years of age and with at least one child of 4 years,
responded to an advertisement in a university town newspaper.
Two groups ("liberals" and "conservatives") of ten couples
each were selected for study based on their responses to a
12-item, socio-political telephone questionnaire. The
difference between groups was significant on the telephone
questionnaire (p < .001).

Each g also filled out a Sensitivity to Children
(STC) questionnaire. Parents' responses to the problem
situations on the STC questionnaire were coded on two
orthogonal dimensions (love-hostility and autonomy-control)
by two trained assistants. The data were analyzed by means
of a 2 (groups: liberal/conservative) X 2 (dimensions:
love-hostility/autonomy-control) X 16 (problem situations)
analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last two
factors. Analyses of simple effects were performed in those

instances where significant interactions were found.

56

57

The responses of parents expressing liberal social
attitudes were found to be significantly more toward the
"love" end of the love-hostility dimension than were
responses of parents expressing conservative attitudes.

The analyses also revealed that parental responses were not
consistent across problem situations. The utility and
limitations of the present methodology in contributing to
our understanding of parental liberalism-conservatism,
parental consistency, and child development were discussed.

The results clearly indicate that social attitudes
of parents affect their behavior in hypothetical parent-child
problem situations. Furthermore, variables in the child's
behavior across problem situations are powerful determinants

of parental response consistency.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Lennison, D. J., and
Sanford, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality.
New York: Harper, 1950.

 

Bay, C. Political and apolitical students: Facts in search
of a theory. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23,
(3), 76-91.

Becker, W. C. Consequences of different kinds of parental
discipline. In Review of Child Development Research
(Vol. I). Edited By M. L. Hoffman and—L. W. Hoffman.
New YorE: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964.

 

Bell, R. Q. Retrospective attitude studies of parent-child
relations. Child Development, 1958, 29, (3), 323-337.

Bettleheim, B. Obsolete youth. Encounter, 1969, 33, 29-42.
Bierman, R. Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation in

psychotherapy and child development. Peychological
Bulletin, 1969, 72, 338-352.

 

Block, Jack. Personality characteristics associated with
fathers' attitudes toward childrearing. Child
Development, 1955, 26, 41-48.

 

Block, Jeanne. Generational continuity and discontinuity in
the understanding of societal rejection. Journal of

 

 

Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 2 , ,
333-345.

Carson, R. C. Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago:
Aldine, 1969.

Edwards, K. S. A study of conservative-liberal ideology and
parent-child interaction. Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
The Pennsylvania State University, 1970.

58

59

Feurer, L. The Conflict of Generationsz’ The Character and
Si nificance of Student Movements. New York:
Baslc Books, 1969.

Flacks, R. The liberated generation: An exploration of the
roots of student protest. Journal of Social Issues,
1967, 23, 52-75.

Gordon, T. Parent EffecEiveness Training. New York:
Peter H. Wyden, Inc., 1970.

Hart, I. Maternal child rearing practices and authoritarian
personality. Journal Abnormal and Social PsycholOgy,

Hollingshead, A. B. Two Factor Index of Social Position.
New Haven: August B. Hollingshead, 1957i

Kates, S. C., and Diab, L. N. Authoritarian ideology and
attitudes on parent-child relationship. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 13-16.

Keniston, K. Youn Radicals:_ Notes on Committed Youth.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Wofld, 1968.

Kirscht, J. P., and Dillehay, R. C. Dimensions of Authori-
tarianism. Lexington, Ky.: University of’Kentucky

Press, 1967.

Liberman, M., Stollak, G. E., and Denner, B. Assessment of
family play interaction. Paper presented at the
1971 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Detroit, Michigan.

McClosky, H. Conservatism and personality. American
Political Science Review, 1958, 52, 2 - 5.

Reif, T., and Stollak, G. E. Sensitivity to Children:
Training and Its Effects. East Lansing: MIEhigan
State University Press, 1972.

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

Sanford, N. Nevitt Sanford on authoritarianism. Psychology

 

Schaefer, E. S. A Circumplex model for maternal behavior.
Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 60,
226-235.

60

Shapiro, M. B. Some correlates of opinions on the upbringing
of children. British Journal of Psychology, 1952,
43, 141-149.

Shils, E. Authoritarianism: Right and left. In The
Authoritarian Pegsonality. Edited by R. Christie
and M. JaHOda. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1954.

Stollak, G. E. Undergraduates and children: An integrated
graduate-undergraduate program in the assessment,
treatment, and prevention of child psychopathology.
Professional Psychology, (in press).

Stollak, G. E., Scholom, A., Kallman, J. R., and Saturansky,
C. Insensitivity to children: Responses of under-
graduates to children in problem situations.

Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, (in press).

Thomas, A., Chess, 8., and Birch, H. G. Temperament and
Behavior Dieorders in Children. New York: New York
University Press, 1968.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ADVERTISEMENT IN NEWSPAPERS

APPENDIX A

ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWSPAPERS

ATTENTION:

A group of social scientists at The Pennsylvania State Uni—
versity are interested in hearing from families in which both
husband and wife are thirty or under and in which there is at

least one child four or older. We are interested in learning

about childrearing attitudes and practices. Call Dr. Stollak,

or Dr. Denner, evenings: Sunday-~Thursday.
Families who meet certain criteria will be invited to
participate in a second phase where they will be paid $25.00

for their time.

61

.m—

APPENDIX B

SES HOLLINGSHEAD INDEX

TABLE 8.--SES Hollingshead Index.

 

 

 

 

Education , Occupation
Family
Rank Weight = 4 Rank Weight = 7
Liberal
l. l 4 1 7
2. l 4 2 14
3. 1 4 2 l4
4. l 4 2 14
5. 2 8 2 14
6. l 4 2 l4
7. 1 4 2 l4
8. l 4 2 14
9. 2 8 2 14
10. 2 _§_ 2 14
Totals 52 133
Means 5.2 13.3

= 18.5 = II rating

 

Conservative
1. 1 4 ’1 7
2. l 4 2 l4
3. l 4 2 14
4. 3 12 2 14
5. 2 8 2 l4
6. l 4 2 l4
7. 1 4 2 14
8. 3 12 3 21
9. 2 8 2 14
10. 2 ‘_§ 2 14
Totals 64 140
Means 6.4 14.0

= 20.4 = II rating

 

62

APPENDIX C

TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX C

TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE

The so-called generation gap is largely the result of
kids these days having it too easy.
Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

Marijuana is not really dangerous if a person has
experience and guidance in using it.

Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:

I would feel comfortable with my child marrying a person
of another race.
Strongly agree Moderately agree

Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

A girl who is a virgin on the day she is married is more
likely to have a happy marriage.
Strongly agree ' Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

63

64

TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (continued) page 2.

5.

The family, as a social unit, is on the way out, and
communal family life should and will become prevalent
in the future.
Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree - Strongly disagree

Comments:

The poor need to be taught how to value money.
Strongly agree Moderately agree

Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

The United States has contributed to the world's diffi-
culties by interfering in the affairs of foreign
countries.
Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

The voting age should be immediately reduced to 18, and
maybe in the years to come, to 16.
Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments.

There is nothing wrong with our universities that would
not be helped by getting rid of the small group of
agitators.

Strongly agree Moderately agree

Moderately disagree Strongly disagree

Comments:

65

TELEPHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (continued) page 3.

 

10. It is important for a child to learn as early in his
life as possible that in the real world what really
counts is hard work, getting ahead, and being a good
citizen.

Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:

11. In most ways, I bring my child up the way that my mother
and father brought me up.

Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:

12. I am not bothered by women and men looking more and more

alike in their hairstyles and clothing.
Strongly agree Moderately agree
Moderately disagree Strongly disagree
Comments:
NAME:
ADDRESS:

 

TELEPHONE NUMBER:

 

APPENDIX D

STC

APPENDIX D

STC

NAME: AGE: SEX (M or F):

 

 

Telephone No.: Date:

 

Instructions

A series of 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
Egg; and pix 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 downgyour exact words
and/or actions, but please do not explain why 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

 

66

 

67

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.

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.

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
stealing.

After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go
there and find your daughter Susan hitting her two year
old baby sister.

100

11.

12.

68

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.

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.

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.

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
suddently 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."

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

69

While you are sitting and watching television, your son
Fred comes over to you and asks in a quiet, concerned
voice: "Do you love me?"

Your spouse has just punished your daughter Lillian for
some rule infraction. Lillian becomes hysterical and
runs to you crying.

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 the 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 E

DEFINITIONS OF RATING CATEGORIES

FOR SCORING THE STC

APPENDIX E

DEFINITIONS OF RATING CATEGORIES

FOR SCORING THE STC

Hostility-Love:

This dimension refers to the parent's acceptance or
rejection of the child's self (his feelings, motives, values,
wishes, needs, likes and aiinkes, fears, and affects or
"mood" states) as it is represented in the STC item.

2 = acceptance: The parental response specifically conveys
a’large degree of recognition, understanding, and acceptance
of the child's self in words or actions that are written down
and not implied from the answer. (e.g., "You must have been
very disappointed," "That must have made you angry," "Some-
times you feel nobody is on your side," "I guess you get
angry when your sister does that," etc.)

1 = mild acceptance: The parental response conveys a moderate
degree of recognition, understanding, and acceptance of the
child's self in words, actions, or in attitude (as when
acceptance is implied rather than stated directly).

0 = unscorable: The presence of an accepting—rejecting
quality of any degree is lacking in the parental response,
or it is not clear from the response whether the parent is
accepting or rejecting the child's self.

-1 = mild rejection: The parental response conveys a
moderate degree of_rejection of the child's self and a lack
of recognition and understanding of the child's self in
words, actions, or attitude (as when rejection is implied
rather than stated directly).

-2 = rejection: The parental response specifically conveys
a large degree of rejection of the child's self and a lack
of recognition and understanding of the child's self in
words or actions that are written down and not implied from
the answer. (e.g., "Sometimes you're so careless," "You
little jerk," "How can you be so stupid," "It is sinful to
be angry at your sister," "You have such a rotten temper,"
etc.).

70

71

Control-Autonomy:

This dimension refers to the parent's permissiveness
or restrictiveness of the child's actions (what he says and
does). Control and autonomy refer to the amount and kind of
influence exerted by the parent as well as the amount of
choice the child is permitted. The more control the parent
exerts over the child's behavior, the less opportunity the
child has to control his own behavior and choose how he will
act. The more autonomy the parent grants, the more freedom
of choice there is for the child in controlling his own
behavior.

This dimension must be scored with reference to the
situation described in the STC item. Judgments are to be
based on the appropriateness of limits or lack of limits
placed on the childe behaviOr given the immediate situation,
the child's age, and the limits which are necessary to
insure responsible (non-destructive) behavior on the child's
part. Thus if a parent physically prevented a one-year old
child from crossing the street alone but permitted him to
cross while holding the parent's hand, we would consider
these limits appropriate and score the response 1 on this
dimension. If the same limits were imposed on a ten year
old child, we would consider them highly inapprOpriate and
score the response :2 on this dimension.

2 = laissez-faire: The parent conveys specifically in words

or actions that there are no limits on the child's behavior;

the parent makes no attempt to restrict the child's behavior,
and conveys that anything is permissible (whether or not this
seems appropriate).

1 = freedom within limits: The parent specifically conveys
in words or actions that there are reasonable limits on the
child's behavior; the parent directs the child's actions in
such a way as to take into account the child's needs and the
needs of others; the child is able to make choices as to how
he will act within appropriate parental limits; the parent
offers a constructive alternative(s) to the child's actions
which will help in a solution of the problem presented on
the STC item; or the child is invited to participate in a
solution of the problem.

0 = unscorable: The parent does not convey in words, actions,
or attitude any attempt to permit or restrict the child's
freedom of actions; or the response is otherwise unscorable
on this dimension.

72

-l = narrow limits: The parent specifically conveys in
words or actions that there are limits on the child's
behavior which seem overly restrictive and somewhat in-
appropriate; the limitations permit too little freedom of
choice given the circumstances; the response does not
recognize the child's ability to function responsibly within
broader limits.

-2 = rigid limits: The parent specifically conveys in words
or actions that there are inflexible limits on the child's
behavior which seem oppressive and very inappropriate; the
parent seems dominating, unyielding, and highly restrictive
of the child's actions; the limits inhibit the expression

of the child's needs; the child is permitted no choice
whatsoever.

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE STC SCORING SHEET

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE STC SCORING SHEET

Subject:

 

Sex:

 

Group:

 

Rater:

 

Directions: Rate each STC response on the 2 dimensions below:
Hostility-Love (X) and Control-Autonomy (Y). Then plot the co-
ordinates on the graph.

 

 

-2 -1 0 l 2
Hostility Love (X)
rejection mild mild acceptance
rejection acceptance
-2 -l 0 1 2
Control Autonomy (Y)
rigid narrow freedom laissez-
limits limits within limits faire
STC Item (X . Y)

1. inconsiderateness

2. separation anxiety
3. peer sex exploration
4. sadness

5. stealing

6. sibling rivalry

masturbation

10. smoking

11. anger and frustration
12. feelings of failure
13. love and reassurance
14. upset over punishment

AAAA

‘ “

VVVV
O

AAAAA
‘ ‘ ‘Q ‘
VVVVV

‘ ‘
A

I
l

A
~
V

7. protesting limits
8. concealing actions

15. disappointment
l6. fear of peer aggression

A

V

v
AA
~“
vvv

73

74

 

 

AUTONOMY
indifferent permissive
2
antagonistic l democratic
HOST ILITY 1 2 LOVE
-2 -l
demanding -l protective
f2
authoritarian CONTROL possessive

Figure 3. Sample STC scoring sheet.

(X)

APPENDIX G

INTER-RATER RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS

TABLE 9.--Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients.

 

 

Love- Autonomy-

Problem Situation Hostility Control
1. Inconsiderateness » .63 -.21
2. Separation Anxiety .76 .62
3. Peer Sex Exploration .88 .76
4. Sadness .37 1.00
5. Stealing .62 .54
6. Sibling Rivalry .57 .50
7. Protesting Limits .60 .70
8. Concealing Actions .58 .67
9. Masturbation .59 .57
10. Smoking .48 .41
ll. Anger and Frustration .51 .31
12. Feelings of Failure .27 .00
13. Love and Reassurance .18 .45
14. Upset Over Punishment .46 .34
15. Disappointment .81 .39
16. Fear of Peer Aggression .50 .52

Means i = .5506 f = .4681

 

75

 

APPENDIX H

CIRCUMPLEX GRAPH OF LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE
PARENTS' MEAN SCORES ON THE LOVE-HOSTILITY

(X) AND AUTONOMY-CONTROL (Y) DIMENSIONS

.msOHmswEHo Hwy Houusouuheosou5¢ can
Axv muHHHumomnmbon map so mwuoom some .musmnmm mbHum>Homsoo can HmumnHH mo ammnm onmEsoHHU .v ohsmHm

Away Houucou

 

NI
HI
NN.-
N.u
NN.u
N H NN. N. NN.
1x1 o>oH NN.- N.u NN.- H- N- Axle NuHHHunom “w
mm>fivwzwmcou . mm”
m mum H .
H gag mho
H
N

 

H 3 afiosousm

Hmm.

u
I»
a;
N
u
x

mo>Hum>Hmms0U

n
35

ANN. u m .NN. NHNHNQHH

 

M'TlTl'l‘flflllilLflflifliflilflifliflffl'fljflflflIIIIiITIfifilTI'ES

710