UNDERGRADUATE ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTAL DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information. _________________________ Ember Lynn Lee Certificate of Approval: ______________________ ______________________ Steven K. Shapiro Elizabeth V. Brestan, Chair Associate Professor Associate Professor Psychology Psychology ______________________ ______________________ James F. McCoy Joe F. Pittman Associate Professor Interim Dean Psychology Graduate School UNDERGRADUATE ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTAL DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES Ember Lynn Lee A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2006 iii iii UNDERGRADUATE ATTITUDES TOWARDS PARENTAL DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES Ember Lynn Lee Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights. ____________________________________ Signature of Author ____________________________________ Date of Graduation iv iv VITA Ember Lynn Lee is the daughter of Reginald C. Lee and Lynn Anita Lee of Northridge, California. Born on July 16, 1979 in Panorama City, California, Ember completed her B.A. at the University of California, Berkeley. She is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in Child Clinical Psychology at Auburn University. v v THESIS ABSTRACT UNDERGRADUATE ATTITUDES TOWARDS PARENTAL DISCIPLINE STRATEGIES Ember Lynn Lee Master of Science, December 15, 2006 (B.A. University of California, Berkeley, 2001) 90 Typed Pages Directed by Elizabeth V. Brestan Parenting is an essential part of children?s development. Because everyone has had experience with parenting young adults likely have opinions, attitudes and beliefs regarding parenting behaviors ? even before they become a parent. These attitudes and beliefs are posited to be influenced by the experience of being parented and experience with, or related to, children. In addition, it was hypothesized that experience being parented and socioeconomic status influences the formation of these attitudes. Undergraduate non-parents serve as a unique and interesting sample population because they have recently been parented and are entering a developmental phase in which they could face parenthood at any moment. In order to investigate the attitudes of undergraduate non-parents regarding discipline practices, data were collected from 248 Auburn University undergraduate vi vi students between the ages of 18 and 25 (M = 20.19, SD = 1.51). Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, modified versions of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ), and a modified version of the Parent Perception Inventory (APP). Correlational analyses indicated significant relationships between participants? reports on how they were parented and how they expect to parent in the future as well as their attitudes regarding the effectiveness of various discipline strategies. Significant relationships also emerged between items related to Child Exposure (CE) and attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies as well as with how the participants expect to parent in the future. MANOVA results indicate that how a participant was parented predicts the parenting strategies they will use in the future. The results of a stepwise regression suggest that participant?s prospective reports of their use of particular discipline strategies predicted caregiver?s socioeconomic status. The results of this study provides evidence that parenting attitudes exist prior to parenthood and that experience being parented as well as particular aspects of CE are related to those attitudes. Additionally, this study provides support for the intergenerational transmission of both positive and negative parenting practices and attitudes. vii vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people I would like to thank for their help and support in making this project possible. I extend my thanks and gratitude to Elizabeth Brestan, who has always supported and encouraged me in my research endeavors. Her support, feedback, and guidance have been invaluable to me. I am eternally grateful to Lauren Clarke and my team of research assistants for spending endless hours making my data collection possible. I wish to thank all my friends and family for always believing in me and for their support and encouragement through this and all my life?s journeys. In particular, I would like to thank my parents for always telling me that anything is possible. Mom and Dad, you are my heroes and inspiration for living life in a driven and honorable manner. Thank you for being the wonderful people you are individually and as a team. I love you. viii viii Style manual or journal used APA Publication Manual (5 th edition) Computer software used Microsoft Word 2002 ix ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ????...????????????????????.?. xi LIST OF FIGURES ?????????????????????????? xii I. INTRODUCTION??????????????????????.?.. 1 General Issues in Parenting??...?????????????????... 1 Importance of Parenting Research?????????????????... 2 Parenting Styles and Discipline Practices??????????????? 3 Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Discipline Practices???????? 7 Influence of Discipline Practices on Children?s Behavior????????... 7 Formation of Attitudes toward Parental Discipline: Rationale and Previous Research???????????????????????????... 9 Formation of Attitudes towards Parental Discipline: Influence of Child Exposure???????????????????????????... 13 Formation of Attitudes towards Parental Discipline: Influence of Being Parented???????????????????????????.... 15 Hypotheses??????????????????????????... 17 II. METHOD??????????????????????????? 20 Participants?????????????????????...???........ 20 Measures???????????????????????????.. 20 Procedure???????????????????????????.. 23 Subjects???????????????????????????.... 23 III. RESULTS??????????????????????????... 26 Caregiver characteristics????????????????????...... 26 Child Exposure Items ?????????????????????...... 27 Retrospective Parenting Scores??????????????????.... 28 Prospective Parenting Scores???????????????????... 29 Attitude towards Parental Discipline????????????????... 30 Relationship between Prospective and Retrospective Parenting?????..... 30 Relationship between Attitudes and Retrospective Parenting??????..... 31 Effect of Parenting on Prospective Scores??????????????... 32 x x Prediction of Socioeconomic Status by Prospective Parenting Practices??.... 33 Relationship between Child Exposure and Parenting??????????.. 34 IV. DISCUSSION?????????????????????????.. 36 Relationship between Prospective and Retrospective parenting ????......... 36 Prospective Parenting predicted by Retrospective Parenting???????... 39 Socioeconomic Status predicted by Retrospective parenting???????.. 40 Relationship between Child Exposure and Prospective Parenting?????.. 41 Limitations of Study Design and Directions for Future Research?????... 44 Unique Contributions and Implications of Present Study????????.... 46 REFERENCES???????????????????????..????.. 47 APPENDICES???????????????????.????????? 57 APPENDIX A- Demographic Questionnaire ????????????...... 58 APPENDIX B- Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-Retrospective (APQ-R)....... 68 APPENDIX C- Alabama Parenting Questionnaire- Prospective (APQ-P)??.. 72 APPENDIX D- Attitudes toward Parenting Practices (APP)???????.. 76 xi xi LIST OF TABLES 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants...?????????????. 24 2. Demographic Characteristics of Caregivers.??????????????. 27 3. Mean Scores for Child Exposure Related Items????????????... 28 4. Mean Domain Scores for the APQ-R???....????????????.... 29 5. Mean Domain Scores for the APQ-P????..????????...?...?.... 29 6. Mean Domain Scores for APP??????..?????????.???... 30 7. APQ-R and APQ-P Domain Score Correlations????????????... 31 8. APQ-R and APP Domain Score Correlations?????????????... 32 9. CE items and APP Domain Score Correlations????????????? 34 10. Child Exposure and APQ-P Domain Score Correlations?????????.. 35 xii xii LIST OF FIGURES 1. APQ Domain Z-scores by Report Time MANOVA plot??????????. 33 1 1 I. INTRODUCTION General Issues in Parenting Research on parenting has been conducted for over fifty years (Baumrind, 1966) and much of this research has investigated effective discipline practices and the impact of parents on present and future child behavior. Parents have different views of their children?s behavior as well as varying beliefs, needs, and goals as parents (Carter & Welch, 1981). All of these variations in perspectives on what it means to parent a child, intertwined with the complexity of each individual parent and each individual child, nested within these individuals? culture and environment, create an interesting array of parenting practices (Carter & Welch, 1981). Because the term parenting can be used to describe a wide range of practices involving children, it is important to define the term ?parenting? for the purpose of this study. Researchers who study the parenting construct typically investigate aspects of adult monitoring, involvement, and discipline with regard to children?s behavior. Most often the construct of parenting in the United States describes raising children and implies that these children will grow up to be ?well-adjusted, self-sufficient, and socially competent adults? (Medora, Wilson, & Larson, 2001). Parenting is not an easy or well- scripted endeavor; in fact many individuals are fearful when faced with parenthood. The differing views and practices of parenting have been studied repeatedly to understand which approaches serve best to meet the goal of raising well-adjusted, self-sufficient 2 2 children, and which practices preclude meeting that goal (Chamberlain, Reid, Ray, Capaldi, & Fischer, 1997; Danforth, Barkley, & Stokes, 1991; Hart, Ladd, & Burleson, 1990; Hill, Bush, & Roosa, 2003; Kaufman & Zigler, 1998; Kendziora & O?Leary, 1993; Kuczynski, Kochanska, Radke-Yarrow, & Girnius-Brown, 1987; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Muller, Hunter, & Stollak, 1995; Stormshak, Bierman, McMahon, Lengua, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2000; Wahler & Dumas, 1986). Importance of Parenting Research Parenting is considered a major life event in which most individuals in the world participate (Dion, 1985). Research on parenting has been extensive because it provides investigators, clinicians, and anyone interested in raising children with information regarding practices that are beneficial and practices that could be deleterious to children. Investigators are interested in the aspects of parenting that may increase children?s problem behavior as well as those practices that are likely to reduce problem behaviors (Thompson, Raynor, Cornah, Stevenson, & Sonuga-Barke, 2002). Researchers have acknowledged that parenting under stressful conditions can be particularly difficult and at times results in child abuse (Medora et al., 2001). Investigators are interested in identifying parenting attitudes and behaviors that predict future risk of abuse so as to intervene and reduce the risk (Medora et al., 2001). Researchers also acknowledge the influence that individual attitudes have on the philosophies, needs and goals of parents that, in turn, influence the practices of parents (Carter & Welch, 1981). Darling and Steinberg (1993) defined parenting practices as specific, goal- directed behaviors through which parents perform their parental duties. Parenting 3 3 practices, and discipline practices in particular, have been repeatedly linked with disruptive child behavior problems (Shelton, Frick & Wootton, 1996). Dimensions of parenting practices such as monitoring, supervision and parent involvement have emerged as the most substantial and consistent influences on child behavior (Shelton et. al, 1996). Parenting attitudes and practices tend to influence the discipline strategies that a parent uses and the collection of these parenting practices can be categorized into a parenting style. Parenting style can be defined as the ?attitudes and beliefs that form the context in which parenting behaviors occur? (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Parenting Styles and Discipline Practices When children exhibit behavior problems, parents are responsible for trying to remedy the situation, but when the remedy is ineffective the parent-child relationship is often strained. Thompson et al. (2002) assert that ?certain aspects of parenting may act to increase the probability of children?s behaviour problems occurring, whereas other aspects are likely to reduce it? (p. 149). Parents with similar views tend to have similar practices that Diana Baumrind (1966) has identified as three styles that vary according to beliefs and practices of parental control. Baumrind?s three styles of parenting are: Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive. Authoritarian parents are those individuals who ?attempt to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 890). Authoritarian parents discourage the child?s autonomy and instead value obedience, order, and a traditional structure where the child does not argue but takes what the parent says and does as right (Baumrind, 1966). 4 4 Discipline practices that are characteristic of authoritarian parents include punitive, forceful means of shaping a child?s behavior from unacceptable to more acceptable (Baumrind, 1966). Baumrind viewed authoritarian parenting practices as reflective of past views in which ?parental discipline was directed at teaching the child to do the will of God? (p. 890); where the parent was doing what was best for the child, because of their religious obligation. Current viewpoints on the goal and direction of parenting in America are generally inconsistent with authoritarian parenting practices (Baumrind, 1966, 1996; Darling & Steinberg, 1993, Hill et al., 2003). In addition, authoritarian parenting practices tend to be viewed as less effective than authoritative parenting practices in general (Darling & Steinberg, 1993). Authoritative parents attempt ?to direct the child?s activities in a rational, issue- oriented manner? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 891); they tend to encourage a bidirectional discussion surrounding conflict, and share their reasoning behind making decisions. The authoritative parent is open to hearing the concerns of the child when conformity is not achieved. The authoritative parent values both ?autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 891), which is encouraged through affirmation of the child as well as limit setting and setting standards of expected behavior (Baumrind, 1966). Discipline practices typically associated with the authoritative parenting style include the use of reasoning, power, and shaping through structure and reinforcement (Baumrind, 1966). Obedience is not sought for the sake of obedience, but the parent sets realistic and meaningful limits and standards based on reasons that they are willing and able to communicate to the child (Carter & Welch, 1981). The goal of authoritative 5 5 parenting is to teach the child a balance between ?pleasure and duty, and between freedom and responsibility? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 891). Authoritative parenting practices have been demonstrated to be most effective in developing ?an instrumental competence characterized by the balancing of societal and individual needs and responsibilities? in comparison to permissive and authoritarian practices in general (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 487). Permissive parents are those that ?attempt to behave in a non-punitive, acceptant, and affirmative manner toward the child?s impulses, desires, and actions? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 889). According to Baumrind, these parents allow children to regulate themselves as much as possible and encourage the child?s input in making decisions about rules. The discipline practices of Baumrind?s permissive style are inconsistent in nature. The permissive parent does not insist on a specific type of behavior from the child and avoids having to be in control; the parent uses ?reason and manipulation, but not overt power,? (Baumrind, 1966, p. 889) in order to get what they want. If their methods of achieving what they wanted are unsuccessful, they tend not to follow through on their requests. Maccoby and Martin (1983) argued that perhaps the permissive parent, as described by Baumrind, accounted for two populations of parents; they proposed the possibility of splitting the permissive parenting style into two groups - - ?Permissive- indulgent? and ?Indifferent-uninvolved? styles. These additional parenting styles accounted for parents who acquiesce to their child?s every desire without setting any 6 6 limits (permissive-indulgent) as well as parents who do not set any limits because they are unaware of what their children are doing (indifferent-uninvolved). The permissive-indulgent parent supervises and monitors their child but allows the child to have control of the situation. The disciplinary practices associated with this permissive-indulgent style are hardly disciplinary. When faced with a parent-child or child-child conflict these parents tend to give in to their child rather than place restrictions on the child?s wants or impulses (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The indifferent-uninvolved parent does not supervise or monitor their child; they have no idea what types of activities with which their child is involved. The disciplinary practices of this style of parenting is also non-existent; the parent has no idea what the child is engaging in so the most common response to child misbehavior is no response. The parent places no restrictions on the child and is indifferent to the wants, needs or impulses of the child (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Baumrind?s theory about parenting style is just one theory about parenting and discipline. Although other theories may propose a different type of interaction between parenting and discipline (Chamberlain et al., 1997), Baumrind?s theory is widely accepted and her work has been supported by a number of studies regarding parenting, discipline and child behavior outcomes (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Hill et al., 2003). One shortcoming of Baumrind?s theory is that it addresses the parent-child interaction in isolation. Research suggests that the family?s environment is an important factor to consider when evaluating parenting practices (Conger, McMarty, Yang, Lahey & Kropp, 1984). For example, socioeconomic status has been linked to discipline practices (Hill et al., 2003, Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Chyi-In, 1991). 7 7 Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Discipline Practices Parental stress level can be influenced by the socioeconomic status of the parent. For example, if a parent?s income is not enough to support their family the parent is faced with quite a bit of stress (Medora et al., 2001). While it has been suggested that lower income parents tend to endorse more authoritarian parenting practices (Conger et al., 1984; McLoyd & Wilson, 1990; Simons et al., 1991), other research has found different patterns of parenting among lower income parents (Middlemiss, 2003). Middlemiss did not find a strong endorsement of authoritarian parenting practices; in fact she found that the impoverished mothers in her study ascribed a variety of parenting practices. Socioeconomic status is more than income level; it pertains to education level as well as type of occupation held (Hollingshead, 1975). Parents of lower socioeconomic status may have some combination of vulnerabilities that include low income, lack of education, low IQs, and/or learning problems. Conversely, parents with low income may be poor but have strengths in other areas such as problem-solving, social support, and positive role models. It is possible that those additional factors are responsible, in part, for the mixed results for the link between socioeconomic status and parenting (Pinderhughes, Dodge, Bates, Pettit, & Zelli, 2000). Influence of Discipline Practices on Children?s Behavior Several studies have investigated the impact that particular discipline practices have on children?s behavior. For example, punitive and inconsistent parenting practices have been linked with oppositional and aggressive behavior in children (Danforth et al., 1991; Hart et al., 1990; Kuczynski et al., 1987). Inconsistency has also been linked with oppositional and aggressive behavior in children (Wahler & Dumas, 1986). In addition, 8 8 Stormshak, et al. (2000) found evidence to support warmth/involvement as an inverse predictor of oppositional behavior. Lamborn et al. (1991) also found evidence that parenting strategies consistent with authoritative parenting, such as parental warmth, inductive discipline, non-punitive punishment practices, and consistency, are related to positive child outcomes. As stated previously, parental monitoring and supervision of the child as well as parental involvement with the child are the strongest and most consistent factors influencing antisocial child behavior (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Shelton et al., 1996). In addition to these factors, inconsistent discipline, failure to use positive change strategies and excessive use of corporal punishment have all been linked repeatedly to child conduct problems (Bierman & Smoot, 1991; Frick, Christian, & Wootton, 1999). While much of the discussion thus far has been in regards to dysfunctional parenting and ineffective discipline practices, there is ample evidence to suggest that when parents are given the tools to parent and discipline effectively, their children?s behavior improves (Arnold & O?Leary, 1997; Chaffin et al., 2004; Eisenstadt, Eyberg, McNeil, Newcomb, & Funderburk, 1993; Hood & Eyberg, 2003). Given that various studies have found relationships between parenting practices and child behavior problems, many clinicians choose to focus on parenting practices in the course of treatment of child behavior problems. There are a number of effective parent training interventions in existence that focus on teaching parents to use more consistent, moderate and firm discipline strategies (Brestan & Eyberg, 1998; Chambless & Ollendick, 2000; Forehand, Wells, & Griest, 1980; Webster-Stratton, Kolpacoff, & Hollinsworth, 1988). 9 9 Formation of Attitudes toward Parental Discipline: Rationale and Previous Research Parenting is an essential part of the development of human children; it is necessary for adults to care for infants and children to ensure their survival. Children are dependent on adult caregivers for their safety and development for a number of years. In that vein, all human adults have been ?parented? in their lifetime. While there may be variations in the way in which they were parented, or who provided that parenting, all adults have been parented. Since everyone has had experience with parenting, it is this investigator?s argument that young adults have opinions, attitudes and beliefs regarding what are effective, necessary and appropriate parenting behaviors ? even before they become a parent (Bavolek & Keene, 2001; Calvert and Stanton, 1992; Groom, 1998; Hayden, 1996; Kroger, 1983; Pratkanis, Breckler, & Greenwald, 1989; Silverman & Dubow, 1991). The purpose of this study was to tap into the attitudes that undergraduates have with respect to the use of discipline strategies before they are faced with raising a child. Undergraduate non-parents serve as a unique and interesting sample population because they are at the cusp of two developmental stages; they have recently been parented and are entering a developmental phase during which they could soon be faced with parenthood. While undergraduates are a specific population, their responses are indicative of the attitudes and beliefs about parental discipline strategies that young adults bring into parenthood. The undergraduate years may be the ideal time to investigate those parenting attitudes and beliefs as the orientations that actual parents endorse are likely influenced by their expectations of parenting and the experiences they have had 10 10 with their children (Backett, 1982; Cohen, 1981; Groom, 1998; Silverman & Dubow, 1991). Using undergraduates as a sample population helps to investigate some socioeconomic factors related to parenting because there is a good chance of variability in the socioeconomic backgrounds in which they were raised. While these undergraduates may represent a range of socioeconomic status, most are working towards obtaining middle to high socioeconomic status because they are pursuing college degrees. Including SES in this study may add to the identification of additional factors that contribute to the types of discipline strategies reported by young adults as well as to gain more information about their attitudes towards parenting. Research on parenting using non-parents is not a new concept as there have been a variety of parenting studies that have included non-parent samples (Bresler, 1995; Calvert and Stanton, 1992; Essman, 1977; Groom, 1998; Hayden, 1996; Holden, 1988; Kroger, 1983; Silverman & Dubow; 1991). Jane Kroger (1983) investigated the perceptions university students had about their parent?s child-rearing behaviors. She sampled university students in New Zealand and had them retrospectively report on their parents? practices of parenting. Kroger was interested in gaining information regarding child-rearing dimensions within the New Zealand context. She compared reports of parenting behavior for mothers and fathers and also compared the influences that socio- economic status and age group had on the practices reportedly used by parents. In this study fathers were viewed as ?more rejecting, enforcing, and hostilely detached than mothers (p.122),? whereas mothers were viewed as more child-centered, positively involved, intrusive, and possessive than fathers. Kroger?s results also indicate that sons 11 11 viewed their mothers as more lax in discipline than fathers while daughters viewed their mothers as more accepting and controlling than fathers. Kroger also found that high SES fathers were viewed as more ?positively involved with their daughters (p.123)? than middle SES fathers and low SES fathers were reported to be less consistent than fathers in other socioeconomic groups. Kroger suggests that cohort effects more strongly contributed to the differences in child-rearing practices by parents than did socioeconomic status. Kroger?s results had a number of limitations including a restricted sample. For example, the male sample was small so the ability to make clear interpretations of those data is lacking and the majority of the sample was Caucasian and from middle to high SES groups. Another example of the use of non-parent samples to investigate parenting was a study conducted by Silverman and Dubow (1991) who used undergraduate non-parents to investigate the expectations that non-parents have about themselves and their future children. While this study was more sociological in nature, the investigators were interested in determining whether a person had to be expecting a child to have a ?coherent image of one?s future children and oneself as a parent? (p.232). They were also interested in examining possible determinants of parenting expectations. The results of this study suggest that young adults are able to construct well-formed ideas about the behavior of their future children as well as of themselves as parents. Silverman and Dubow (1991) found that experience with children emerged as a predictor of participant?s expectations for difficult temperament in children; the more experience participants had with siblings the more difficult they expected children to be; and the more experience the participants had with babysitting the less difficult they expected children to be. 12 12 Silverman and Dubow suggest that a more ?sensitive? measure of child experience would identify more consistent patterns of child-rearing attitudes, as would more information about ?specific educational experiences? (p. 248). A third example of using non-parent samples to investigate parenting is a study conducted by Calvert and Stanton (1992) with a sample of fifteen-year-old boys and girls. The investigators were interested in gaining information from teenagers about their perceptions of parenthood to inform parent education and prevent future dysfunctional parenting in the future. To this end, Calvert and Stanton interviewed teenagers in Dunedin, New Zealand about their perceptions of parenthood via questions about whether they wanted children, wanted to marry, their level of child, anticipated future needs for additional knowledge, where they might go to get the information they needed, and their attitudes toward particular aspects of parenting. They found that girls tended to have more experience with children and more knowledge of child development than boys and that both boys and girls expected to share future parenting responsibilities. Results indicated that most of the respondents expected to use the parenting strategies that their parents had used, however those who expected not to follow their parent?s strategies did so due to changes in ?society and technology? while others did so in an attempt to ?remedy what they saw as defects? (p. 319) in their parents? strategies (e.g. severe discipline, lack of interest and participation in children?s activities by the parent, and lack of discipline). Calvert and Stanton also found that boys tended to have a more authoritarian view of parenting than girls. The three studies using non-parent participants provide important results from which to expand. Kroger?s study sets a precedent for investigating undergraduate 13 13 retrospective report on how they were parented but it is limited in its measure of child exposure as well as its ability to directly compare retrospective reports of parenting and attitudes regarding the future use of various discipline practices. Silverman and Dubow?s study provides information regarding the parenting attitudes and expectations of young adult non-parents, but it is limited in its ability to effectively measure child exposure. It is also difficult to determine specific discipline strategies that their participants would endorse using when parenting future children. Calvert and Stanton?s study again provides information about the tendency toward similarities and differences in attitudinal patterns of adolescent boys and girls, but it is limited in the ability to generalize to young adults who may be in a different developmental stage with regard to thinking about parenthood. The present study attempts to expand on the previous research of non-parent?s attitudes toward discipline by combining retrospective reports of parental discipline with prospective reports of likelihood of use of specific discipline practices as well as with self-report of attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies. By combining these measures into one study, a more direct investigation of their influences on each other can be conducted. The present study also piloted child exposure items for the potential use in the development of a future scale. Formation of Attitudes Towards Parental Discipline: Influence of Child Exposure Allport (as cited in Pratkanis et al., 1989) defined attitudes as ?a mental and neutral state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual?s response to all objects and situations with which it is related? (p.10). There are a number of factors that are posited to influence perceptions 14 14 and attitudes toward parenting and discipline practices. One of those factors is experience; experience with children, knowledge about children, knowledge about caring for children and knowledge about parenting (Binney & Geddis, 1991; Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Groom, 1998; Hayden, 1996; Holden, 1988). Becker and Hall (1989) have suggested that, in general, one?s beliefs tend to change after experience with a construct. Pratkanis and colleagues in their discussion of the link between attitudes and behavior also suggested that experience with a construct impacts attitude formation and/or changes in attitude. Child related experience, for purposes of this study, will be called child exposure (CE). CE includes exposure to child development as well as to issues related to parenting and discipline strategies and practices. Currently there are no well-established measures of CE. Silverman and Dubow (1991) asked their participants to respond to two questions: a) Indicate how much experience you have had babysitting (5-point scale; 0=never to 4=5 times a week), and b) Indicate how much experience you have had in other jobs involving children (5-point scale; 0=never to 4=5 times a week). Calvert and Stanton (1992) asked their participants a series of questions but they were more qualitative and open-ended in nature, making it difficult to compare with Silverman and Dubow?s assessment of experience with children. Additionally, research on the role of CE on parenting attitudes is inconsistent and difficult to interpret (Goodnow & Collins, 1990). Goodnow and Collins suggest that these inconsistencies may be in part due to methodological problems. Without a standardized way of measuring CE and all the different facets that encompass those 15 15 experiences there is no way to determine what influence CE may have on parental attitudes or discipline practices (Hayden, 1996; Holden, 1988). Formation of Attitudes Towards Parental Discipline: Influence of Being Parented An additional factor that has been suggested as an influence on parental attitudes and beliefs about discipline strategies and parenting has been the experience of being parented (Becker, 1964; Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999, Lundberg, Perris, Schlette, & Adolfson, 2000; Medway, 1989; Pinderhughes et al., 2000; Simons et al., 1991; Simons, Beaman, Conger, & Chao, 1992; Stein, 2003; Van IJzendoorn, 1992). Social learning theory has informed child-rearing research since Bandura began discussing it in 1977. While the theory has changed over the years, there are concepts within the theory that continue to influence child-rearing research (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Two components of social learning theory appear to be the most relevant in investigating the formation of attitudes and expectations regarding parenting. One is observational learning, which suggests that through the observation of behaviors of others, individuals can acquire new behaviors or are able to discover different ways to recombine parts of the observed behavior into their repertoires (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). The second component of social learning theory relevant to parenting attitudes and expectations is attribution theory, which is applicable in understanding the process by which people internalize or reject the values of others, specifically the process by which children internalize or reject their parent?s values (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Stein (2003) argues that there are two mechanisms for learning: role-modeling and social learning or identification. Crittenden (1984) identified three models of transmitting parenting practices from one generation to the next: observational learning of the parent interacting 16 16 with other children; learning through the direct experience of interacting with their parent as a child; and receiving coaching from a parent during an interaction with another child. Observational learning and attribution theory are argued to influence the intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. For example, the cycle of violence literature suggests that parents tend to use parenting strategies that were used with them when they were children (Simons et al., 1991). More specifically, Simons et al. argue that individuals who were harshly disciplined as children grow up to use similar strategies with their children. However, this is only the case with some people, it has been cited that only one third of adult abusers were abused as children (Cicchetti, 1996; Fraiberg, Adelson, & Shapiro, 1987; Straus & McCord, 1998). This may be due to attribution theory (e.g. rejection of parental values), education level, exposure to children, etc. The psychodynamic perspective presents arguments for why intergenerational transmission of abuse is not guaranteed (Stein, 2003). It argues that individuals who experienced abuse during childhood may repress their pain and thus identify with their abuser and be more prone to abuse with their own children (Stein, 2003). An alternate to the psychodynamic perspective is that individuals who experienced abuse during childhood and have not repressed their experiences may identify with their own children rather than with their abuser and thus view parenthood as an opportunity to change their parenting practices from the ones they experienced (Stein, 2003). It is suggested that collecting data regarding undergraduate non-parent?s attitudes toward discipline will inform research on the intergenerational transmission of parenting, be it positive or deviant parenting that is transmitted. 17 17 In an attempt to gain more information about the experience of being parented, the participants in this study were asked to provide information about how and by whom they were parented. Specifically, participants provided demographic information on the most influential caregiver who parented them between the ages of 5 and 12 years of age as well as the strategies used by that caregiver. Hypotheses It was the primary objective of this study to determine what attitudes undergraduates have toward parental discipline prior to parenthood. A secondary objective was to collect data on items that will help to develop a measure of child exposure in the future. A long-range goal of this study is to use the results to inform and design a longitudinal study that can use similar measures to predict actual parenting practices. The short-range goals of the current research project were to study (1) the relationship between retrospective reports of parenting practices by the participant?s most influential caregiver and the participant? prospective reports of likelihood of using particular parenting practices and (2) the relationship between retrospective reports of discipline practices and the participant?s report of their attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline practices. The following specific hypotheses were made for this study: 1. Based on social learning theory (Maccoby & Martin, 1983), it was hypothesized that there would be a strong relationship between the retrospective reports of caregiver?s discipline and the participant?s prospective reports of his or her likelihood of using particular discipline practices. 18 18 2. Also commensurate with social learning theory, it was hypothesized that there would be a relationship between the retrospective reports of caregiver?s discipline and participant?s report of their attitudes toward the effectiveness of specific discipline practices. 3. It was hypothesized that there would be no differences between retrospective and prospective reports on the APQ domain scores. 4. Based on the research by Pinderhughes et al. (2000), it was hypothesized that socioeconomic status would be predicted by the participant?s report of prospective parental discipline with individuals from low SES backgrounds endorsing: a) Harsh discipline practices as measured by the Corporal Punishment composite score on the APQ-P. b) Inconsistency in discipline as measured by the Inconsistent discipline composite score on the APQ-P. c) Poor supervision and monitoring as measured by the Poor Supervision/Monitoring composite score on the APQ-P. 5. Specific CE items would be strongly related to domain scores on a prospective parenting measure: a) Total number of classes the participant has taken related to children and families. b) Amount of experience the participant has had with children with special needs (e.g. physical, emotional, medical, and/or behavioral problems). 19 19 c) Total number of jobs the participant has had that involved working with children. d) Amount of experience the participant has had helping to raise a child. e) Amount of average experience the participant has had in their lifetime. 6. Specific CE items would be strongly related to domain scores on the participant?s report of their attitude toward the effectiveness of discipline strategies. a) Total number of classes the participant has taken related to children and families. b) Amount of experience the participant has had with children with special needs (e.g. physical, emotional, medical, and/or behavioral problems). c) Total number of jobs the participant has had that involved working with children. d) Amount of experience the participant has had helping to raise a child. e) Amount of average experience the participant has had in their lifetime. 20 20 II. METHODS Participants An undergraduate non-parent group was recruited for the present study. This sample consisted of 248 Auburn University undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 25 (M = 20.19, SD = 1.60), including 194 females, 51 males and 3 who did not report gender. Participants were excluded if they had children and/or were not proficient with the English language so as to fill out the questionnaires. All participants were provided with extra credit from participating professors. Measures Demographic questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire included questions about the participant?s age, gender, ethnicity, country of origin, region of the U.S. in which the participant was raised, level of education, major of study, religion, number of siblings, ages of siblings, and whether they have ever helped to raise children. The participants were asked to provide information about the caregiver that was most influential in their upbringing, such as that caregiver?s relationship to the participant, age, ethnicity, level of education, occupation at time of upbringing, country of origin, region of U.S. in which their caregiver was raised, and religion. The participants were asked to provide information about their own attitudes towards children as well as their future plans for having children. 21 21 The demographic questionnaire also included a number of items that the investigator obtained as pilot data. These data may be used in the future to develop a child exposure scale. The items were designed to assess the amount of experience a participant has had with, and related to, children (see Appendix A). Items were created with input from undergraduate focus groups and graduate student peers. Specifically, five items related to Child Exposure were chosen from the Demographic Questionnaire to examine the relationship between the amount of experience participants had with, or related to, children and attitudes towards parenting. The items chosen assess the number of classes taken related to children and families, the amount of experience with children with special needs, the number of jobs held that involved working with children, the amount of experience with helping to raise a child, and the average amount of experience with children throughout life. For each item, participants responded with how much experience they had, and how they viewed the experience on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (very negatively) to 4 (very positively). Four Factor Index of Social Status. The socioeconomic status of study participants? caregivers was estimated by The Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, 1975). Participant?s reported on their caregiver?s education, occupation, and gender. Higher scores indicate higher socioeconomic levels. Modified Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ). The APQ (Frick, 1991) was designed to assess the five domains of parenting practices that past research has found to be most consistently associated with conduct problems (Shelton et al., 1996). The domains assessed by the APQ include the use of positive reinforcement (6 items; scores can range from 6 to 30), parental involvement (10 items; scores can range from 10-50), 22 22 poor parental monitoring and supervision (10 items; scores can range from 10-50), parental inconsistency in discipline (6 items; scores can range from 6 to 30), and use of corporal punishment by parents (3 items; scores can range from 3 to 15). The APQ also includes 7 additional items that assess the use of non-corporal methods of discipline by parents to minimize the potential negative bias toward the corporal punishment items. The Parental Involvement and Positive Reinforcement domains comprise Positive Parenting skills while the Inconsistent Discipline, Poor Monitoring/Supervision, and Corporal Punishment domains comprise Negative Parenting skills (Shelton et al., 1996). The APQ has four formats by which to assess the parenting domains: parent and child global forms and parent and child telephone interviews. The modified version of the APQ developed for this study includes two formats reported by the same participant; the first is the retrospective report of the child global form (APQ-R, see Appendix B); the second is the prospective report of the parent global form (APQ-P, see Appendix C (male version)). No telephone interviews were used. For the purposes of this study, a retrospective report (APQ-R) form was created by modifying the instructions of the APQ child global form to instruct the participant to report how frequently behaviors typically occurred in their home with the most influential caregiver when they were between 5 and 12 years old. The participant only reported on one caregiver. For the retrospective report, the items were rated on a frequency scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Never, 5 = Always) and domain scores were determined by summing the responses to items within that particular domain. The prospective report (APQ-P), asked the participant to report how likely they would be to use the techniques described if faced with raising a six or seven-year-old child tomorrow. The items were rated on a likelihood scale of 1 to 5 (1 = Never, 5 = 23 23 Very likely) and again, domain scores were determined by summing the responses to items within that particular domain. Attitudes towards Parenting Practices (APP). The 38-item APP, a modified version of the Parent Perception Inventory (PPI; Hazzard, Christenson, & Margolin, 1983) that was devised to measure consistency and punitive discipline tactics, was used to assess respondents? attitudes towards the effectiveness of various parenting strategies. In the original PPI-Parent form, parents report the frequency with which they engage in various parenting strategies on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (a lot). The original PPI provides the researcher with two total scores: Negative Discipline Score and Positive Discipline Score reflecting self-reported use of parenting techniques. In the modified version (see Appendix D (male version)), participants reported their attitude toward the effectiveness of various parenting strategies if faced with raising a six or seven-year-old child tomorrow, using a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (Not at all effective) to 4 (Very effective). Two total scores were obtained using this measure: Attitude towards Negative Discipline and Attitude towards Positive Discipline. Procedure Participants were recruited through various psychology courses at Auburn University. Participants received extra credit for their psychology course in return for their participation. Subjects Participants were 248 undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 25 (M = 20.19, SD = 1.51), including 194 females, 51 males, and 3 who did not report gender. Participants were 87.9% Caucasian (n = 218). Participants? average level of education 24 24 was 13.68 years, corresponding with 1 year of college. 94.7% of the participants (n = 234) were from the United States. 85.9% of the participants (n = 213) reported being raised in the South Eastern United States. The participants represented 55 different majors, with 28.2% Psychology majors (n = 70). The majority of participants reported having no experience helping to raise a child (73.8%) while 26.2% reported having some experience helping to raise a child. See Table 1 for additional participant characteristics. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants Variable n % Gender Male 51 20.8 Female 194 79.2 Ethnicity Caucasian 218 87.9 African American 18 7.3 Other 12 4.8 Years of Education 12 84 33.9 13 31 12.5 14 47 19.0 15 52 21.0 16 33 13.3 Helped Raise a Child Yes 13 5.2 No 183 73.8 Somewhat 52 21.0 Like Children Not at all 2 .8 Indifferent 7 2.8 Tolerable 34 13.7 Enjoy them 205 82.7 Plan on Children Yes 241 97.2 No 6 2.4 Each participant received a packet with a Demographic Questionnaire, the APQ- R, the APQ-P, and the APP. All of the participants responded to the Demographic 25 25 questionnaire first and then the APQ-R. The remaining questionnaires were counter- balanced so that each participant received the APQ-P and APP in random order. The primary investigator believed that reporting on their caregiver?s behavior first would help the participants have a base from which to respond to the remaining questionnaires. These packets were also balanced to randomize the gender of the prospective child; half of the packets distributed had the participant respond to prospective questionnaires if faced with raising a six or seven-year-old girl and half a six or seven-year-old boy. 26 26 III. RESULTS Caregiver Characteristics Of 248 participants, 85.5% identified their mother as their most influential caregiver (n = 212). Caregivers? current ages ranged from 37 to 75 (M = 49.81, SD = 5.23). The percentages of caregivers? ethnicities were comparable to those of the participants. Caregivers? level of education ranged from five to 18 years (M = 15.65, SD = 2.35). Ninety-three percent of caregivers were raised in the United States (n = 228) and of those, 70% were raised in the South East (n = 174). Caregivers? level of socioeconomic status as measured by the Hollingshead Four Factor Index computed scores ranged from 18 to 66 (M = 52.18, SD = 9.81) which then translates into Social Strata groups that ranged from 1 to 5 (M = 4.38, SD = 0.795). See Table 2 for additional caregiver characteristics. 27 27 Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Caregivers Variable n % Caregiver Mother 212 85.5 Father 28 11.3 Grandmother 4 1.6 Aunt 2 .8 Other 2 .8 Ethnicity Caucasian 217 87.5 African American 20 8.1 Other 11 4.4 Years of Education Less than 12 years 5 2.0 12 41 16.5 13 6 2.4 14 12 4.8 15 5 2.0 16 93 37.5 More than 16 years 86 34.6 Social Strata Group 1-Unskilled laborers 1 0.4 2-Semiskilled workers 6 2.4 3-Skilled craftsmen, clerical, sales workers 10 4.0 4-Medium business, minor professional, technical 66 26.6 5-Major business & professional 90 36.3 Unable to compute 75 30.2 Child Exposure Items With respect to the total number of classes taken related to children and families, 218 participants took an average of 1.57 classes (SD = 1.56), averaged a 1.33 (n = 217, 28 28 SD = 1.11) when reporting on experience with children with special needs, and reported having an average of 2.17 jobs with children (n = 219, SD = 1.71). In terms of helping to raise a child, participants averaged a 0.70 (n = 217, SD = 1.14). Overall, the amount of lifetime experience with children reported by participants averaged a 2.79 (n = 219, SD = .72) (Table 3). Table 3. Mean Scores for Child Exposure Related Items Item N Mean Score (range) SD n Mean Attitude Score (range) SD Number of classes related to children and families 218 1.57 (0,5) 1.56 142 3.18 (0,4) 0.88 Amount of experience with children with special needs 217 1.33 (0,4) 1.11 157 2.98 (0,4) 1.06 Number of jobs held working with children 219 2.17 (0,5) 1.71 177 3.44 (0,4) 0.86 Amount of experience helping to raise a child 217 0.70 (0,4) 1.14 73 3.18 (2,4) 0.77 Lifetime experience with children 219 2.79 (1,4) .72 217 3.44 (1,4) 0.68 Retrospective Parenting Scores In order to assess participants? experiences being parented, the scores for the retrospective parenting measure (APQ-R) items comprising each domain were summed to create the domain scores (Table 4). 29 29 Table 4. Mean Domain Scores for the APQ-R Domain n Mean Score (range) SD Parental Involvement 247 40.47 (14,50) 6.07 Positive Reinforcement 248 24.80 (6,30) 4.32 Inconsistent Discipline 246 13.33 (6,27) 3.67 Poor Monitoring/Supervision 245 21.38 (10,44) 6.60 Corporal Punishment 247 6.34 (3,14) 2.30 Prospective Parenting Scores In order to assess participants? future parenting strategies, the scores for the prospective parenting measure (APQ-P) items comprising each domain were summed to create the domain scores (Table 5). Table 5. Mean Domain Scores for the APQ-P Domain n Mean Score (range) SD Parental Involvement 246 45.09 (29,50) 4.34 Positive Reinforcement 247 27.24 (14,30) 2.95 Inconsistent Discipline 245 11.66 (6,23) 3.31 Poor Monitoring/Supervision 244 14.29 (9,31) 3.95 Corporal Punishment 247 5.59 (3,13) 2.20 30 30 Attitude towards Parental Discipline In order to assess undergraduate attitudes towards the effectiveness of various parenting techniques, the scores for the attitudes towards parenting practices measure (APP) items were summed to create two total scores, Attitude towards Negative Discipline and Attitude towards Positive Discipline. Since there was an imbalance between the numbers of items related to Negative Discipline and Positive Discipline the total scores were converted to z-scores, thus enabling a more accurate illustration of the range of scores (Table 6). Participants reported an average Attitude toward Positive Discipline total score of 77.22 (n = 242, SD = 6.49) with scores ranging from 42 to 89. With regard to Attitude toward Negative Discipline, participants reported an average total score of 12.54 (n = 246, SD = 6.06) with scores ranging from zero to 35. Table 6. Mean Domain Scores for APP Domain n Total Score (range) SD Z-Score Range Attitude toward Positive Discipline 242 77.22 (42,89) 6.49 -5.42, 1.81 Attitude toward Negative Discipline 246 12.54 (0,35) 6.06 -2.07, 3.70 Relationship between Prospective and Retrospective Parenting Participants? report of retrospective parent involvement was significantly correlated with participants? prospective report of involvement, r = .488, p < .001. Participants? report of retrospective positive reinforcement was significantly correlated with participants? prospective report of positive reinforcement, r = .536, p < .001. Participants? report of retrospective inconsistency was significantly correlated with 31 31 participants? prospective report of inconsistency, r = .578, p < .001. Participants? report of retrospective poor supervision and monitoring was significantly correlated with participants? prospective report of poor supervision, r = .608, p <.001. Participants? report of retrospective corporal punishment was significantly correlated with participants? prospective report of corporal punishment, r = .692, p <.001 (Table 7). Table 7. APQ-R and APQ-P Domain Score Correlations Involvement (Retro) Positive Reinforcement (Retro) Inconsistency (Retro) Poor Supervision (Retro) Corporal Punishment (Retro) Involvement (Pro) .488*** .428*** -.099 -.361*** -.167** Positive Reinforcement (Pro) .394*** .536*** -.093 -.242*** -.116 Inconsistency (Pro) -.068 -.040 .578** .385*** -.064 Poor Supervision (Pro) -.257*** -.229*** .380** .608*** .140* Corporal Punishment (Pro) -.054 .035 .001 .116 .692*** *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Note. Pro = prospective report; Retro = retrospective report Relationship between Attitudes and Retrospective Parenting Participants? report of attitude toward positive discipline was significantly correlated with participants? report of retrospective parent involvement, r = .290, p < .001; positive reinforcement, r = .374, p < .001; and poor supervision, r = -.192, p <.01. Participants? report of attitude toward negative discipline was significantly correlated with participants? report of retrospective parent poor supervision, r = .162, p < .05; and corporal punishment, r = .354, p <.001(Table 8). 32 32 Table 8. APQ-R and APP Domain Score Correlations Involvement (Retro) Positive Reinforcement (Retro) Inconsistency (Retro) Poor Supervision (Retro) Corporal Punishment (Retro) Attitude toward Positive Discipline .290*** .374*** -.064 -.192** -.044 Attitude toward Negative Discipline -.037 -.046 .089 .162* .354*** *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Effect of Parenting on Prospective Scores The modified Alabama Parenting Questionnaires (retrospective and prospective) were included in a 2 (time: retrospective, prospective) x 5 (domain: PI, PR, INC, SV, CP) MANOVA. In order to account for the different number of items across the five domains, all domain scores were standardized and the MANOVA was conducted with the resulting z-scores. The 2 (time) x 5 (domain) MANOVA for repeated measures on parenting strategies resulted in no significant main effects for time, Wilks? Lambda = 1, F(1, 233) = .026, p > .05; domain, Wilks? Lambda = .999, F(4, 230) = .083, p > .05; and no significant multivariate Time x Domain interaction, Wilks? Lambda = .999, F(4, 230) = .082, p > .05 (Figure 1). 33 33 APQ Domain Z-Scores by Report Time DOMAIN Co r por al P uni sh m ent Po o r S uper vi si o n I n c ons i s te nc y Po s . R e i nf or ce me n t In v o l v em ent Z-S C O R E 1.00 .50 0.00 -.50 -1.00 TIME Retrospective Prospective Figure 1. APQ Domain Z-scores by Report Time MANOVA plot Prediction of Socioeconomic Status by Prospective Parenting Practices In order to evaluate whether participants? prospective reports of parenting practices, as measured by the APQ-P domain scores, could predict socioeconomic status, as measured by Hollingshead scores, stepwise regression methods were used. A variable was entered if the significance level of its F was less than 0.05 and was removed if the significance level of F was greater than 0.1. For caregiver SES, only poor monitoring/supervision proved to be a significant predictor, F (1, 166) = 9.038, ? = .227, p<.01. However, seventy-five participants were excluded from the SES analysis because their caregiver was a stay at home mother whose Hollingshead score could not be computed without the information about the other caregiver. 34 34 Relationship between Child Exposure and Parenting Child exposure and attitudes toward parenting practices. Participants? report of attitude toward positive discipline was significantly correlated with participants? report of all CE items except experience helping to raise a child. Participants? report of attitude toward negative discipline was significantly correlated (negatively) with participants? report of the number of classes taken related to children and families, r = -.142, p < .05 (Table 9). Table 9. CE items and APP Domain Score Correlations Number of classes Jobs with children Special Needs children Raising a child Lifetime experience with children Attitude toward Positive Discipline .154* .182** .223*** .124 .185** Attitude toward Negative Discipline -.142* -.026 -.019 -.026 -.025 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Child exposure and prospective parenting. Participants? prospective report of parent involvement was significantly correlated with participants? report of all of the CE items except experience helping to raise a child. Participants? prospective report of positive reinforcement was significantly correlated with participants? report of the number of classes taken related to children and families, r = .147, p < .05; the number of jobs held that involved working with children, r = .221, p < .001; and the amount of experience with children with special needs, r = .164, p <.05. Participants? prospective report of inconsistency was significantly correlated with participants? report of the 35 35 number of classes taken related to children and families, r = -.137, p < .05; and the average amount of experience with children throughout life, r = -.183, p <.01. Participants? prospective report of poor supervision and monitoring was significantly correlated with participants? report of the number of classes taken related to children and families, r = -.173, p < .05; the number of jobs held that involved working with children, r = -.148, p < .05; and the average amount of experience with children throughout life, r = -.179, p <.01. Participants? prospective report of corporal punishment was significantly correlated with participants? report of the number of jobs held that involved working with children, r = -.140, p < .05 (Table 10). Table 10. Child Exposure and APQ-P Domain Score Correlations Number of classes Jobs with children Special Needs children Raising a child Lifetime experience with children Involvement .229*** .268*** .192** -.059 .192** Positive Reinforcement .147* .221*** .164* .046 .113 Inconsistency -.137* -.070 -.087 -.067 -.183** Poor Supervision -.173* -.148* -.124 .086 -.179** Corporal Punishment -.080 -.140* -.007 .097 .016 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 36 36 IV. DISCUSSION The transition from adolescence to young adulthood consists of the development of new skills. While parenting skills have been of interest to child-focused researchers, the attitude of young adults towards parenting practices has received relatively little attention. Previous studies using non-parent samples have examined undergraduate perceptions of their parent?s child-rearing (Kroger, 1983), undergraduate non-parents? expectations of themselves as parents and their future children (Silverman & Dubow, 1991), adolescent non-parents? perceptions of parenthood (Calvert & Stanton, 1992; Groom, 1998), and the effect of a parent education curriculum on adolescent attitudes toward parenting (Stapen, 2005). The present study examined undergraduate non- parents? attitudes toward discipline strategies by investigating their report on their parent?s discipline practices, the likelihood of the undergraduates to use particular practices in the future and their attitude toward the effectiveness of particular discipline practices. In addition, the roles that the socioeconomic status of their parents and the undergraduates? exposure to child related topics were examined. Relationship between Prospective and Retrospective parenting One factor posited to be related to parental attitudes and beliefs about discipline strategies and parenting has been the experience of being parented (Becker, 1964; Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999, Lundberg et al., 2000; Medway, 1989; Pinderhughes et al., 2000; Simons et al., 1991; Simons et al., 1992; Stein, 2003; Van 37 37 IJzendoorn, 1992). Correlations were conducted to determine if how a participant was parented, as measured by domain scores on the APQ-R, was related to what they believed they would do with regard to parenting, as measured by domain scores on the APQ-P. Overall, the results of this study support the hypothesis that a high degree of relationship would emerge between retrospective reports of parenting practices by the participant?s most influential caregiver and the participant?s prospective reports of the likelihood of using particular parenting practices. The hypothesis that there would be a high degree of relationship between retrospective reports of caregiver?s discipline and prospective reports of participant?s likelihood of using specific discipline strategies resulted in various significant relationships. Positive parenting behavior of caregivers related to positive prospective parenting behaviors. Negative parenting behavior of caregivers was also related to negative prospective parenting behavior. These findings are consistent with Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977; Maccoby & Martin, 1983) in that participants reported that they would likely use strategies that were used with them when they were children (Becker, 1964; Simons et al.; 1991; Stein, 2003). The findings are also consistent with previous research which has found that most of what children learn with regard to parenting behaviors are from their parents through both observation and direct interaction with them (Becker, 1964). Simons and colleagues (1992) argued that it was likely that an individual?s parenting beliefs are shaped by the parenting they experienced as a child. An additional interesting finding was that participants who reported a likelihood of more involvement also reported a likelihood of less corporal punishment. It is possible that participants who reported that they would be more involved with their child also had 38 38 more experience with children and thus more access to different discipline strategies. Future research could examine this relationship between parental involvement and likelihood to use less corporal punishment. Correlations were conducted to determine if how a participant was parented, as measured by domain scores on the APQ-R, was related to how effective they believed particular parenting strategies were, as measured by domain scores on the APP. The hypothesis that there would be a strong relationship between the report of caregiver?s discipline and participant?s report of their attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies was supported. Experience with positive discipline resulted in participants reporting that they believed such strategies were effective. Interestingly, experience with negative discipline also resulted in participants reporting that they believed such strategies were effective. Again, social learning theory appears to explain this result partially, particularly the modeling component. Participants appear to have used their experience with discipline strategies as a framework for what they believe they will do and what they believe will be effective. Simons and colleagues (1992) found similar results and argued that children are likely to believe that the discipline used by their parents was an effective way to discipline children and gain child compliance. Parts of the cycle of violence literature suggests that children learn about abusive parenting patterns through observation and/or experiencing abusive parenting (Pratkanis et al., 1989; Bavolek & Keene, 2001). Additionally, some researchers have argued that people who continue the cycle of violence have established norms and attitudes that do not recognize the inappropriateness of severe physical discipline (Bower-Russa, Knutson, & Winebarger, 2001). Conversely, additional cycle of violence literature suggests that 39 39 having experienced abuse as a child does not guarantee future abuse (Fraiberg et al., 1987). While experience with negative discipline is highly related to attitudes regarding the effectiveness of those strategies in this sample, it is likely that this relationship is due to a restricted range in negative discipline scores. The amount of experience with negative discipline in this sample is not nearly at a level that would be considered physical abuse. Additionally, that the sample was collected in the southern region of the United States may have influenced the frequencies of both the report of having experienced negative discipline as well as the belief that such strategies are effective. Researchers have suggested that culture, including region of the country, often greatly influences parental belief systems (Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Hayden, 1996). Future research could examine the relationship between experience with discipline and attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular strategies in detail with samples that have a greater variation in childhood experiences with discipline as well as with a sample from a different region of the United States. Prospective Parenting predicted by Retrospective Parenting Social learning theory and theories regarding the intergenerational transmission of violence suggest that parenting practices that were used on a person are likely the practices that will be used by that same person (Bandura, 1977; Becker, 1964; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Simons et al.; 1991; Stein, 2003). The hypothesis that there would be no difference between retrospective and prospective reports of discipline practices, as measured by APQ domain scores, was supported. Participants reported no difference in the levels of positive parenting strategies or negative parenting strategies related to what 40 40 was used by their caregivers. This finding that experience being parented was a predictor of report of future parenting practices is consistent with previous research (Becker, 1964; Lundberg et al., 2000; Simons et al., 1991; Simons et al., 1992; Stein, 2003; van IJzendoorn, 1992). While it is interesting that participants endorsed using similar parenting practices as their caregivers, researchers have argued that parenting impacts adult development and the act of becoming a parent may be enough to create changes in parenting attitudes (Hooker, Fiese, Kotary, Schwagler, & Morfei, 1996; Ruble et al., 1990). Future research with a longitudinal design could examine whether the participants actually do what they believe they will do when faced with parenthood. Socioeconomic Status predicted by Retrospective parenting Previous research indicates a relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and parental discipline (Bluestone & Tamis-LeMonda, 1999; Conger et al., 1984; McLoyd & Wilson, 1990; Simons et al., 1991). In this study the researcher sought to test the hypothesis that SES could be predicted by prospective reports of discipline. More specifically, the hypothesis stated that individuals from low SES backgrounds would endorse harsh discipline practices, as measured by the Corporal Punishment domain score on the APQ-P, inconsistency in discipline, as measured by the Inconsistent Discipline domain score on the APQ-P, and poor supervision and monitoring, as measured by the Poor Supervision/Monitoring domain score on the APQ-P. While the hypothesis was not supported, SES was predicted by prospective reports of poor supervision/monitoring. Higher SES scores were predicted by higher reports of poor supervision/monitoring. These findings are counter to what was expected based on previous research. Previous 41 41 research has found higher SES parents to have more positive parenting skills such as firm-responsive parenting (Brody, Stoneman, & Flor, 1995). The results regarding SES in this study may not be very meaningful because SES was only computed based on information regarding the caregiver who was most influential to the participant. SES- related information was not provided regarding the marital status of the influential caregiver or the occupation or education level of any other caregivers in the home. Seventy-five participants were excluded from the SES analysis because their caregiver was a stay at home mother whose Hollingshead score could not be computed without the information about the other caregiver. Future research in this area should include all possible information regarding caregivers? marital status, education and occupational levels. Relationship between Child Exposure and Prospective Parenting Previous research has suggested that experience with children, child knowledge , child-care knowledge and parenting knowledge can influence parenting beliefs and attitudes (Binney & Geddis, 1991; Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Groom, 1998; Hayden, 1996; Holden, 1988). Currently no psychometrically sound measure of experience with children exists. To that end, data on a number of child exposure (CE) pilot items were collected in this study. Correlations were conducted to determine if child-related experience, as measured by five CE items, was related to parenting attitudes for this sample of participants. The hypothesis set out to investigate any potential relationships between CE and prospective report of discipline practices. Though previous research suggests that CE has an effect on parenting decisions (Binney & Geddis, 1991; Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Groom, 42 42 1998; Hayden, 1996; Holden, 1988) these studies are flawed in that various, unstandardized methods have been used to measure CE. Five items were chosen by the investigator to examine the relationship between child-oriented experience and the likelihood of using particular discipline practices. The hypothesis was partially supported in that taking classes related to children and families, having work experience with children, experience with special needs children, and lifetime experience with children were related to an increased prospective report of involvement and positive reinforcement. These items were also related to a decreased prospective report of inconsistency, poor supervision/monitoring, and corporal punishment. The item related to experience helping to raise a child was not significantly related to positive or negative parenting strategies, but that may be due to a very small number of participants who reported having that experience. The policy implications of these findings include high school curriculum development for pre-parent training via classes oriented toward children and families. In addition, there may be opportunities to encourage students to take classes related to children and families and to gain some work experience with children, especially different populations of children. The present study set out to test the hypothesis that a relationship exists between participants? experience with children and their attitudes regarding the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies. This hypothesis was partially supported in that taking classes related to children and families, having work experience with children, experience with special needs children, and lifetime experience with children were related to increased belief regarding the effectiveness of positive discipline strategies. In addition, 43 43 taking classes related to children and families was also related to a decreased belief in the effectiveness of negative discipline strategies. It is interesting that having work experience with children, experience with special needs children, and lifetime experience with children were not related to a decreased belief in the effectiveness of negative discipline strategies. It is possible that individuals who have taken classes related to children and family were exposed to a wider range of discipline strategies than individuals who only have direct ?hands on? experience with children. These findings suggest that exposing students to various discipline strategies through coursework may increase their belief in the effectiveness of positive discipline. As with the previous hypothesis, the item related to experience helping to raise a child was not significantly related to participants? attitudes regarding the effectiveness of neither positive nor negative discipline strategies. Again this finding could be due to the small number of participants who had experience helping to raise a child. Four of the five items chosen to examine CE resulted in significant relationships with prospective reports of discipline practices and attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies. The item regarding experience helping to raise a child was not significantly related to discipline practices or attitudes toward the effectiveness of specific discipline practices, however very few participants endorsed having experience helping to raise a child. It would be important to examine this item further with a sample that included participants with and without experience helping to raise a child. Future projects could perform exploratory analyses on the additional items piloted to determine if they could contribute more information regarding the types of experiences that impact parenting attitudes and practices. 44 44 The CE results of this study are likely impacted by the courses from which participants were recruited. All of the participants were recruited from Psychology classes at one university. The Psychology Department at this particular university has many opportunities for students to take courses related to children and families as well as to participate in child-focused experiential learning courses. Future research could expand the participant pool to courses outside the field of psychology to explore a greater range in CE. One limitation to the CE data from this study is that we do not know which aspects of CE (taking classes vs. work experience) are most important. These findings provide evidence that CE is related to prospective reports on discipline strategies and attitudes toward the effectiveness of particular discipline strategies but do not give us any specific predictive evidence. No analyses regarding predictions were conducted in this study due to the preliminary status of the CE items and lack of psychometric data to support a CE measure. Future research could include validation of a CE measure, predictive analyses with parents who are using discipline strategies with a child already, and dismantling studies to determine which aspects of experience with children are most important. Limitations of Study Design and Directions for Future Research The present study?s design carries certain inherent limitations. All of the participants were college students at one university from one discipline of courses, which resulted in an over sampling of Caucasians and females. The socioeconomic statuses of participant?s caregivers were calculated based on one caregiver?s information, which likely affected the results. In addition, almost a third of the sample was excluded from 45 45 the SES-related analyses because their family SES could not be calculated. The entire sample consisted of non-parents and was not longitudinal in design, so the researcher had to rely on prospective questionnaire data without an opportunity to follow up and determine the accuracy of these prospective reports. Because it is impossible to know if the attitudes and beliefs reported by participants will remain the same over time, this study may have problems related to external validity. Additionally, the participants? experiences could change over time affecting their attitudes and beliefs. The information that was collected in this study was at one time-point in the participants? lives. The nature of attitudes, beliefs and practices is that they are affected by personal experience (Pratkanis et al., 1989) and parents? attitudes often change and develop along with their child?s development (Dix, Ruble, Grusec, & Nixon, 1986; Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989; McNally, Eisenberg, & Harris, 1991). While the potential malleability of people?s attitudes is considered a limitation in this study it also has important clinical implications. The idea that parents can change their attitudes (Goodnow, Knight, & Cashmore, 1986), and thus their parenting behaviors, is at the very foundation of parent- training and parent-focused interventions. If parents were not able to change their attitudes and behaviors, clinical practice focused on changing maladaptive parenting patterns would not be possible. While we know that parents can change their attitudes, we do not have a complete understanding of when they do or do not change (Hayden, 1996); future research should explore the mechanisms for changing attitudes in parenting. In addressing the inherent limitations of this study, future research studies regarding undergraduate non-parent attitudes towards discipline could employ multiple colleges in their data collection. In addition, future studies could include a more diverse 46 46 sample including a non-college sample of young adults, more males, and greater representation from various racial/ethnic groups. Additionally, a future project could implement a longitudinal design in order to determine if participants really use the strategies that they think they would use. Another option for a future study would be to implement a pre-parent training component and re-evaluate participant attitudes after the intervention. Unique Contributions and Implications of Present Study The present study extends previous research in important ways. This study indicates that people do have opinions and attitudes regarding parenting even before they have children, which is commensurate with previous research (Bavolek & Keene, 2001; Calvert and Stanton, 1992; Groom, 1998; Hayden, 1996; Kroger, 1983; Pratkanis et al., 1989; Silverman & Dubow, 1991). In addition, by collecting data from participants about both how they were parented as well as what they believe they will do in the future, this study was able to examine directly the impact that a person?s experience being parented has on their beliefs about future parenting practices. This study also extends previous research by obtaining information about a variety of specific child-related experiences. The results from the present study have implications for child abuse and neglect prevention via pre-parent training programs and opportunities. Not only can the fields of child development and child psychology prevent child abuse by training at risk individuals who are already parents, but also they can expose individuals to various aspects of parenting and discipline before they are faced with parenthood. 47 47 REFERENCES Arnold, E. H., & O?Leary, S. G. (1997). Mothers? and fathers? discipline of hard-to- manage toddlers. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19, 1-11. Backett, K. C. (1982). Mothers and fathers: The development and negotiation of parental behaviour. London: Macmillan. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907. Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405- 414. Bavolek, S., & Keene, R. (2001). Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory AAPI-2: Administration and development handbook. Family Development Resources. Becker, W. C. (1964). Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M. L. Hoffman & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.) Review of child development research. New York: Russell Sage. Becker, J. A., & Hall, M. S. (1989). Adult beliefs about pragmatic development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 1-17. Bierman, K. L., & Smoot, D. L. (1991). Linking family characteristics with poor peer relations: The mediating role of conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 341-356. 48 48 Binney, V. M., & Geddis, D. C. (1991). Secondary school pupils knowledge and experience of basic parenting skills and issues. Early Child Development and Care, 71, 73-78. Bluestone, C., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (1999). Correlates of parenting styles in predominantly working- and middle-class African American mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 881-893. Bower-Russa, M. E., Knutson, J. F., & Winebarger, A. (2001). Disciplinary history, adult disciplinary attitudes, and risk for abusive parenting. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 219-240. Bresler, T. J. (1995). The role of experience in parental problem-solving tasks: Visual processing of parent-child interaction and reasoning about discipline. (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 5759. Brestan, E. V., & Eyberg, S. M. (1998). Effective psychosocial treatments of conduct- disordered children and adolescents: 29 years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 179-188. Brody, G., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1995). Linking family processes and academic competence among rural African-American youths. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 567-579. Calvert, B., & Stanton, W. R. (1992). Perceptions of parenthood: Similarities and differences between 15-year-old girls and boys. Adolescence, 27, 315-328. Carter, D., & Welch, D. (1981). Parenting styles and children?s behavior. Family Relations, 30, 191-195. 49 49 Chaffin, M., Silovsky, J. F., Funderburk, B., Valle, L. A., Brestan, E. V., Balachova, T., Jackson, S., Lensgraf, J., & Bonner, B. L. (2004). Parent-child interaction therapy with physically abusive parents: Efficacy for reducing future abuse reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 500-510. Chamberlain, P., Reid, J. B., Ray, J., Capaldi, D., & Fischer, P. (1997). Parent inadequate discipline. In T. A. Widiger, A. J. Frances, H. A. Pincus, R. Ross et al. (Eds.) DSM-IV sourcebook: Vol 3. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2000). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716. Cicchetti, D. (1996). Child maltreatment: Implications for developmental theory and research. Human Development, 39, 18-39. Cohen, G. (1981). Culture and educational achievement. Harvard Educational Review, 51, 270-285. Conger, R. D., McMarty, J., Yang, R., Lahey, B., & Kropp, J. (1984). Perception of child, child rearing, values, and emotional distress as mediating links between environmental stressors and observed maternal behavior. Child Development, 55, 2234-2247. Crittenden, P. M. (1984). Sibling interaction: Evidence of a generational effect in maltreating infants. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 433-438. Danforth, J. S., Barkley, R. A., & Stokes, T. F. (1991). Observations of parent-child interactions with hyperactive children: Research and clinical implications. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 703-727. 50 50 Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496. Dion, K. K. (1985). Socialization in adulthood. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology (Vol. II, pp. 123-148). New York: Random House. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., Grusec, J. E., & Nixon, S. (1986). Social cognition in parents: Inferential and affective reactions to children of three age levels. Child Development, 57, 879-894. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers? implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 1373-1391. Eisenstadt, T., Eyberg, S., McNeil, C., Newcomb, K., & Funderburk, B. (1993). Parent- child interaction therapy with behavior problem children: Relative effectiveness of two stages and overall treatment outcome. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 42-51. Essman, C. S. (1977). Preparental education: The impact of a short-term, skills-training course on female adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 7594. (UMI No. 7803388). Forehand, R., Wells, K., & Griest, D. (1980). An examination of the social validity of a parent-training program. Behavior Therapy, 11, 488-502. Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E., & Shapiro, V. (1987). Ghosts in the nursery: A psychoanalytic 51 51 approach to the problems of impaired infant-mother relationships. In L. Fraiberg (Ed.), Selected writings of Selma Fraiberg (pp. 100-136). Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Frick, P. J. (1991). The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alabama. Frick, P. J., Christian, R. E., & Wootton, J. M. (1999). Age trends in the association between parenting practices and conduct problems. Behavior Modification, 23, 106-128. Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to parents: The nature, sources, and consequences of parents? ideas, pp.73-102. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Goodnow, J. J., Knight, R., & Cashmore, J. (1986). Adult social cognition: Implications of parents? ideas for approaches to development. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.) Cognitive perspectives on children?s social and behavioral development: Minnesota symposia on child development (Vol. 18, pp. 287-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Groom, P. D. (1998). Prediction of parenting attitudes and behaviors among adolescents. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 5136. Hart, C. H., Ladd, G. W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Children?s expectations of the outcomes of social strategies: Relations with sociometric status and maternal disciplinary styles. Child Development, 61, 127-137. Hayden, L. C. (1996). Nonparents? and parents? beliefs regarding socioemotional and 52 52 cognitive development in children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3339. UMI No. 9737817). Hazzard, A., Christensen, A. & Margolin, J. (1983). Children?s perceptions of parental behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 49-60. Hill, N. E., Bush, K. R., & Roosa, M. W. (2003). Parenting and family socialization strategies and children?s mental health: Low-income Mexican-American and Euro-American mothers and children. Child Development, 74, 189-204. Holden, G. W. (1988). Adults? thinking about a childrearing problem: Effects of experience, parental status, and gender. Child Development, 59, 1623-1632. Hood, K. K., & Eyberg, S. M. (2003). Outcomes of parent-child interaction therapy: Mothers? reports of maintenance three to six years after treatment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32, 419-429. Hooker, K., Fiese, B., Kotary, L., Schwagler, J., & Morfei, M. (1996). Possible selves in parents of infants and preschoolers. Developmental Psychology, 32, 542-550. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Kaufman, J., & Zigler, E. (1998). Do abused children become abusive parents? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 186-192. Kendziora, K. T., & O?Leary, S. G. (1993). Dysfunctional parenting as a focus for prevention and treatment of child behavior problems. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, Volume 15 (pp. 175-206). Plenum Press: New York. Kroger, J. (1983). University students? perceptions of their parents? child-rearing 53 53 behaviour. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 18, 115-125. Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children?s noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 799-806. Lamborn, S., Mounts, N., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp.29-149). University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Lundberg, M., Perris, C., Schlette, P., & Adolfsson, R. (2000). Intergenerational transmission of perceived parenting. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 865-877. Maccoby, E. F., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.4 Socialization, personality, and social development (4 th ed., pp.1-101). New York: Wiley. McLoyd, V. C., & Wilson, L. (1990). Maternal behavior, social support, and economic conditions as predictors of distress in children. New Directions in Child Development, 46, 49-70. McNally, S., Eisenberg, N., & Harris, J. D. (1991). Consistency and change in maternal 54 54 child-rearing practices and values: A longitudinal study. Child development, 62, 190-198. Medora, N. P., Wilson, S., & Larson, J. H. (2001). Attitudes toward parenting strategies, potential for child abuse, and parental satisfaction of ethnically diverse low- income U.S. mothers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 335-348. Medway, F. J. (1989). Measuring the effectiveness of parent education. In M. Fine (Ed.), The second handbook on parent education: Contemporary perspectives, (pp. 237- 255). NY: Academic Press. Middlemiss, W. (2003). Brief report: Poverty, stress, and support: Patterns of parenting behaviour among lower income black and lower income white mothers. Infant and Child Development, 12, 293-300. Muller, R. T., Hunter, J. E., & Stollack, G. (1995). The intergenerational transmission of corporal punishment: A comparison of social learning and temperament models. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1323-1335. Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses: Influences of parents? socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 380-400. Pratkanis, A. R., Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). Attitude structure and function (pp. 1-10, 204-243). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ruble, D. N., Brooks-Gunn, J., Fleming, A. S., Fitzmaurice, G., Stangor, C., & Deutsch, F. (1990). Transition to motherhood and the self: Measurement, stability, and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 450-463. 55 55 Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317-329. Silverman, I. W., & Dubow, E .F. (1991). Looking ahead to parenthood: Nonparents? expectations of themselves and their future children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 37, 231-250. Simons, R. L., Beaman, J., Conger, R. D., & Chao, W. (1992). Gender differences in the intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 823-836. Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171. Stapen, W. N. (2005). Parenting attitudes: A study on the effect of a parenting education curriculum, ?Parenting for emotional growth,? on adolescents attitudes toward parenting. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 5423. (UMI No. 3149750). Stein, J. M. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of parenting beliefs and practices among a sample of low-income African American women: Do social support and child behavior problems moderate transmission effects? (Doctoral dissertation, DePaul University, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 2941. Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., Lengua, L. J., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 17-29. Straus, M. A., & McCord, J. (1998). Do physically punished children become violent 56 56 adults? In S. Nolen-Hoeksema (Ed.), Clashing views on abnormal psychology: A Taking Sides custom reader (pp.130-155). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill. Thompson, M. J.J., Raynor, A., Cornah, D., Stevenson, J., & Sonuga-Barke, E.J.S. (2002). Parenting behaviour described by mothers in a general population sample. Child: Care, Health & Development, 28, 149-155. Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in nonclinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99. Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (1986). Maintenance factors in coercive mother-child interactions: The compliance and predictability hypothesis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 13-22. Webster-Stratton, C., Kolpacoff, M., & Hollinsworth, T. (1988). Self-administered videotape therapy for families with conduct-problem children: Comparison with two cost-effective treatments and a control group. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 558-566. 57 57 APPENDICES 58 58 APPENDIX A Demographic Questionnaire 59 59 DQ Today?s Date: ____________ Please respond about YOU: 1) a)Your age: _______ b) Your gender: _______ 2) Your ethnicity (circle one): 1. American Indian or Alaskan Native 4. White, not of Hispanic origin 2. Asian or Pacific Islander 5. Hispanic 3. Black not of Hispanic origin 6. Other (please explain) _______________ 3) Your country of origin: _____________ 4) Region of United States in which you were raised (circle one): 1. North East 4. North West 7. Raised outside U.S. 2. South East 5. South West 3. Midwest North 6. Midwest south 5) Highest level of education you completed (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade school 9 10 11 12 High School/Trade School 13 14 15 16 College Degree 17 Specialized Training (including Military) 18 Graduate Degree 6) Major of study: ________________ 7) Your religion (please be as specific as possible):____________________________________ 8) Number of siblings in your family: (Full) _______ (Half) _______ (Step)________ 9) Current age of siblings: __________________________________________ 10) Have you ever helped in the raising of a child? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Somewhat 60 60 If you answered YES to question #10, then please answer the following about the child: If you answered SOMEWHAT to question #10, then in what capacity have you helped in the raising of a child?____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 11) Do you like children? (please circle one) 0. Not at all 1. I am indifferent 2. They are tolerable 3. I enjoy their company 12) Do you plan on having children? (circle one): 1. Yes 2. No For the following items, please respond about the caregiver who was most influential in your upbringing when you were between ages 5-12 years old. For some people, this would be their mother, father, or stepparent. For some people it would be another person. 13) Caregiver?s relationship to you (please circle one): 1. Mother 5. Stepmother 9. Sister 2. Father 6. Stepfather 10. Brother 3. Grandmother 7. Aunt 11. Other (please specify)_________ 4. Grandfather 8. Uncle 14) Caregiver?s year of birth:_________ 15) Caregiver?s ethnicity (circle one): 1. American Indian or Alaskan Native 4. White, not of Hispanic origin 2. Asian or Pacific Islander 5. Hispanic 3. Black not of Hispanic origin 6. Other (please specify)_______________ 16) Highest level of education your caregiver completed (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Grade school 9 10 11 12 High School/Trade School 13 14 15 16 College Degree 17 Specialized Training (including Military) 18 Graduate Degree Your relationship to the child: _______________ Child?s current age:_______ Child?s gender (please circle): 1. male 2. female 61 61 17) Primary occupation of caregiver at time of your upbringing (between ages 5- 12):____________ Field of work:________________ 18) Caregiver?s country of origin:______________ 19) Region in United States in which the caregiver was raised between ages 5-12 (circle one): 1. North East 4. North West 7. Raised outside U.S. 2. South East 5. South West 3. Midwest North 6. Midwest south 20) Caregiver?s religion (please be as specific as possible):________________________ 62 62 We just asked you to respond to a number of items about you and your most influential caregiver. Now we would like you to answer some questions related to your experience with children. Below you will find a number of phrases that describe your experience with children. Some phrases specify ages and gender of children, while others specify a time frame from which to report. You have three options under ?Some,? they are 1= you have done it once or twice, 2= you have a little experience with this activity and 3= you have quite a bit of experience with this activity, but do not do it daily. Please read each phrase carefully and circle the response that best describes your experience with children. Please be sure to circle a response in each column for each item. How much experience do you have engaging in the following activities? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 1. Setting limits on a child?s behavior Never Daily 0 1234 01234 2. Punishing a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 3. Rewarding a child for good behavior 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 4. Having a conversation with a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 5. Praising a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 6. Explaining something to a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 7. Interviewing a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 8. Feeding a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 Overall, how did you view these experiences? Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some 63 63 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 9. Helping a child with toileting 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 10. Taking care of a sick child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 11. Soothing an upset child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 12. Putting a child to bed 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 13. Playing games with a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 14. Playing sports with a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 15. Reading to a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 16. Doing arts and crafts with a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 17. Helping a child resolve a conflict 0 1 2 3 4 with another child Never Daily 01234 18. Helping a child share 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 Overall, how did you view these experiences? Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some 64 64 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 19. Helping a child take turns 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 20. Supervising a group of children playing 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 21. Supervising children in a classroom 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 22. Transporting children to activities 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 23. Teaching children 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 24. Coaching children 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 25. Helping a child with homework/schoolwork 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 26. Providing therapy to children 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 27. Taking a babysitting class 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 28. Taking a class related to child 0 1 2 3 4 development Never Daily 01234 Overall, how did you view these experiences? Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some 65 65 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 29. Taking a class related to parenting and/or families 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 30. Total number of classes taken related to 0 1 2 3 4 children and/or families 01234More than 4 How much experience do you have with children of these age groups? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 31. Under 3 years old 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 32. Between 3 and 5 years old 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 33. Between 6 and 8 years old 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 34. Between 9 and 12 years old 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 35. Over 12 years old 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 How much experience do you have with children of differing populations? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 36. Typically developing children 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 37. Children with special needs (e.g. physical, emotional, 0 1 2 3 4 medical, and/or behavioral problems) Never Daily 01234 Overall, how did you view these experiences? Overall, how did you view these experiences? Overall, how did you view these experiences? Some Some Some Some Some Some Some Some 66 66 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 38. Children in child protective services 0 1 2 3 4 (e.g.Foster care, DHR, DCFS, HRS, etc.) Never Daily 01234 39. Children who are in the legal system 0 1 2 3 4 (e.g. in trouble with the law) Never Daily 01234 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 40. Boys 0 1234 Never Daily 01234 41. Girls 0 1234 Never Daily 01234 How much experience have you had with children in the following contexts? 42. Total number of jobs you have had 0 1 2 3 4 that involved working with children 01234More than 4 43. Helping to raise a child 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 44. Observing a child through research 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 On average how much experience have you had with children in the following time frames? 45. In the last 6 months 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 Overall, how did you view these experiences? Overall, how did you view these experiences? Some Some Some Some Some Some Some 67 67 On average how much experience have you had with children in the following time frames? Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Negatively Negatively Neutrally Positively Positively 46. In the last 12 months 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 47. In your lifetime 0 1 2 3 4 Never Daily 01234 Some Some Overall, how did you view these experiences? 68 68 APPENDIX B Alabama Parenting Questionnaire-Retrospective (APQ-R) 69 69 APQ-R Instructions: The following are a number of statements about your family; some people have different households that they go to, please choose one household on which to report. Please rate each item based on how often it TYPICALLY occurred in your home. The possible answers are NEVER (1), ALMOST NEVER (2), SOMETIMES (3), OFTEN (4), ALWAYS (5). Please respond to each item based on your experience with the one primary caregiver who was most influential to you when you were between the ages of 5 and 12. Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Always 1. You had a friendly talk with your caregiver. 12 3 45 2. Your caregiver told you that you did a good job. 12 3 45 3. Your caregiver threatened to punish you and then did not do it. 12 3 45 4. Your caregiver helped with some of your special activities (such as 12 3 45 sports, boy/girl scouts, church youth groups). 5. Your caregiver rewarded or gave something extra to you for behaving well. 12 3 45 6. You failed to leave a note or let your caregiver know where you were going. 12 3 45 7. You played games or did other fun things with your caregiver. 12 3 45 8. You talked your caregiver out of punishing you after you did 12 3 45 something wrong. 9. You caregiver asked you about your day in school. 12 3 45 10. You stayed out in the evening past the time you were 12 3 45 supposed to be at home. 11. Your caregiver helped you with your homework. 12 3 45 12. Your caregiver gave up trying to get you to obey them because 12 3 45 it was too much trouble. 70 70 Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Always 13. Your caregiver complimented you when you did something well. 12 3 45 14. Your caregiver asked you what your plans were for the coming day. 12 3 45 15. Your caregiver drove you to a special activity. 12 3 45 16. Your caregiver praised you for behaving well. 12 3 45 17. Your caregiver did not know the friends you were with. 12 3 45 18. Your caregiver hugged or kissed you when you did something well. 12 3 45 19. You went out without a set time to be home. 12 3 45 20. Your caregiver talked to you about your friends. 12 3 45 21. You went out after dark without an adult with you. 12 3 45 22. Your caregiver let you out of a punishment early (like lifted 12 3 45 restrictions earlier than they originally said. 23. You helped plan family activities. 12 3 45 24. Your caregiver got so busy that they forget where you were and 12 3 45 what you were doing. 25. Your caregiver did not punish you when you did something wrong. 12 3 45 26. Your caregiver went to a meeting at school, like a PTA 12 3 45 meeting or parent/teacher conference. 27. Your caregiver told you that they liked it when you helped out 12 3 45 around the house. 28. You stayed out later than you were supposed to and your 12 3 45 caregiver didn't know it. 29.Your caregiver left the house and didn't tell you where 12 3 45 they were going. 30. You came home from school more than one hour past the time 12 3 45 your caregiver expected you to be home. 71 71 Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Always 31. The punishment your caregiver gave depended on their mood. 12 3 45 32. You were at home without an adult being with you. 12 3 45 33. Your caregiver spanked you with their hand when you did 12 3 45 something wrong. 34. Your caregiver ignored you when you were misbehaving. 12 3 45 35. Your caregiver slapped you when you did something wrong. 12 3 45 36. Your caregiver took away a privilege or money from you 12 3 45 as a punishment. 37. Your caregiver sent you to your room as a punishment. 12 3 45 38. Your caregiver hit you with a belt, switch, or other object when 12 3 45 you did something wrong. 39. Your caregiver yelled or screamed at you 12 3 45 when did something wrong. 40. Your caregiver calmly explained to you why your behavior was 12 3 45 wrong when you misbehaved. 41. Your caregiver used time out (made you sit or stand in 12 3 45 a corner) as a punishment. 42. Your caregiver gave you extra chores as punishment. 12 3 45 72 72 APPENDIX C Alabama Parenting Questionnaire- Prospective (APQ-P) 73 73 APQ-P Instructions: The following are a number of statements about your future use of parenting strategies. Please rate each item based on how likely it would be to TYPICALLY occur in your home if faced with raising a first or second grade (6-7 year old) boy tomorrow. The possible answers are NEVER (1), ALMOST NEVER (2), SOMETIMES (3), OFTEN (4), VERY LIKELY (5). Please answer all of the items. Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Very Likely 1. You have a friendly talk with your child. 1234 5 2. You let your child know when he is doing a good job with something. 1234 5 3. You threaten to punish your child and then do not actually punish him. 1234 5 4. You volunteer to help with special activities that your child is 1234 5 involved in (such as sports, boy scouts, church youth groups). 5. You reward or give something extra to your child for obeying 1234 5 or behaving well. 6. Your child fails to leave you a note or tell you where he is going. 1234 5 7. You play games or do other fun things with your child. 1234 5 8. Your child talks to you out of being punished after he has done 1234 5 something wrong. 9. You ask your child about his day at school. 1234 5 10. Your child stays out in the evening past the time he is 1234 5 supposed to be at home. 11. You help your child with his homework. 1234 5 12. You feel that getting your child to obey you is more trouble than its worth. 1234 5 13. You compliment your child when he does something well. 1234 5 14. You ask your child what his plans are for the coming day. 1234 5 74 74 Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Very Likely 15. You drive your child to a special activity. 1234 5 16. You praise your child if he behaves well. 1234 5 17. Your child is out with friends you don?t know. 1234 5 18. You hug/ kiss your child when he has done something well. 1234 5 19. Your child goes out with a set time to be home. 1234 5 20. You talk to your child about his friends. 1234 5 21. Your child is out after dark without an adult with him. 1234 5 22. You let your child out of punishment early (like lift restrictions 1234 5 earlier than you originally said. 23. Your child helps plan family activities. 1234 5 24. You get so busy that you forget where your child is and 1234 5 what he is doing. 25. Your child is not punished when he has done something wrong. 1234 5 26. You attend PTA meetings, parent/teacher conferences, or 1234 5 other meetings at your child?s school. 27. You tell your child that you like it when he helps around the house. 1234 5 28. You don?t check that your child has come home at the 1234 5 time he was supposed to. 29. You don?t tell your child where you are going. 1234 5 30. Your child comes home from school more than one hour 1234 5 past the time you expect him. 31. The punishment you give your child depends on your mood. 1234 5 32. Your child is at home without adult supervision. 1234 5 33. You spank your child with your hand when he has done 1234 5 something wrong. 34. You ignore your child when he is misbehaving. 1234 5 75 75 Never Almost Never Sometimes Often Very Likely 35. You slap your child when he has done something wrong. 1234 5 36. You take away privileges or money from your child as a punishment. 1234 5 37. You send your child to his room as punishment. 1234 5 38. You hit your child with a belt, switch, or other object when 1234 5 he has done something wrong. 39. You yell or scream at your child when he has done something wrong. 1234 5 40. You calmly explain to your child why his behavior was wrong 1234 5 when he has done something wrong. 41. You use timeout (make him sit or stand in a corner) as a punishment. 1234 5 42. You give your child extra chores as a punishment. 1234 5 76 76 APPENDIX D Attitudes toward Parenting Practices (APP) 77 77 APP Instructions. Some children need structure; we would like to know how you would feel about how effective a number of activities would be if faced with raising a first or second grade (6-7 year old) boy tomorrow. Please circle the number that best corresponds to your attitude toward how effective these activities would be. How would you view these experiences? Not At All Not Very Slightly Very Effective Effective Neutrally Effective Effective 1. Telling him when you like what he did 01234 2. Givng him something or leting him do smething special 01234 when he is good 3. Taking away things when he misbehaves (like not leing him watch TV 01234 or ride his bike or stay up late or eat dessert) 4. Talking to him when he fls bad and helping him fel betr 01234 5. Helping him with his problems 01234 6. Comfrting him 01234 7. Telling him he is no good 01234 8. Telling him that he messed up or didn?t do something right 01234 9. Listenig to him 01234 10. Having a conversation with him 01234 1. Ordeing him around 01234 12. Making a specif requst 01234 78 78 Not At All Not Very Slightly Very Effective Effective Neutrally Effective Effective 13. Leting him help decide what to d 01234 14. Leting him help decide how to figure out problems 01234 15. Spankig him 01234 16. Slaping him 01234 17. Hitng him 01234 18. Playing with him 01234 19. Spendig time with him 01234 20. Doing things with him whic he likes 01234 21. Yelling at him 01234 2. Saying nice things to him 01234 23. Telling him that he is a good boy 01234 24. Threatnig him that he?l get in trouble if he does something wrong 01234 25. Warnig him that he?l get in trouble if he does something wrong 01234 26. Leting him do what oher kids hi age do 01234 27. Sendig him to a rom or coner fo les than 15 minutes 01234 when he does something wrong 28. Sendig him to a rom or coner fo more than 15 minutes 01234 when he does something wrong 29. Helping him when he neds it (with a hard job, with homework, when 01234 he can?t do something by himself) 30. Naging him 01234 31. Telling him what to do over and over again 01234 32. Huging him 01234 33. Smiling at him 01234 34. Ignorig his inapropiate bhavior 01234 35. Givng him the silent treatment 01234