Baumrind_1967

Socialization Practices Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls Author(s): Diana Baumrind and Allen E. Black Source: Child Development, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 291-327 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127295 . Accessed: 23/10/2014 11:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIALIZATION ASSOCIATEDWITH PRACTICES IN PRESCHOOL DIMENSIONSOF COMPETENCE BOYS AND GIRLS DIANA BAUMRINDand ALLENE. BLACK Universityof California,Berkeley The investigation has as its objective to identify parent attitudes and behaviors associated with dimensions of competent behavior in normal preschool children. A child-behavior model (similar in structure to models presented by Schaefer and by Becker & Krug) for boys and girls separately was developed and related to behavioral measures obtained in the home, and to mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and fatherdaughter interview dimensions arrived at through cluster-analytic techniques. When sex-related correlates were interpreted, particular attention was given to the problem of equivalence of dimensions across sex. Specific parent-childrelationshipsvaried with the sex of parent and child. In general, independence granting and verbal give and take, on the one hand, and enforced demands and consistent discipline, on the other, were associated with stable, assertivebehaviorin the child. This program of research had as its objective the identification of practices associated with dimensions of competent nursery school behavior for boys and girls. Two separate studies were conducted. The objective of one study (Baumrind, 1967) was to determine whether preschool chilThis research was supported by research grant MH-03991 from the National Institute of Mental Health, U. S. Public Health Service, to Paul Mussen and Diana Baumrind. The authors are indebted to the field psychologists, Rosamund Gardner, Viola Litt, Marie Mastache, Panthea Perry, Elizabeth Warriner, and Judith Williams. The study could not have proceeded without the cooperation of the personnel of the H. E. Jones Child Study Center (Dorothy Eichorn, administrator) and the Institute of Human Development (John Clausen, director at that time, and Brewster Smith, present director). We wish to acknowledge the invaluable aid of the nursery school directors (Thelma Harms, Yvette Lehman, Virginia Leonard, Anne Kappel, and Hannah Sanders) who helped to obtain the interest and cooperationof the parents and children and assisted in the

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT dren who are assertive, self-reliant, self-controlled,buoyant, and affiliative are reared by their parents in a different fashion, on the one hand, from children who are discontented, withdrawn, and distrustful, and, on the other, from children who have little self-controlor self-relianceand tend to retreat from novel experiences. In the first study, all children (32) who clearly manifested one of these patterns of behavior were selected for three study groups from among 110 normal preschool children after 3-5 months of observationin nursery school and laboratorysettings. Home visits, structured observation,and structuredinterviews were used to assess parent behaviors and attitudes. Findings from the first study can be summarized briefly as follows: parents of the most assertive, self-reliant, and self-controlled children were controlling, demanding, communicative,and loving; parents of the unhappy and disaffiliatedgroup were relatively controlling and detached; and parents of the least self-reliantand self-controlledgroup of children were noncontrolling,nondemanding, and relatively warm. The objective of the present study is to examine empirically, in an unselected group, the relations among parent behaviors, parent attitudes, and child behaviors. Measuring instruments from the previous study were used to make these assessments so that the degree of correspondencebetween the two sets of findingscould be assessed. METHOD

Subjects The Ss were all children enrolled in the H. E. Jones Child Study Center, Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, during the fall semester of 1960. Of the 107 children enrolled at the beginning of the semester, 103 remainedin school long enough to have their behavior rated. There were 95 families who participated in the study and were visited in the home. The other eight families, for the most part, were associated in a professional capacity with the investigators and therefore could not participate. A few parents (one mother and four fathers) were absent from the home due to death or divorce. In Table 1 are presented some sample characteristicsrelevant to the study, including the mean IQ for the 83 children for whom Stanford-Binetswere available. The parents reside in an urban universitycommunityand are middle-classand very well educated; 95 per cent of the fathers and 81 per cent of the mothers are college graduates.Of the fathers, 75 per cent were classified under one or two of Hollingshead and Redlich's (1958) modification of the Alba Edformulationof the PreschoolBehaviorQ-sortitems.We are especiallygratefulto the parentswho not only talkedwith us but accordedus the privilegeof observing their familiesin the home setting.Authors'address:Instituteof HumanDevelopment, Universityof California,TolmanHall, Berkeley,California94720. 292

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK TABLE 1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Variable Age of child in months.......... IQ of child.................... Birth order of child............ No. of children in family....... Mother's education............ Father's education............. Father's occupation............

N

Mean

SD

103 83 103 103 90 97 101

47.0 125.4 2.1 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.9

6.02 14.53 1.01 .92 .67 .61 .98

Note.-The Education Code (1 = graduate professional training, 7 = less than 7 years of school) and Occupation Code (1 = major executives and major professionals, 7 = unskilled workers) are those used by Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), with graduate student coded as Education =2 and Occupation =3.

wards system of classifying occupations into seven socioeconomic groups. Twenty mothers were working at the time of the study, 12 in professional capacities. The results of the study should not be generalized to populations which display dissimilarsocioeconomicand educationallevels. Child-BehaviorRatings Over a minimum period of 3 months, four trained psychologists observed and recorded behavior while the children were involved in all aspects of the nursery school program.Each child was assigned to a pair of psychologists, and each pair observed approximately fifty children (one half were 3-year-olds,and one half were 4-year-olds). A 95-item Q sort was devised to provide a means by which the psychologists could describe the child. The items were sorted into nine piles going from most characteristic to least characteristicwith the fixed distribution:7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 13, 11, 9, 7. The domains of behavior focused upon included neurotic symptoms, mood and energy characteristics,and such interpersonalcharacteristicsas self-control, perseverance, self-reliance, self-assertiveness,friendliness, and cooperativeness. Both poles of each Q-sort item were defined explicitly, with one pole reflectingmental health and the other its absence. An attempt was made to assess independently the diverse facets of psychological constructs such as "dominance"and "independence"which frequently have been forced into polar opposition. The effect of not permitting independent measurementof these facets is to superimposea structurewhich can restrict the emergence of several related but not equivalent traits or clusters. Consider, for example, the four Q-sortitems: 1. Submitsto group consensusversustakes independentstand. 2. Suggestibleversushas mind of his own. 3. Provokesversusavoids conflictwith adults. 4. Permits self to be dominated versus will not submit. These four 293

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT items might all be considered aspects of a single trait: Autonomy versus Compliance. However, in the analyses discussed subsequently, these items were in fact related to separate although correlated dimensions which, in part, may account for the differences among the models of child behavior compared. To save space, the item designations given in this paper have been shortened from the original wordings to provide succinct definitions of both poles.' The chief value of the ipsative or within-personranking approach inherent in the Q sort, for this study, was that it allowed the rater to focus upon one child until she felt that she had observed the child sufficientlyto do a valid rating. The high correlation between ipsative ratings treated normatively and conventionally acquired normative ratings, shown by Block (1957), justified their further use in item-based factor and cluster analyses. The final scores used for further analyses were the composites of the two psychologists'ratings. The reliabilities for the composited items varied from a low of .29 to a high of .88, with approximately10 per cent of the reliabilities below .60 and another 10 per cent above .80. The mean value was approximately.68. As might be expected, the items with low reliabilities (below .60) did not show a sufficientlyhigh pattern of intercorrelation with other items to be importantcontributorsto the final cluster structures discussed subsequently. Items with high reliabilities (above .80) almost invariablywere included as clusterdefiners. When the composite item means for boys and girls were compared (Table 2), a fairly characteristicset of differences emerged. Boys were seen as more active, outgoing, and exploratory,and girls as more involved in intellectual, aesthetic, and interpersonalpursuits of a verbal nature. In addition, girls were described more frequently as indirect, manipulative, coercively dependent, and withdrawn, while boys were seen as more content, good humored,self-assured,and activelyfriendly. Child-BehaviorModel An initial cluster analysis by Tryon's method2 utilizing the productmoment correlationsamong the 95 items elicited a seven-clustersolution for 1 A list of the 95 items,their reliabilities,the meansand standarddeviations for boys and girls,and the factorcoefficientsfromthe two factorPrincipalComponents Analysisare on deposit with the AmericanDocumentationInstitute.

Order Document No. 9308 from ADI Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540. Remit in advance $1.25 for 35-mm. microfilmor $1.25 for 6 X 8-inch photocopies, and make checks

payableto: Chief Photoduplication Service,Libraryof Congress.

2 All cluster and factor analyses performed in connection with this paper

utilizedthe BC TRYsystemof computerprogramsdevelopedunderthe direction 294

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT ITEM MEAN FORBOYsX GIRLS DIFFERENCES Q-SORT > Boys girls: High vs. low energy level Good sense of humor vs. humorless Content vs. discontent Doesn't seek vs. seeks overt assurance that he is liked Explores vs. does not explore environment Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish Girls > boys Acts too mature vs. pleasantly childlike demeanor Enjoys vs. does not enjoy aesthetic experience Exploits dependent state vs. seeks help realistically Interested vs. uninterested in pre-primerskills Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward Chatters to obtain attention vs. talks in order to communicate Note.-All

differences reported have a p < .05 for

both boys and girls. The first two clusters were relatively orthogonal (r = .10 for boys, and r = .06 for girls) and reproduced89 and 85 per cent of the mean of the originalsquared correlationsfor boys and girls, respectively. In general, the remaining clusters were highly correlated with the first two clusters. This is an analogoussituation to that which Becker and Krug (1964) found conducive for developing their two-factor circumplex model for social behavior in children. Certainly, in the present case, a two-factor model seemed adequate to account for the major portion of the variance. A procedure similar to that used by Becker and Krug, but more rooted in the rationale of cluster analysis, was followed in ordering the interrelations

of the Q-sort items in separate analyses for boys and girls.

A principal-componentssolution was chosen to provide the most stable two-factor solution possible. All Q-sort items were then plotted in this twofactor space with their factor coefficients used as coordinates. The items were formed into clusters on the basis of (a) position on the circularplot, (b) pattern of intercorrelationof contiguous items, and, in a few instances, (c) theoretical relevance. The axes were rotated graphically to bring the boy and girl clustersinto a similarposition. The defining items for each of the eight clusters obtained from this ordering and the cluster reliabilities appear in Table 3. The cluster scores are the unweighted composite of standardized scores for the defining items. The intercorrelations among items used as definerswere of a magnitudesuch that the lowest average r that any defining item has with the other defining items in a cluster is .52, with most average r's above .60. This accounts for the high reliability of the clusters. Because of its theoreticalvalue, a simple hierarchicalor second-orderanalysis was performed by compositing the defining items of of R. C. Tryonand made availablefor use by the ComputerCenter,University of California, Berkeley. For full details, see Tryon and Bailey (1966).

295

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT TABLE 3 DESCRIPTION OF CHILD-BEHAVIOR CLUSTERS EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS

Cluster I: Unlikeable-Likeable. Reliability = 89, = .45: Alienates vs. attracts other children........................... Able vs. not able to form close friendships..................... Uses vs. does not use persuasionto get what he wants............ Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish ................ Cluster II: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .95, P = .48: ........ Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic. ................. Irritable vs. even tempered.................................... Obstructive vs. helpful....................................... Becomes hostile vs. does not become hostile when hurt or frustrated.. Content vs. discontent........................................ Helps vs. does not help other children adapt .................... Cluster III: Impetuous-Self-Controlled. Reliability = .86, 2 = .29: Impulsive vs. self-controlled................................... .. Impetuous vs. planful.................................... Thoughtless, inconsideratevs. thoughtful, considerate............ Cluster IV: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .91, P = .26: Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanorwith adults ................ Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults ......................... Responsible vs. irresponsibleabout following rules............... Affectionate vs. unaffectionatewith nursery school staff........... Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .89, P = .22: Submits to group consensus vs. takes independentstand........... Conformingvs. willing to risk adult disapproval................. Suggestible vs. has mind of his own............................ Listens vs. actively participates in discussions................... Cluster VI: Imaginative-Stereotyped. Reliability = .88, = .08: An interesting, arresting child vs. uninterestingand bland......... fImaginative vs. unimaginative................................. Emotionally expressive vs. bland.............................. Produces stereotyped vs. original work........................ Curiousvs. lacks curiousity................. ................. Cluster VII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .89, fP = .40: Gives up vs. persevereswhen adversity is encountered............ "Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performancedemands....... Sets goals which are easy vs. hard to achieve.................... Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks ........................ Withdrawsvs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated......... Cluster VIII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, f' = .51: High vs. low self-confidence .................................. At ease vs. ill at ease at nursery school......................... Apprehensivevs. nonapprehensive ............................ Self-abasive vs. self-valuing................................... Conflictedvs. resolute about making decisions .................. EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR GIRLs

Cluster I: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .80, P' = .33: ............. Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic............ Helps vs. does not help other children adapt.................... Alienates vs. attracts other children............................ Cluster II: Unsocialized-Well Socialized. Reliability = .88, P = .35: Thoughtless, inconsideratevs. thoughtful, considerate............

296

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AVERAGE

r

.72 -. 71 -. . 65 -.61 -.79 .79 78 .77 -.76 -.73 .73 . 66 .62 .78 .76 -. 68 -.63 -.74 -.70 -.69 -.58 .64 .62 .61 -.61 .56 -.69 .67 -.65 .57 -.52 .71 .69 -.68 -.66 -.66 AVERAGE r

-.58 -.57 .56 .71

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK Obstructive vs. helpful....................................... Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward........... Does not vs. does regret wrong-doing .......................... Cluster III: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .89, 2 = .22: Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults......................... Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanorwith adults................ Dependable, trustworthy vs. undependable,untrustworthy........ Cluster IV: Domineering-Tractable. Reliability = .88, 2 = 24: Bullies vs. avoids forcing will on other children.................. Managerialand bossy vs. tactful and modest.................... Permits self to be dominated vs. will not submit................. Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .91, If = .31: Submits to group consensus vs. takes independent stand.......... Suggestible vs. has mind of his own ............................ Not easily vs. easily intimidated or bullied...................... Conformingvs. willing to risk adult disapproval................. Listens vs. actively participates in discussions................... Cluster VI: At Ease-Ill At Ease. Reliability = .93, fl = .44: At ease vs. ill at ease at nurseryschool ........................ Seldom vs. often spends time in withdrawn fantasy ............... Poorly vs. well oriented in his environment...................... Withdraws vs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated.......... Self-abasive vs. self-valuing .................................. Cluster VII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, ?* = .54: High vs. low self-confidence................................. Conflicted vs. resolute about making decisions .................. Gives up vs. persevereswhen adversity is encountered............ Cluster VIII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .94, i* = .47: Does not vs. does become pleasurablyinvolved in tasks............ Gives his best vs. expends little effort................... ...... Aimless vs. purposive........................................ "Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performancedemands....... .. Enjoys vs. avoids new learning experiences..................... Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks .......................

.66 .63 .61 .74 .73 - .71 .77 .74 -.64 -.72 -.70 .67 -. 66 -.64 .75 .74 -.73 -.70 -.66 .73 -.71 -.70 -.78 .77 -.76 .76 .73 .56

FOUR-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Disaffiliative-Affiliative. Reliability = .95-boys, .91-girls; f = .49-boys, .35-girls. Composite of Clusters I and II. Resistive-Cooperative. Reliability = .94-boys, .92-girls; f* = .21-boys, .29-girls. Composite of Clusters III and IV. Independent-Dependent. Reliability = .90-boys, .94-girls; i2 = .18-boys, .42-girls. Composite of Clusters V and VI. Assertive-Withdrawn. Reliability = .93-boys, .95-girls; f = .52-boys, .56girls. Composite of Clusters VII and VIII. Two-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Set A = .45-boys, Irresponsible-Responsible. Reliability = .96-boys, .94-girls; .30-girls. Composite of Clusters I, II, III, IV. Active-Passive. Reliability = .93-boys, .96-girls; P = .39-boys, .54-girls. Composite of Clusters V, VI, VII, VIII. Set B Nonconforming-Conforming.Reliability = .92-boys, .94-girls; 7' = .21-boys, .32-girls. Composite of Clusters III, IV, V, VI. Stable-Unstable. Reliability = .93-boys, .94-girls; P = .66-boys, .58-girls. Composite of Clusters VII and VIII with Clusters I and II reflected. = r = theaverage correlation oftheitemwiththeotherclusterdefiners; Note.-Average reliability of thecomposite thereliability of theclusterdefiners P'= reproducibility of the (Spearman-Brown); meanof the squaredcorrelations items. among

297

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT relevant clusters from the eight-clustersolution, giving one four-clusterand a pair of two-cluster solutions. Figure 1 illustrates the model of child behavior which evolved from the data. The circumscribed points represent the position of the cluster defining items as plotted in the two-factor space. The separate boy and girl solutions were similar enough so that for the four-clusterand two-cluster solutions the individual clusters could be given the same designations. Although the items which were composited to define the axis designated Active-Passive do not clearly measure this dimension, the items which had the highest oblique factor coefficients for both boys and girls (participates energetically vs. remains unoccupied, selfstarting vs. needs encouragement,enjoys vs. does not enjoy nursery school, and high vs. low energy level) clearlymeasureActive-Passivebehavior. Since none of the previously reported models dealing with relevant NONCONFORMING

BOYS

BOYS

U k

A

p

\pk

u

m TTAE

A E

a

EI

IV_

r

;0 A-

B

--J

B

E L T A

LmI

L

1

E

mS

P:

La

m

COr

46

Ln

464

Z_ SL

?

46?

'IT TGIRLS

L

UTO?oQu.,DOMNEpk"tG

GIL

\5,

X\COM?UANT

IR

t;-I

IL

COFRMN

CONFORMING

FIG.

1.-Child-behaviormodelfor boys and girls

298

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK material have considered boys and girls separately, we will overlook for a moment any apparent differences between the boy and girl solutions in orderto considerthe generalizabilityof the model without regardto sex. The model evolved as a parsimoniousand meaningful post hoc solution to the problem of data reduction and not as an attempt to define the real structure of child behavior. Although the raters were experienced psychologists with diverse theoretical commitments, the rating procedures were not ones that would minimize halo effects entering into the obtained intercorrelationsamong items. Passini and Norman (1966) demonstrated recently that Ss who are acquainted superficiallycan produce peer-rating factor structures that are highly similar to those obtained from Ss with whom raters are well acquainted. Similarly,how much of the factor structure reported here is a function of a universal conceptual bias among raters remains moot. The conceptual bias would have to be more or less universal, however, since the results from diverse studies appear strikingly equivalent. Initially, Schaefer (1961) developed a hypothetical model based on an integrationof his own work with Guttman'scircumplexmethod and a review of previous work. Then, Becker and Krug (1964) developed an empirically derived model from a reworking of Becker's data analyzed previously from a standard factor-analytic approach. Both authors found substantial support in the literature for their models. The differences between the Schaefer and the Becker and Krug models result primarilyfrom the greaterdifferentiationof the later model. Figure 2 compares the child-behavior models of Becker and Krug (1964), Schaefer (1961), and the four-cluster solution for the current study. The four-cluster rather than the eight-cluster solution was chosen because its cluster designations are identical for boys and girls. Reexaminationof the full model (Figure 1) will show even more markedsimilarities among the three models. With the exception of the area defined in the four-clustersolution as Independent, and its opposite Dependent, the models appear equivalent in the sense that for any point the behaviors described to either side of it, at the item level, are very similar for almost all models reviewed by Schaefer and by Becker and Krug. Within the Independent area, most other studies appear to have items defining an extension of the Resistive-Rebelliousareas, but most of these studies lack a constellation of items directed at the positive aspects of noncomplianceinvolved in Autonomous-Independentbehaviors. By Contrast, our model distinguishes between Rebellious and Autonomousbehavior for both boys and girls. The distinctionproved to be helpful in interpretationsof parent-childcorrelates, especiallyfor girls. The differencesbetween the models are most marked at the poles. As the psychologist moves up through levels of abstraction from individual item definitions to labeling composite clusters or factors, more and more free play is granted to theoretical bias. The differencebetween Becker and 299

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

IRRESPONSIBLE •%. HOSTILITY (S) /i4-'7A;jq, 00, 0 HOSTILE F.FIANT"

0%

,. PE

RT(B) 0 V E IN p R A S S I (S)

A

0

t

R

;

4e

E

A C

(S) T I

N V E

vE R

0 0

0

00,

'•/G/

"(B)

COOPERAT/•'f<

4.LOVE (S) •RESPONSIBLE

2.--A comparisonof two-factorchild-behaviormodels. Outer ring = Four-clustersolutionfrom reportedstudy; middle ring = Becker and Krug's (1964) model;innerring = Schaefer's(1961) model.Beckerand Krug'smajor axesareindicatedby (B) and Schaefer'sby (S). FIG.

Krug's polar dimension Emotional Stability and our Stable dimension is more a function of somewhat differing views of the human condition than of a differencein the orderingof variables. Comparabilityof the Boy- and Girl-ClusterSolutions As can be seen from Figure 1 and Table 3, the boy and girl models are very similarin both the designationsgiven to the clusters and in a large number of the defining items within clusters. The only difference that reflects content rather than style is the appearance of boy Cluster VI, Imaginative-Stereotyped,which has no counterpart among the girl clusters. As is indicated by the position of its center mass close to the origin, this cluster is probably more closely related to a third orthogonalfactor than it 300

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANABAUMRIND AND ALLENE. BLACK is to the first two factors. In fact, the third cluster from the original cluster analysis by the Tryon method had as its defining items four of the five items defining Cluster VI. A similar third cluster emerged for girls, but it was even more highly dependent on the first two clusters than the boys, which in both cases were dimensions similar to Active-Passive and Irresponsible-Responsible.The area of child behavior concerned with creativity appears fruitful as a possible third more or less orthogonaldimension upon which a three-dimensionalmodel of child behavior might be constructed. The domineeringaspects of girl Cluster IV do not emerge clearly for boys, although for the Resistive-Cooperativecomposite clusters these items also have relatively high-factor coefficients for boys. This type of content analysis of the differences between solutions is informative but limited in that it lacks the necessary rigor of definition to allow for comparisonof correlateswith a set of independentparentvariables. Recently, Tryon (1964) proposed an index of similarity between clusters or dimensions as a solution to the problem of matching factors from different samples when the identical set of variables is used. This problem and the previous attempts at solution are discussed by Harmon (1960). Tryon's statistic cos 0 was discovered empirically through the successful attempt to reproduce the known intercorrelationbetween clusters within a single group solution from the oblique factor coefficients,and, like r, its limits are When the cos 0 value between two clusters ap--1.8are equivalent in the sense that the pooled set of proaches 1, the clusters item definersfrom the two clusters have very nearly the identical pattern of factor coefficientsfor both clusters. If the clusters are from the same group solution, the r between them will also approach 1. But once the value of cos 0 has been established for within-groupsolution comparisons,no logical restrictionsprohibit its use for across-groupsolution comparisons.The only restrictionis that each solution must contain the same set of referent variables. Table 4 gives the intercorrelationbetween the clusters within the boy based a Actually,the intercorrelation reproducedwas not the raw correlation on factor scores,but, rather,the correlationbetweenclusterdomains(common factor r). This is simply an estimateof the correlationof composites,an old formulationrecentlyreviewedby Ghiselli (1964). Cos 0 is exact only when the definersfor each clusterare preciselycollinear,i.e., when they all fall on the same straightline in the space under consideration. This is rarelythe case, but

for all cluster solutions studied by the present authors, the correspondence has

been strikinglyaccurate.Frequently,it has been found preferableto refer only

to the raw correlation between cluster scores rather than the correlation between cluster domains or common factors. In the present study for 43 of the 109 possible within-group cluster intercorrelations from the child-behavior, mother-interview and father-interview cluster analyses for both boys and girls, the product-moment r between cos 0 and r was .92. 301

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It %0

I

-~

0

ll?(

~

???

0

U)9

~V

o" 00

4N'

:?t

=

o

NC0

cu

00

)Z CUl0C

4-J0

N

N

Ou

t

>

(D -C4'00

04

zd

z m

I

5ii

b

iii

cu

>

r.

>

t-C)00.t

N

pq (n.

No

H

H

S-m

C 00

.-

0

\0 CC*4

mC)

to (7

V44 O

OW~ II -:( lr~

o

-;

-, NP

c

eOCQ

C

-0

4-J

~~C ."

a)

45 cr

dC~C~0 g -

. ;

0 e- i -

'W44N

W) M '01

M

0

"

a :0 =-00 N 0 Vt U0%

<

0

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

0

mo

C~I

~)

00'*N

0

C00

d

-

\0C\C

I

0

00C4

Cb

0

-

C

Cb

U)

x

z

C)

0 c

C oe

H z

-z

W) 000 va,

-

(D

U)Uo

0 00 LoU) 41vF9

mH

0/)

C) C

C

O

m \0

)

CC

V)

Cl)

OvC%0CI.

0:

CC)

U)

>1 0

CCC.)

0

C)

cux

F9

In 0

H

O'0

0

.d c

.

u

c

WCI

M

0

w0 m t *.

r

o

c

0

.

Wf E ...

'

~

0 C)

C

C4

43

H CC

C~

, 19k ~ I.. , N-o c

0

-

'-C

.C0

0

co cd

00C.

.

Vc C

.

COCd

c)

CC

0 V04

~

cuo

>1

C)

'0

-9

b

0

0

. 04

.

1.C)

0

0 0 Hk

0C

C

COIrC

*

:

.

~ 00

0 H

0-4

CC

-u,.

cu 0

C)zC

u

cu~

'0

0. o..

~

XII W

II

c

Al

O

0

CCU 1

1

A

00

CC

~Cd 0

C

1. 00

C.

m M~C

0CC '0,0

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT and girl solutions along with cos e for the boy-cluster versus girl-cluster comparisons. The circular ordering of the correlationsbetween variables for both boys and girls is quite consistent, and most of the clusters given the same designation have high cos 0 values. The correlation analog of approximately.65 common variance for an r or .80 was used to arrive at a definition of "high"for the purposes of this study. The only marked disparities between the boy and girl solutions occur in the Independent-Nonconformingsectors where the contributionof the Imaginative boy cluster is potent. Parent-BehaviorMeasures In previous papers, Baumrind (1964; 1967) described in detail the procedures associated with the home visit and the Home Visit Sequence Analysis (HVSA). The home was the setting in which data concerning parent behavior were obtained. The psychologist who visited the home was not one of the pair that rated the child's behavior. In order to achieve a standardizedsituation, the home visit was structured identically for each family and occurred for all families during a period commencing from shortly before the dinner hour and lasting until just after the child's bedtime. This period is commonly known to produce instances of parent-child divergence and was selected for observationin order to elicit a wide range of criticalinteractionsundermaximumstress. A system was developed for recording in detail those parent-child interactions where one member attempted overtly to influence the behavior of another. All protocols were coded after the home visits were concluded. The major interaction unit coded, called a control sequence, consisted of two or more causally related acts containing a single message and involving the same two family members as participantsin an interchangeinitiated by one of them to alter the behavior of the other and ending with the other's compliance or noncompliance.Type I sequences are control sequences ininiated by the parent in order to control or alter the behavior of the child or his future capacity to act. The following is a Type I sequence in which the parent uses minimal power, and the child complies after the parent persists: MARKgets up fromthe table.

FATHEa:"What do you say, Mark?"

"Iwannago." MARK: FATHER:"Whatdo you say, Mark?" MARK: "Excuseme, please." Type II sequences are child-initiated control sequences where the child makes a demand of the parent. The following is a Type II sequence with 304

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANABAUMRIND AND ALLENE. BLACK which the parent fails to comply, although the child uses increasingly greaterpower: JOHN:"CanI go out?"

"Yes.Oh no, I guess you can't.I didn'trealizehow late it was." "Butwhy didn'tyou tell me the time?" JOHN:

MOTHER:

MOTHER:

"Youhaveto takea bathnow."

JOHN:"Please,Mother.(Crying, beseeching,being terriblycute.) I never get to go down the street." MOTHER:"Not tonight, dear." The coded informationfrom the sequences was used as the basis for defining theoretically relevant variables, nine of which were used in this study. The nine variableschosen are definedin Table 5. ParentInterviews Each parent was interviewed separately and a tape-recorded transcript made. The transcriptionswere typed, and the psychologist who did the interviewingwas able to review and study her interviews prior to completing her final ratings on 56 rating scales. The individual scales which have been reported by Baumrind (1967) were designed to cover a broad domain of parent attitudes and practices related to child rearing. Many of the questions asked and the scales used to code the transcripts were adapted from the parent interview used by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), although the format and emphasis of the interviews are quite different. The perspective taken, however, was that of self-reportrather than clinical interpretationsof parents' statements and demeanor. This is, the parent'sappraisalof his or her own feelings and practices was taken at face value and the ratingsmade on that basis. For the individual items, the significant mean differences between parental attitudes toward child rearing of boys versus girls and mothers versus fathers are given in Table 6. It is of interest that mothers of girls compared to mothers of boys say that they are more strict about neatness, demand obedience, control verbal protest, and use withdrawalof love. The withdrawal-of-loveitem for mothers of girls correlatesnegatively with the mother-interview cluster Warmth (-.64) and positively with the item Negative Sanctions. Frightening the Child (.62) which together with Withdrawal of Love formed the cluster defining maternal Punitiveness for girls. If the inference is valid (e.g., Bronson,Livson, & Katten, 1959; Heinstein, 1965) that in California homes, at least, the mother is the more important socializationagent as well as the more nurturantparent, and if expressed attitudes provide informationabout actual differential reinforcement for boys and girls of direct expressionsof feeling and self-assertivebehavior, then it is likely that preschool girls more than boys are punished for direct expression of feelings and in ways which would generate greater 305

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT conflict and guilt about wrong doing. This might account, in part, for the significant behavior differences in risk taking, passive dependence, and covert hostilitybetween boys and girls noted in this study and elsewhere. TABLE 5

(a)

(c)

HOME-VISITSEQUENCEANALYSISVARIABLEDEFINITIONS VARIABLE DEFINITION Positive Outcome................... The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the child complies. The per cent of child-initiated Accepts Power Conflict with Child.... sequences (Type II) where the

parent does not evade child's request as a method of compliance.

(f)

IndependenceTraining, Control......

The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the message concerns cognitive

insight into cause and effect

relations or factual about the world.

knowledge

(h)

Respects Child's Decision...........

The per cent of parent-initiated

(j)

Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance...

The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where

control sequences (Type I) involving noncompliancewhere the parent retracts directive on the

basis of the child's arguments.

the parent uses reason with the directive.

(k) EncouragesVerbal Give and Take....

The per cent of control sequences (Type I and Type II) in which

the parent, in order to handle

a parent-child divergence, uses power or reason or responds with power or reason to the child's demands, where the parent engages the child in argument, generally altering his course of action as a result.

(m) Satisfies Child.....................

The per cent of child-initiated sequences (Type II) where the interaction produces satisfaction for the child.

(q)

Uses Coercive Power Without Reason..

The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the parent uses coercive power without giving a reason.

(r)

Takes Initiative in Control Sequences..

The per cent of total control sequences (Type I and Type II) which were initiated by the

parent (Type I) rather than the child (Type II).

306

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK TABLE 6 SIGNIFICANT PARENT-INTERVIEW ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES MOTHER INTERVIEW

Mothers of boys > mothers of girls: 12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 44. Tolerance of verbal protest Mothers of girls > mothers of boys: 2. Strictness: Neatness 10. Demand for obedience 13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love 27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggressiontoward parent 38. Maturity expectation: Does not reward dependency FATHER INTERVIEW

Fathers of boys > fathers of girls: 11. Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment 18. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Praise 19. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Tangible reward 28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative Fathers of girls > fathers of boys: None MOTHER INTERVIEW X FATHER INTERVIEW

Mothers of boys > fathers of boys: 12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 14. Negative sanctions: Isolation 36. Maturity expectation: Permissivenessfor exploration 37. Maturity expectation: Rewardingof self-sufficiency 42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication 47. Individual character of child perceived 48. Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship 50. Warmth: Approval 52. Warmth: Empathy 55. Conscientiousness: Sacrificeown needs to those of children Fathers of boys > mothers of boys: 10. Demand for obedience 20. Parents' feeling of control over child 22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures 23. Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline 26. Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement 27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggressiontoward parent 28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative 32. Reason for restrictions: An absolutist ethical imperative Mothers of girls > fathers of girls: 1. Strictness: Care of family property 2. Strictness: Neatness 11. Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment 12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 37. Maturity expectation: Rewardingof self-sufficiency 40. Independence: Encourages contact with other adults 55. Conscientiousness: Sacrificeown needs to those of children Fathers of girls > mothers of girls: 17. Negative sanctions: Frightening the child 22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures

Note.--- < .05 for I test of either correlatedor independentmeansas appropriate.

307

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT Parent-interviewClusters As was the case with the final procedures used with the child behavior, four principal axes factor analyses were performed on the interview data for mothersof boys, mothers of girls, fathers of boys, and fathers of girls. These analyses revealed that (a) the raw intercorrelationswere, in general, much lower than for the child behavior, (b) all four solutions were similar but not similar enough to allow combining of boys and girls, and (c) there was no basis for establishinga firm two- or three-dimensional orthogonalstructurein any of the solutions. Since there seemed to be little value in pursuing a workable model of parent attitudes, the decisionmaking features of the BC TRY cluster analytic system were utilized to provide final clusters as similar as possible across solutions. Table 7 gives the defining items, that is, those items which were composited to obtain cluster scores for the final clusters and the cluster reliabilities. For clarity of interpretation,additional items that have a relatively high average correlation with the definers are also listed. The clusters defining Warmth and Consistent Discipline emerged almost intact as the first two clusters from all four analyses. The relatively low reliabilities for some of the other clusters reflect the generally low order of intercorrelationamong items and, in addition,fewer items clusteredtogether than for the child behavior. Comparabilityof the Parent-InterviewClusters Table 8 contains the raw intercorrelationsamong parent-interview clusters within a group solution, along with cos 0 values for across-group solution comparisons.In addition, both r and cos 0 values are given for the mother-fathercomparisonsfor boys and girls separately. For mothers, clusters measuring Warmth, Consistent Discipline, Maturity Demands, and Punitiveness were found for both boys and girls and were similar for both sexes (cos 0 > .80). However, the pattern of intercorrelationsof the clusters differs for boys and girls. MaturityDemands for mothers of boys is relatively orthogonal to the other clusters, while it correlates highly with Consistency (.58) and negatively with Punitiveness (-.36) for girls. Two additional clusters designated Restrictivenessand Encourages Independent Contacts were found for boys but not for girls, and one cluster designated Socialization Demands was found for girls but not for boys. Encourages Independent Contacts showed a significant positive correlationwith both maternalWarmthand MaturityDemands. For fathers, four clusters were found and given identical designations for both boys and girls, although the similarity across sex was high only for Consistent Discipline (cos 0 = .85). Warmth and Strictness Concerning Orderlinesshad cos 0 values in the .70's, while Punitiveness had a similarityindex of only .52. For fathers of boys, all four clusters were rela308

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANABAUMRIND AND ALLENE. BLACK TABLE 7 DESCRIPTION OF PARENT-INTERVIEW CLUSTERS

INTERVIEW-BOYS MOTHER

Warmth. Reliability= .84, * = .45:

48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship.............. 53.* Warmth: Sympathy.................................. 50.d Warmth: Approval.............................. 42.1 Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... 52. Warmth: Empathy ...................................

ConsistentDiscipline.Reliability= .71,f2 = .20: practices.................... 24.d Consistency:Child-rearing 23.d Consistency:Follow-through in discipline................. 22.d Lacksinternalconflictaboutdisciplinaryprocedures........ 17. Negativesanctions:Frighteningthe child................. 11. Negativesanctions:Corporalpunishment ................. MaturityDemands.Reliability= .61, f = .16: 34. Maturityexpectation:Householdresponsibilities........... ........ 37.d Maturityexpectation:Rewardingof self-sufficiency 3. Strictness:Responsibilities aboutorderliness .............. Punitiveness.Reliability= .59,f* = .24: of love................. 13.d Negativesanctions:Withdrawal 17.1 Negativesanctions:Frighteningthe child................. 42. Communication: Attentivenessto child'scommunication.... 50. Warmth:Approval..................................... 51. Warmth:Absenceof hostility ........................... Restrictiveness.Reliability= .80, P = .10: for exploration ....... 36.d Maturityexpectation:Permissiveness 28.d Directiveness:Restrictionson child'sinitiative............ Keepingtrackof the child............. 54.d Conscientiousness: EncouragesIndependentContacts. Reliability= .70, f = .17: 40.d Independence:Encouragescontactwith otheradults....... 41.d Independence:Introduceschildto newexperiences. ........ 51. Warmth:Absenceof hostility.......................... MOTHERINTERVIEW-GIRLS

Warmth.

Reliability = .87, f, = .47:

42.d Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... 53.d Warmth: Sympathy ................................... 48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship................ 50.! Warmth: Approval.................................... 13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love..................... Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .84, f* = .32: . 24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices ................... 23.4 Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline.................. 20.d Parent's feeling of control over child..................... 22." Lacks internal conflict about disciplinaryprocedures........

MaturityDemands.Reliability= .77,P = .23: 34.d Maturityexpectation:Householdresponsibilities.......... aboutorderliness .............. 3.d Strictness:Responsibilities 23. Consistency:Follow-through in discipline................ 47. Individualcharacterof childperceived .................... 37.d Maturityexpectation:Rewardingof self-sufficiency.

A VERAG r

.59 .57 .56 .54 .53

.53 .42 .41 -.40 -.38 ..43 .43 .40 .41 .41 -.41 -.40 -.37 -. 64 .56 .53 .54 .54 .40 AVERAGE

r

.63 .62 .61 .60 -.56 .60 .60 .55 .51

.56 .55 .55 .50 .46 309

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT Punitiveness. Reliability = .77, r- = .30: 13.d Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love .................. 17.d Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................ 23. Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline .............. 42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... Socialization Demands. Reliability = .65, f2 = .09: 7.d Strictness: Aggression toward other children .............. 39." Maturity expectation: Intellectual achievement expected.... 6.d Strictness: Quarrelingwith sisters and brothers............

.62 .62 -.57 -.52 .42 .37 .37

FATHER INTERVIEW-BOYS

AVERAGE r

Warmth.

Reliability = .87, 2 = .38:

48." Warmth: 49.d Warmth: 52.d Warmth: 53. Warmth: 50. Warmth:

Consistent Discipline.

Reliability = .81, f2 = .15:

24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices...................... 23.d Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline ................ 20.d Parent's feeling of control over child...................... Strictness ConcerningOrderliness. Reliability = .87, = .08: ..... ........ 2.d Strictness: Neatness.. . ............... 3.* Strictness: Responsibilitiesabout orderliness.............. 8. Strictness: Television.............. ................ Punitiveness.

43.d 17.d 11.d 51. 10. 13.

Reliability = .69, f2 = .12:

Communication: Expression of negative feelings to child.... Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................ Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment ................ Warmth: Absence of hostility ........................... Demand for immediate or total obedience. ................ Negative sanctions: Withdrawalof love .................. FATHER INTERVIEW---GIRS

Warmth: Reliability = .86, Pf = .18:

48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship ............... 49.d Warmth: Demonstrativeness ........................... 50.d Warmth: Approval..................................... 13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love .................. Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .76, f2 = .39: 23.d Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline. ................ 21. Parent's appraisal of his/her general influenceon child ...... 20.d Parent's feeling of control over child ...................... 56. Conscientiousness: Acceptance of responsibility............ 24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices...................... Strictness ConcerningOrderliness. Reliability = .83, f2 = .18: 2.d Strictness: Neatness .................................... 1.d Strictness: Care of family property....................... 3.V Strictness: Responsibilitiesabout orderliness.............. Punitiveness.

17.d 13.d 26.d 51.

. 74 .66 .65 .61 .60

Presence of a loving relationship ............... ........ Demonstrativeness.................... Empathy. ................................... ................. Sympathy ................... Approval....................................

Reliability = .82, i' = .15:

Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................ Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love.................... Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement............. Warmth: Absence of hostility ..........................

.66 .56 .54 .

.61 .61 .37 .44 .42 .41 -.35 .34 .32 AVERAGE

.71 .68 .61 -.46 .80 .73 .71 .69 .65 .63 . 61 .61 .61 .60 --.59 -.47

Note.-A superscript d indicates the items defining the cluster; reliability = the reliability of the = reproducibility of the mean of the squared composite of the cluster definers (Spearman-Brown);

correlationsamong items; averager - the averagecorrelationof the item with the other cluster definers.

310

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK 000'0 \OaO0"Mhl

~~u00

4

U

M0

b0

0

?'Im

Fel > 0u o3 0

mqt0tnOk 0 II',

0

0 0

r-

02

00'0C4

O?o0-'h

4.o4 23II 0.00u 0)

rn

mo( n

0

v

u Z

0) 100 00 % 41

t

000

0 t-o0

m

t- -m

93 0 0

pq

00?oC -

cd~

I IN

a?0.

* 0

.

.

.

:02cj ..g)0

:m::.

.

U2

cVcd~(

4

'-f ..

aC

so%0 0'0 b~e()0

) C1

A

V141 z4

Z

acl a)

.

.o60

,.'

QUO V

s.

.444

..4-.1

0

E4a0

I..?

41 aE:co : t-

O

:cd Cd

cd VIP, Zd "" eq

-

(U

w 6-1 0 4

0000

z0

0) V00

M000 r

0O

0faW

Cd

N

tn

v-4

L; .-4

.0

10.6-1

o0

0 C4

S-)

;~~Y)3. 4

r

0

>,

0cc~A4 Ix wCd o

.

U > u

r.

c'd

M 0.4)I

0

loo

Cd0-~% 00 M

:::I.C

Cn O cu~u

0

be ED)

a

mv o i r v

0)U

k~

~

~

0 0) 3C 31 r~rt)Occ)311

0

.0

. . 0

cu

V4M

o be 00

C40 00 0-r0 4

,4 m . . . ...

10a

-r ~ COE 1424Cd

~C4

0).a0

a

r

c

.

-q4 cd

r.

Vj

.

o~

c-.

m

.

P?

0)000

4 C4 ()Zd

.

00 k(

cue

00

:..0

All

0..C4 00

00

r , j, NN~w te

r.

Cdc

.

.

41

H.

~~00~ 14 jQ

o

0inZ

-.04

c b GcIc3

eq

xa

pq

'in 0k0

04 C4

0

$4(

02

c

0

0

0

02.0

.

0)

L

(u0)

U C.)

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

cu

0I

311

..4

CHILDDEVELOPMENT tively orthogonal;for girls, Warmth was correlated significantlywith Consistent Discipline, and both Warmth and Consistent Discipline were correlatednegatively with maternalPunitiveness. For the mother x father comparisonsof identically designated clusters, it is generallythe case for both boys and girls that even where cos 0 is high, r is low, indicating that although the same constellationof attitudes is salient for both mother and father clusters, there is relatively little predictive value from one parent to the other. A possible exception is Consistent Discipline which intercorrelated.43 for boys and .32 for girls. Although maternal and paternal Punitiveness are uncorrelated for boys, paternal Punitivenessis negatively correlatedwith maternalWarmth and Consistent Discipline. Paternal Consistent Discipline is correlatedpositively with maternal Maturity Demands for both boys and girls and with maternal Encourages Independent Contacts for boys and maternal Socialization Demands for girls. The fact that the child-behavior correlates of maternal SocializationDemands for girls, maternal MaturityDemands, and paternal ConsistentDiscipline for boys are similaris discussedin the Resultssection. RESULTS

Sex-RelatedEfects of ParentAttitudes Parent variables given identical or similar designations frequently correlate with child-behaviorvariables quite differently for boys and girls. It might appear to follow that different socialization laws are needed to predict the behavior of boys and girls. However, in the instances examined (Bayley & Schaefer, 1964; Bronfenbrenner,1961; Sears, Rau, & Alpert, 1965), speculationsto that effect, while reasonable,do not follow unequivocally from the data presented. The ambiguityis frequently with respect to the equivalence of the entities given the same designations. The variables are comparableif they correlate highly, but it is of course not possible to correlatedirectly across sex. Cluster-analytictechniques are helpful here in two ways: (a) a measurableentity with a higher reliability emerges with a well-defined set of referents when highly intercorrelateditems are composited, and (b) it is then possible to obtain cos 0 values between clusters across solutions. When cos 0 values are high, the two dimensions are comparable. However, the possibility of a large difference in pattern of intercorrelationof clusters between groups arises to the extent that acrossgroup cluster comparisonsgive cos 0 values less than unity for all identically designated clusters. Where such large differences exist, across-group comparisonof effects for individual clusters cannot be interpreted clearly. For example, if Cluster A for Mothers of boys correlates positively with Hostility, and the identically designated Cluster A for mothers of girls cor-

relatesnegativelywith Hostility,then the meaningof the differencein cor312

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANABAUMRIND AND ALLENE. BLACK relations between Cluster A with boy behaviors and Cluster A with girl behaviors is altered by the sex-related interaction of Hostility with Cluster A. Without resorting to partial correlation,the relations between a set of independent variables and a set of dependent variables for independent groups can be clearly understoodonly when the within-set patterns of intercorrelationamong variables are similar for each group. Actually, calculating correlationswith long strings of partialed-outvariables is statistically meaningless with the degrees of freedom available in psychological studies and seldom attempted except with selected variables chosen on the basis of observedrelations. When the criteria for selection for studying the differential relations between parent attitudes and boy and girl behavior is set to include only those clusters which have a high cos 0 value and a similar pattern of intercorrelationwith other parent clusters, all paternal clusters are eliminated and only maternal Warmth, Consistent Discipline, and Punitiveness can be considered. The correlationsof maternal Warmth and maternal Consistent Discipline with child behaviors are undifferentiatedwith regard to sex when it is noted that for the size N available, a differencein correlation between identically measured variables of approximately.40 is significant at the .05 level. (See Tables 11 and 12.) The positive correlationof maternal Punitiveness with Hostile behavior for boys (.15) and negative correlation with the same behavior for girls (-.31), however, is suggestive of a sex-relateddifferencein relation. If the above requirementsare relaxed to include all similarly designated clusters, some interesting sex-related differences can be considered. MaternalWarmth was correlated positively with Autonomy for boys (.26) and not at all for girls. Paternal Warmth was correlatedpositively with Autonomyfor boys (.28) and negatively (-.21) for girls. In this connection, it may be noted that Autonomy has a sexdifferentiatedrelation to paternal Consistent Discipline (.35 for boys, and -.05 for girls) and to paternal Punitiveness (.03 for boys, and .34 for girls). Paternal Consistent Discipline and paternal Punitiveness are themselves negatively related clusters. These data, especially the fact that paternal Warmth and paternal Punitiveness each have opposite associations with independence in boys and girls, support the hypothesis that girls more than boys require a certain degree of tension in their relation with a parent, as well as leeway to rebel in order to develop independence and self-assertiveness.It must be kept in mind, however, that the four Warmth clusters and the two paternal Punitiveness clusters do not entirely meet the requirementsset for comparability. RelationsBetween Parent-Attitudeand Parent-BehaviorMeasures A comparison of data derived from parent interviews with data derived from parent observation may suggest areas in which parents are 313

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT capable of giving reasonablyveridical accounts of their relations with their children. However, it should be noted that originally the data collected from these two sources were intended to be supplementary rather than overlappingand that the variablesso far defined for the HVSA do not span the domain of parent behavior. Additionally, the HVSA uses data from both parents with contributionsfrom the mother predominant.The intercorrelationsof the HVSA variables for parents of boys and girls separately and their correlationswith the interview clusters appear in Table 9. The maternal Warmth clusters are both highly reliable and highly comparable for boys and girls, yet their correlations with the parentbehaviorvariables are somewhat different. Most notable of these differences was the relatively high correlation of maternal Warmth for boys with Satisfies Child (.44), itself an aspect of warmth, and the low correlation with the same variable for girls (.12), while the opposite relations hold (-.47 for girls, .10 for boys) for Uses Coercive Power Without Reason, a variable highly correlatedwith the interview cluster Punitiveness for girls (.52) but not for boys (.05). The correlationswith firm control (Positive Outcome and Accepts Power Conflict With Child) were positive for both sexes. In general, the behavioral correlates of the Warmth variables were consistent and reasonable. Even when sex related, none were in directions opposite to commonsense or generallyaccepted theory. If observed behavior is used as the criterion, mothers' reports concerning Consistent Discipline with sons are less veridical than any other combination. The only significant correlation between Consistent Discipline for mothers of boys and any parent-behaviorvariable was with Satisfies Child. For the other parent-child combinations, there is more correspondence between attitude and behavior measures. The expected correlationswith Positive Outcome are all significant.In addition, for samesex pairs, a significant negative correlationwas found with Uses Coercive Power Without Reason. It was reportedpreviously that maternalMaturityDemands had a different pattern of correlationwith other maternal interview clusters for boys and girls. Similarly, that cluster's pattern of correlation with parentbehavior variables was different for boys and girls. For girls, MaturityDemands correlated positively with Positive Outcome, Independence Training, and Respects Child's Decision, indicating a relatively straightforward relation between reported and observed behavior. For mothers of sons, Maturity Demands correlatedpositively with Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance, but negatively with Respects Child's Decision, indicating a more equivocalrelation. The correlation of the mother-son cluster Encourages Independent Contacts with Parent Takes Initiative in Control Sequences (-.26) and Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance (.34) gives evidence of consistency 314

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND ALLENE. BLACK DIANABAUMRIND ,,-• O

O

,,-

O 0

0....OI

e,,

--.

e,,

i

O 0

IIII

O 0

0

H

Ic !m cqto ON 0 c-q 0q OO-

q

-•qooo

0

I1O 0I0 S

C)~

U

, ,-

ON . I N

e'l cu

t ..

C C> O

e

I

\)

cl

OC

,,-

O 0

c e', lq

I..00 V-.

-f4meq I CI O c% eq O

m 0I

II I

m-0f

IrI

cq I

III I

o

HImo c

c e', lq

?OC1\00 q

-I0I I

0

O t-•cq m,,

o 0 0

O

O

C m 1N 0

O C?

O

0

',-• 00-0

0 ei ,,19

,

I

I I

I

I

I

I-I

,--• •

II tto00 .

O

0000

I

U

II

II I

I I I

I ,0m

O 'IMOII

O

O

000 0

_

m

4!14

cq t-,,1

m,C-4 e-C-4

,-q

N

m

IqI0Im

C

e c

cq I

~(

O 0

t- CNI m\O C. I tn414 00 V-e -q

c%4m o --

CI00o

6

O 0

ld4 m(ln%Nl(

0IM III

II1~1

z 0Ot

O

H

0

000 0..

Mcq

En

U)

OO 0 0

II

I

I ImI0

I

10

I

EnL

-

.

I

cC

II

.

.

.

.

.

I I

t oo ?a... 0 o00 0 . .t- ..

?c q

~)I

o o ?0( o0 0 .

OJ

.

.

II ooio.c

C

I

\?lC

?c

o

..

.

c

~

d

.

.

.

I I t~~> O6000

00 n 00 0 o CNC) . ...

.

.

t. m

.

.

.

.

. ..

.

.

Al

I I I ~>\)CC

f

t

.

d

C

C2.. .

U ::. oo:

................0 .

,U?

.

3;n .

.

?

.

.

.

.

.

o

...... ................

.......

:

.

.

.

...... .

.

.

.

...

WCd .

.

.

. .

.

.

......

.

... .

.

: H

"

.

444

:•-.

:•

:• cz

:: :

l ":?

rnEn

rn

....... En

:: ::••............. C

.

d

C?

.0=.....

(1

. . . . .

?)0 1)

O 4)U)

U

4-J4-1 E od

>u

En

0rln

> Z'

U.

NL445

.

.

C

1 4-1 A*, 000 4.-d :? 0 &.0 0 .. . Pd edr. . 04.4 4-):z 0 0A UO W u Aq A4 U (j) V) d ? Iro C d .L 1 CU ???- C X4o W

e:

"

........

(1)

H

. . ....

.

: : : :4. : .

o

Q~In.

.

.

.

.U. .. )..........................? .)...

... .

o.Q

.

(1)U

U? > ,,)

(1):(1).u

CdCd

0

" E'

(1

c

O

'

.2 -C ""

. (1._. "),-U)

.

.n

.

c

C"

n

-

.-

•

:O

315

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT between attitude and behavior. The negative correlation with Independence Training (-.21) is not as contradictoryas it first appears in that the latter variable is concerned with cognitive differentiationrather than social self-reliance. Punitive attitudes seem to predict parent behavior which is coercive and inconsistent. Expressions of punitive attitudes were associated with coercive behavior for all parent-childpairs, but less markedly for mothers of boys. For same-sex pairs, but especially for mother-daughterpairs, Punitiveness correlatedhighly with Uses Coercive Power Without Reason. For both parents of girls, Punitiveness correlated negatively with Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance. For mothers of girls, Punitiveness correlated negatively with firm control (Positive Outcomeand Accepts Power Conflict). The mother-soncluster Restrictivenesscorrelated positively with Parent Takes Initiative in Control Sequences and with Satisfies Child (.23), thus supporting a relation between restrictive attitudes and overprotective (not hostile) behavior. In general, the pattern of correlationsbetween parent attitudes and observed behavior frequently differs depending upon sex of parent and sex of child, and not in a manner which could be predicted. There were few inconsistenciesbetween measuresof attitude and measuresof behavior, but the relationswere not strong. Correlationof Sample CharacteristicsWith Parentand Child Variables The intercorrelationsamong the sample characteristicsand child's IQ and their correlationswith the parent-interviewclusters, HVSA variables, and child-behavior clusters appear in Table 10. It should be noted that father's occupation, father's education, birth order, and, to a lesser extent, family size have skewed distributions (Table 1). Of particular interest is the consistently negative relation of father's education with all behavior in the Active quadrant. Father's education and occupation were correlated negatively with Confident, Adaptive behavior in girls, and father's education was correlated negatively with Autonomous, Imaginative behavior in boys. These same variables were related to parent behavior and interview clusters measuring rigidity, coerciveness, and lack of involvement on the part of parents of girls and to a lesser extent on the part of parents of boys. The results suggest that the generally beneficial effects on the child's development attributed to high socioeconomic status and educational level may undergoa reversalat the upper levels. For boys, IQ was associated (strongly) with Self-Controlled,Dependable, Friendly, and Likeable behavior, while the relations of IQ to equivalent clusters for girls are (weak) in the opposite direction. Like Bayley and Schaefer (1964), we find that girls' IQ compared to boys' IQ is relatively independent of the maternal and child variables studied. From an early 316

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANABAUMRIND AND ALLENE. BLACK FoO

(nN

uoI~wdnx~g~,ay~ uot~rdn330 s,.iaq~:rcrq~~OO UOTWvflp'3 s,.JiaT4

(VV(r

Our -

3

C40 oC

II

ua-JpjqJDjo *N

P4 O a~gy1J~s~puTiJ WU

z

VSIPtIJY

. 4-)00 *r

N

b

0-0-cr

C4IC4IC4 w

II

o" 0 't

cd

o 00

0

N

I

I3

o

J "pJg

Uo0

N0 m

tPJUISPtIJY

cOF40~

0

-u00-00~uq

cd >

co I

0?

0

-c -

r% to 0 (0?oco M 0r)'0

164

cc o

c

0

I

III

I

f

0''N N

0N(40

c

O

l

ON

O

0

0'-r~0'

IIIcu liii~Y III

IccO

t-400c-

Q) > - NOIN I I I I

I

0

.

f C"?Om

M

-om

-00-0-0

0

cd.

VU)

?omN0

II

0

-4000

O~4-e~

OrOr 0 c-4r4eu

d uoTwrdnmoo s,.ia-qtr.i0 c~

4U

II -Mc0o0

-

tM 0

-0--000--

~000cu4

WUU

-

00

N-

I

0C4

C4 o0rrO~ *wIC4 0 II N 0

uI

C4

O N t-

0-0

O o*0NN0

Z

0

NCN0

SI

C

MC4eW 4c 04

N

uoTzr~npa9JiaipoW

MOO N

Y(P( ....

I

r)yc)

O 4

d

q

O 0'--

00OV-4 o" 00Into

'tr'0r

ON

-4

?o

000''000

0

m

L

~~4-0--00

-r

cYcrct3Y(

III~3O

ct

I

SI

I

I

I

0

4j

so. :=H

W +j d..-, ". ..W I as o r.0

cl.

0

v

0 u.

o

4)

41

?U

'

o

U..4 04 -Z0 O

ca 0j j L) Z A T,414 ?:

U--4CJcdo , -4 0 4) cts V. 00 0C~i~r U.cdm.-J-40 . vw o 41 > .41 ..>4 0 ;,W bo u 4 4) cd -0w d wc 00 ;iUA044,w

( aar a 41 j. )C110 cs0

8 ov ,

u

Sc:.Ps:Z

317

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT oMCoOMN"V N

Mv-4000 N N1

NmN0141

0-440

00N'4

m

CA0 '40CAN00-

--N

4 -

o

000 0 mf)

-

cm-

00 '0

00ON- ON

0

000000

04-004LO0

0M)M0000

IIT4T4 OO'~~00

0

Otl)

10N N" C4 eq q "C4

o

c

II -0 0

t 1

0- I

4000

00 II

IU

0

V-C

000

0 4t ---00IImN

11 U

M

40

Coc

M

0

j4T-

.... 4

1111 '40LON-e 00

T-4

V

.. . . . "'0 CAtt0

l

0

1041 Cd

-0'0M

10

04T- -400

coo0 V

eT-4

00

M'40

N-N 00000br000U~

C49-4 114

0

cdg

0 N

z

0

0

0 C4-4

\ NO

C aCd

00

CAN - CA0- 00

: ::

V..--r.0 w ...4

c-

0 0N

: O d~r . .U

.0

;5

-d II 1Ic "; 0 14-J U~ 0.2~0 b Cc oa)o M Ru I cd ".a-4--) w .-4d cd a, ZOr(UcE (UZE-0 6-06 Z

0

0

060

d: Im d\Or3UO0.404

bo-4

41

tu4 0

0.Cd

z

64(u

q d~c

Co

M0*0 0 ad v-CU)

v

04-

318

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK age, a boy's place in the world is tied to his cognitive abilities, while a girl's value to her parents and herself is enhanced by quite a different set of skills. Indeed, high IQ in a girl may make it more difficult for her to assume her expectedpassive, conformingrole. Child-BehaviorCorrelatesof Parent-AttitudeClustersand HVSA Variables The individual relations which appear between parent variables and child variables (Tables 11 and 12) are not strong. However, many are significant, and the patterns of significant correlations are internally consistent and some are of striking theoretical interest. In particular, some quite large differences in correlation between parent behavior and child behavior appear for boys and girls. These differences are reported as sexrelated correlates, however, rather than as possible sex-related effects because of the notable differencesin patterns of intercorrelationsof the parent variables across sex. An assessment of the generality of the findings must always take into account the nature of the population. The population studied consisted of very well-educated, moderately affluent parents who were involved with their children's welfare even when they were not notably warm and sympathetic. The statistically significant relations are discussed below as though parental behavior anteceded and, in fact, generated the child behavior with which it was associated. Such a position, while theoreticallymeaningful and with few exceptions intuitively convincing, is not demonstrablefrom these data. 1. Warmth was not an important predictor of child behavior in this study.-The associationsof Warmth with child-behaviorclusters were low. It is of interest to note, however, that the Warmth variables (interview clusters and HVSA variable Satisfies Child) were related positively to Autonomous behavior for parents of boys and related negatively for parents of girls. There are two conditions which may account for the unimportance of parental warmth as a predictor of child behavior in this study by contrast to most studies. The first considerationis the restricted range of parents studied. The second considerationis that the Warmth variables as measured in this study are homogenous since they consist only of such closely related attitudes as approval, empathy, sympathy, and demonstrativeness.Punitiveness and coerciveness were measured separately from these variables. In most correlationalstudies (e.g., Becker & Krug, 1964), the warmth factor tends to be a rather global construct including such diverse variables as use of reasoning, success of enforcement policy, and nonpunitive attitudes. When the dimension measured is more restricted, warmth may act as a precondition for the effectiveness of enforcement policy or of maturity demands and as a component of such related predictive constructs as "uses reason"or "grantsindependence." But the predictive importance of parental warmth in accounting for variance in child 319

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT *4 00Cq4Vft m Mo O 000404

oqrlsu"4

H '5

J U0 ~Ctu~aroJuo

O

cI)

'"40

'"4h

to1(

-

4-

d

a

'.0

C

'n

0

O

I" 4w

-40N0"

v

4'

"0 "M C0

04

I"

44'

04

eq

.? 0

'N

0

eq

0

4'

o4

-1

eq0

I

'

0%

"v 4

i

..jqisuodsa.u

S o

0

'"40'0ecur)

-%2UTtuJo1JUoCuoN

H

o>4

v

'n 40

00

0

'"QSUd'.4t

'"

'"04"-0

-u

0

0

'"e

0

0z

"

-4uapuadapuI H

5

Ao

00eq

Fr5~.0

Fr5

Z

~

t-o,

tdNO

lu4uaplgu 0u.e

I

.1

oogmmo

0u~.

VrC

N' ;AT~sa12T!JV P oqaeo--o m -aA WUOU

(n cll~i~

I

n

-p AqTdtuo Sl~sa~a

I II

-(

0

Oe'~r

V

0V

-

-

N

ce0

1

1

WN

o

--

I

0

1

m 0 inin

V0

ii

I I.............I

CO

V 'm00 %0 No - 0

eqco

'.4

V)

0

OO N"

1

>A0S1

tj1?tfd(

OO

II

N O Co

f

II

P3-~aVI13UT~ff13UI

V

eq~O C ooeqe'.e'44'

ONI

O

IiSJ

9-

%0e 0.0In.

I"

1

00%

eq

0

0

-

t-"4

-4 4'

~-

b0 4'

'.3

'.5

m0" eq

ek-'"4

oeql

'.

noi-aaaqa-a

-snouovuolnV Z

-ovC

p;DOJWOuJdaa H

c

III

"'JA LSnO -snonoaad

I

oNg 00 e0~400t mq-ooo

~

%

4

O0

II

I

I

*

000

o

kU~kI ,V4

V

-V.

00

C4

. :w 0 4v 05 0 d VO 0 Go 0 U'Q W.0.-

*.O o.0 - .000q.o"W0

Unn04 cd~O 4-

>

0

Eb

.2;!

(U

0

(U

00

'

0

tr.?: -)

S

320

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

S

0 CV MW

H 0

AND ALLENE. BLACK DIANABAUMRIND olqrisun

z

4

P10 "M

cc

'n000

00

-aA1 QNf

4

O"

N

NY

0

I I

I

-OVP l*u~ro~o

C40

to

V

00

00

(

O~b)O

ii3dvc~O

0"""0OJO9N m

m

0oeoN

V) -aUT~-'Of03UO II

II

I

I

W4Jq 0Nmuosom

V

m

o

0N

0

0"

14

"b bN

CON"O

0

N

0

0

-1AqJSv

U) 4

u

0Z

Nin

o

co g N to

t-in 00

V

c~4

I-

g

0

oCCS

0o)

0UaT41Sa-dM~

-~

OA~?J

~

O'

09rOO0000 N N

"M

0

0f)

O. N

0

N

N-

0

m00

14

!DAlSSaLJ u

0 .-

1% N V44

i. " o C" %O4 *.

-a.vdpp

0 k%.09

CM4

.

-z %o

c4

r.

of N0 o%

V.m

o0

o t-

%o

I

c

M

II

00

0

N

00

I

-w4puapajuoI

C4

0N0

%

1%

00C

%

-a!staI2I WI F-n 0u

w

04 z rwu

-sn-09

in)

0000

0V

V

I i a "

-snofl q !JA1

PIk191u3 Z%0in

z

m*ol 00f00

V No)

~~ -Y

0'.0)

0

o

0U)0%'4) 000

09P3

0 ON

0

Ham paZTUT:iZOS :')-~!aa~~o:: U)

cc

X

tl~ud

a~ 1.4

h

U

If)

0

W 4

V 0

W

N

00

0Ve

N 0

0'. -

0V09

1 0 % 0

9

in 0

I

.=.o-

c\

I

l1

.............................

-al

0

mIn

in

0o)0

-.2Uriaau1tuo0

-

m

rr~co)

t

00 'of4

0

I

CV

*0),

*~ ~4-A

.

3a4

if)

00

rfr L 0 (u 0V u cd IL) , : g:? v0.0 4U.. >tr .,-' ~ 4v ~-,= 4 ? 0CO. aw>,w )0.u. u W ucu.. S.ur v0 tJ4 )C2 9) zar a :!4_1405? a0c Cdj ..

.54

c

ri

Cu :>

.Al

.,~ Ou

.

a . cu

00)

0 00

..~00)1Q

> cu0Q > W 41 oMEO Cd?WECU E:3.hc o~Cm~ 44:~I~

>

04e

a

Cu.0

(n

N

U

d0 ue. =1

,

bOU&r. O

>e

t

E 321

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT behavior is low by comparisonwith control variables in this culturally advantaged population. 2. Punitive attitudes were not associated with Fearful or Compliant behavior.-On the contrary, particularlyfor girls, associations of paternal Punitiveness were with Independent and Domineering behavior. For boys, paternal Punitiveness was associated with Unlikeable behavior. These particular results concerning the effects of paternal Punitiveness are similar to those reported by Becker and Krug (1964). In both studies, paternal Punitiveness was associated with nonconformingand defiant behavior in girls. It should be noted that Punitivenesswas not correlatedwith antisocialnonconformity (Unsocialized, Rebellious behavior) or with Unstable behavior in the girls. MaternalPunitiveness was associated with rather different behavior in girls than paternalPunitiveness. In general, maternalPunitiveness was associated in girls with friendly, outgoing, sociable behavior towards peers and adultsin the nurseryschool setting. The positive association shown here between Independent behavior and paternal Punitive Attitudes for girls supports Bronfenbrenner'sobservation (1961) that among educationally advantaged subgroups too much warmth and support seem to have a "debilitating"effect on girls. As noted in a recent report by Baumrind (1966), hostile, self-righteous, and nonempathic practices were associated, in the studies reviewed, with cognitive and emotional disturbancesin the child. Data reported here give a different impression than the consensus of those results, due primarily to two factors: the emphasis in this study on adaptive rather than maladaptive functioning, and the special characteristics of the population studied. Where the range studied is not restricted, it seems likely that punitive attitudes as well as warmth bear a curvilinear relation to assertiveness. Whether a child reacts in an assertive or passive manner to parental punitiveness is probably a function of several factors: the child's vigor and reactivity, the parent's consistency in enforcing high-power directives, the parent'swarmth,and the child'sintelligence,to name but a few. The conditions in the population studied were such as to increase the likelihood that the girls could react assertively. The children were intelligent, and their parents were conscientiously concerned with their welfare. Punitiveness correlatednegatively with consistency and positively with uncertainty about effectiveness, suggesting that the punitive father was weak rather than strong. Because of the parents' inconsistency and doubts and the fact that they were involved rather than detached, the girls whose parents were punitive did in fact have leverage and could resist effectively punitive demands. According to Wolpe (1958), anxiety or avoidance and self-assertion are reciprocally inhibiting responses to threatening or frustrating experiences. What aspect of the fundamental fight-flightreaction to such experiences will predominate for a given individual will be a function of prior 322

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK experience as well as genotype. The ways in which girls are reared traditionally (see Table 6, for example) probably serve to perpetuate in girls preferencesfor the avoidant or anxiety response to aggressive threats. When parents of girls periodically expose them to frightening experiences within the home setting (a defining item of the Punitiveness clusters), daughters have the opportunity, which boys routinely have, to become resistant to the stress associated with such aggressive threats and to learn that offensive reactions to aggression are frequently rewarding. The more punitive fathers in this study would provoke anger by their attacks, but then withdraw when their daughters responded assertively, thus differentially rewardingassertiveratherthan avoidantresponses. Any kind of vigorous, abrasive interactionin which assertive responses are stimulated and either not punished or rewarded should increase the likelihood that the individual so stimulatedwill react assertivelyrather than avoidantly to threatening or frustratingstimuli. Maternal SocializationDemands (relatively uncorrelated with Punitive Attitudes) were also associated with Independent behavior in girls, and additionallywith Adaptive, Confident behavior. Our results do not suggest, therefore, that parental punitiveness is the only way or the best way of encouraging self-assertive behavior in girls. They do seem to suggest that mildly tension-producing interactions encourage rather than suppress self-assertive responses in the young child and, conversely, that tension-reducinginteractionsif too predominantcan have the opposite effect. 3. Paternal Consistent Discipline was associated with Independence and Assertiveness in boys and with Afiliativeness in girls.--Paternal consistency was associated for boys with Likeable, Autonomous,Imaginative, and Confident behavior. Thus, obedience in the home was associated for boys with constructive nonconformity in the nursery school setting. For girls, the highest associations were with Well-Socialized, Friendly, and Dependable behavior. For both boys and girls, paternal Consistent Discipline was related negatively to father's and mother's educational level. The more highly educated fathers in this highly educated group were the least consistent. Perhaps the more highly educated fathers in this academic community were too involved with their work to accept significant responsibilityfor disciplining their children, so that much of their potential usefulness as models was lost. Unlike paternal punitiveness, paternal consistency was unrelated to Independence in daughters. Maternal Consistent Discipline was not related significantlyto any of the child-behaviormeasures, but for both boys and girls the highest correlationwas with Adaptive behavior. The associationsof Accepts Power Conflict With Child with child-behaviorclusters were similar in direction to covariates of paternal Consistent Discipline. However, the discrepancy in associated behavior for boys and girls was more marked. For boys, the highest correlates were with Autonomy and Confidence. For girls, the highest correlate was 323

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT also with Autonomy, but here the relation was negative. Girls whose parents Accept Power Conflict were Responsible and Conforming,while boys were Autonomousand Confident. For both sexes, paternal Consistent Discipline was associated with Stable behavior. Parent's success in obtaining compliance with directives (HVSA variable, Positive Outcome) was associated for girls with similar behavior as Accepts Power Conflict With Child, but not to the same degree. For boys, highest associations (weak) were with Likeablebehavior. 4. The cluster maternal Maturity Demands was also correlated with Independence and Assertiveness for boys.-This cluster consists of items concerning household responsibilities, orderliness, and rewarding of selfsufficiency. Significantcorrelateswith the eight-cluster solution were Likeable, Rebellious, Autonomous,Adaptive, and Confident. The partial correlations of Maturity Demands with these same child-behaviordimensions, with age held constant, (Child's age and Maturity Demands correlate .40) are slightly lower, but in most instances remain significant.Thus, the child's age affected maternal Maturity Demands, as might be expected, but the significant positive correlations of Maturity Demands with Independence and Assertivenessor with Stability and Nonconformitycannot be attributedto the child'sage. 5. For girls, covariates of maternal SocializationDemands were similar to the covariates of maternalMaturityDemands for boys.-The cluster Socialization Demands consists of items concerning control of aggression and expectations of intellectual achievement. Like paternal Consistent Discipline, maternal Socialization Demands covaried negatively with parent's education and positively with indexes of competence in the child. For girls, Confident and Adaptive behavior were associated positively with maternal SocializationDemands. The HVSA variable Takes Initiative in Control Sequences which correlated significantly with Socialization Demands (.33) was associated positively with Autonomous behavior in girls. The HVSA variable Independence Training, Controlwas associated in girls with Adaptive, Assertive behavior, showing a similar pattern of covariates as Socialization Demands. 6. Parents'willingness to offer justificationfor directives and to listen to the child were associated with Competent Behavior on the part of the child.-Uses Reason to obtain Compliance (HVSA variable j) was associated in boys with Independence and Nonconformity. Encourages Verbal Give and Take (HVSA variable k) and Uses Coercive Power Without Reason (HVSA variable q) (negative) were associated in girls with Stable behavior. Uses Coercive Power Without Reason was associated for both sexes, but most strongly for girls, with maladaptive behavior. For parents of boys, predominate covariates were with Stereotyped, Dependent behavior; and for parents of girls, predominate covariates were with Regressive, Fearful behavior. Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance was associated 324

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK significantly with Independence and Nonconformity for boys and with Stable behavior for girls. Clearly in boys and girls from this population (mean IQ of 125), use of reasoning and willingness to engage in verbal debate was associatedwith Adaptive, competentbehavior. It is interesting to note that fathers' education and occupation were associated with arbitrarybehavior (i.e., these indexes were negatively related to Uses Reason and EncouragesVerbal Give and Take, and positively related to Uses Coercive Power Without Reason). The positive relation between arbitraryuse of power and fathers'socioeconomicand education level which, at first glance, contradicts common sense is understandablein the particularpopulationstudied for reasonsalreadygiven. 7. Restrictivenessand refusal to grant sufficient independence (HVSA variable Respects Child's Decision, and mother-son interview clusters, Restrictiveness,and Independent Contacts) were associated in boys with Dependent, Passive behavior.-Maternal Restrictiveness was strongly, negatively correlated with Imaginative behavior. Sons whose mothers did not permit them to explore the environment,who placed restrictionsupon their initiative, and who expected a high level of conscience development tended to be Stereotyped in their thinking and Dependent, while sons whose mothers Encourage Independent Contacts were more likely to be Independent,Active, and Nonconforming. DISCUSSION In summary,these findings suggest that parental practices which are intellectually stimulating and to some extent tension-producing (socialization and maturity demands, punitiveness, firmness in disciplinarymatters) are associated in the young child with various aspects of competence. Techniques which fostered self-reliance,whether by placing demands upon the child for self-control and high-level performance or by encouraging independent action and decision-making,facilitated responsible, independent behavior.Firm discipline in the home did not produce conformingor dependent behavior in the nursery school. For boys, the opposite was true. Independent, assertive behavior in girls was associated positively with parental demands and negatively with high acceptance. Firm, demanding behavior on the part of the parent was not associated in the parent with punitivenessor lack of warmth. The opposite was true. These conclusions concerning the effects of disciplinary practices are consistent with the findings of a study reported earlier (Baumrind, 1967). In that study, a group of children who were both socialized and independent were identified. These children were self-controlled and affiliative on the one hand and self-reliant, explorative, and self-assertive on the other hand. They were realistic, competent, and content by comparisonwith the other two groups of children studied. In the home setting, parents of these 325

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHILDDEVELOPMENT childrenwere consistent,loving, and demanding. They respected the child's independent decisions, but were very firm about sustaining a position once they took a stand. They accompanied a directive with a reason. Despite vigorous and at times conflictful interactions,their homes were not marked by discord or dissensions. These parents balanced high nurturance with high control and high demands with clear communicationabout what was required of the child. By comparisonwith parents of children who were immature, parents of these highly mature children had firmer control over the actions of their children, engaged in more independence training, and did not reward dependency. Their households were better coordinatedand the policy of regulations clearer and more effectively enforced. The child was more satisfied by interactions with his parents. By comparison with parents of children who were unhappy and disaffiliated,parents of the mature childrenwere less authoritarian,although quite as firm and more loving. REFERENCES Baumrind, Diana. Naturalistic observational procedures. Paper delivered at Conference on Research Methodology of Parent-ChildInteraction. Syracuse, New York, October, 1964. Available from author. Baumrind,Diana. Effects of authoritativeparental control on child behavior. Child Development, 1966, 37, No. 4, 887-907. Baumrind, Diana. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic psychological Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88. Bayley, Nancy, & Schaefer, E. S. Correlations of maternal and child behaviors with the development of mental abilities: data from the Berkeley growth study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964, 29, 3-79. Becker, W. C., & Krug, R. S. A circumplex model for social behavior in children. Child Development, 1964, 35, No. 6, 371-396. Block, J. A comparison between ipsative and normative ratings of personality. Journalof abnormaland social Psychology, 1957, 54, 50-54. Bronfenbrenner,U. Some familial antecedents of responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1961. Pp. 239-271. Bronson, Wanda C., Livson, N., & Katten, Edith S. Patterns of authority and affection in two generations.Journalof abnormaland social Psychology, 1959, 58, 143-152. Ghiselli, E. E. Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Chap. vii. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Pp. 256-260. Heinstein, M. Child rearing in California,a study of mothers with young children. Berkeley: California State Department of Public Health, 1965. Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley, 1958.

326

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK Passini, F. T., & Norman, W. T. A universal conception of personaity structure? Journalof Personalityand social Psychology, 1966, 4, 44-49. Schaefer, E. S. Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and for child behavior. In J. C. Glidewell (Ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior. Charles C Thomas, 1961. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1957. Sears, R. R., Rau, Lucy, & Alpert, R. Identification and child rearing. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965. Tryon, R. C. Theory of the BC TRY system. (Library version available in ditto from the author), 1964. Tryon, R. C., & Bailey, D. E. The BC TRY computer system of cluster and factor analysis. Multivariate behavior Research, 1966, 1, 95-111. Wolpe, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958.

327

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions