Baumrind_1967

Socialization Practices Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls Author(s): Diana Baumrind and Allen E. Black

Source: Child Development, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 291-327

Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127295 .

Accessed: 23/10/2014 11:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

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

.

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

SOCIALIZATION

PRACTICES

ASSOCIATED

WITH

DIMENSIONS

OF COMPETENCE

IN PRESCHOOL

BOYS AND GIRLS

DIANA BAUMRIND and ALLEN E. BLACK University of California, Berkeley

The investigation has as its objective to identify parent attitudes and be- haviors associated with dimensions of competent behavior in normal pre- school children. A child-behavior model (similar in structure to models presented by Schaefer and by Becker & Krug) for boys and girls sepa- rately was developed and related to behavioral measures obtained in the home, and to mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and father- daughter interview dimensions arrived at through cluster-analytic tech- niques. When sex-related correlates were interpreted, particular attention was given to the problem of equivalence of dimensions across sex. Specific parent-child relationships varied with the sex of parent and child. In gen- eral, independence granting and verbal give and take, on the one hand, and enforced demands and consistent discipline, on the other, were associated with stable, assertive behavior in the child.

This program of research had as its objective the identification of practices associated with dimensions of competent nursery school behavior for boys and girls. Two separate studies were conducted. The objective of one study (Baumrind, 1967) was to determine whether preschool chil-

This research was supported by research grant MH-03991 from the National Institute of Mental Health, U. S. Public Health Service, to Paul Mussen and Diana Baumrind. The authors are indebted to the field psychologists, Rosa- mund Gardner, Viola Litt, Marie Mastache, Panthea Perry, Elizabeth War- riner, and Judith Williams. The study could not have proceeded without the cooperation of the personnel of the H. E. Jones Child Study Center (Dorothy Eichorn, administrator) and the Institute of Human Development (John Clausen, director at that time, and Brewster Smith, present director). We wish to acknowl- edge the invaluable aid of the nursery school directors (Thelma Harms, Yvette Lehman, Virginia Leonard, Anne Kappel, and Hannah Sanders) who helped to obtain the interest and cooperation of the parents and children and assisted in the

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

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

METHOD

Subjects

The Ss were all children enrolled in the H. E. Jones Child Study Cen- ter, Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, during the fall semester of 1960. Of the 107 children enrolled at the begin- ning of the semester, 103 remained in school long enough to have their be- havior rated. There were 95 families who participated in the study and were visited in the home. The other eight families, for the most part, were associated in a professional capacity with the investigators and therefore could not participate. A few parents (one mother and four fathers) were absent from the home due to death or divorce. In Table 1 are presented some sample characteristics relevant to the study, including the mean IQ for the 83 children for whom Stanford-Binets were available. The parents reside in an urban university community and are middle-class and very well educated; 95 per cent of the fathers and 81 per cent of the mothers are college graduates. Of the fathers, 75 per cent were classified under one or two of Hollingshead and Redlich's (1958) modification of the Alba Ed- formulation of the Preschool Behavior _{Q-sort items. We are especially grateful to} the parents who not only talked with us but accorded us the privilege of observing their families in the home setting. Authors' address: Institute of Human Develop- ment, University of California, Tolman Hall, Berkeley, California 94720.

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK

TABLE 1

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Variable N Mean SD

Age of child in months... 103 47.0 6.02 IQ of child... 83 125.4 14.53 Birth order of child ... 103 2.1 1.01 No. of children in family... 103 2.6 .92 Mother's education... 90 2.1 .67 Father's education ... 97 1.5 .61 Father's occupation ... 101 1.9 .98

Note.-The Education Code (1 = _{graduate professional training, 7} = _{less than 7 years of school)}

and Occupation Code (1 = major executives and major professionals, 7 = unskilled workers) are those used by Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), with graduate student coded as Education =2 and Occupation =3.

wards system of classifying occupations into seven socioeconomic groups. Twenty mothers were working at the time of the study, 12 in professional capacities. The results of the study should not be generalized to popula- tions which display dissimilar socioeconomic and educational levels.

Child-Behavior _Ratings

Over a minimum period of 3 months, four trained psychologists ob- served and recorded behavior while the children were involved in all as- pects of the nursery school program. Each child was assigned to a pair of psychologists, and each pair observed approximately fifty children (one half were 3-year-olds, and one half were 4-year-olds). A 95-item Q sort was devised to provide a means by which the psychologists could describe the child. The items were sorted into nine piles going from most characteristic to least characteristic with the fixed distribution: 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 13, 11, 9, 7. The domains of behavior focused upon included neurotic symptoms, mood and energy characteristics, and such interpersonal characteristics as self-control, perseverance, self-reliance, self-assertiveness, friendliness, and cooperativeness.

Both poles of each Q-sort item were defined explicitly, with one pole reflecting mental health and the other its absence. An attempt was made to assess independently the diverse facets of psychological constructs such as "dominance" and "independence" which frequently have been forced into polar opposition. The effect of not permitting independent measurement of these facets is to superimpose a structure which can restrict the emergence of several related but not equivalent traits or clusters. Consider, for ex- ample, the four Q-sort items:

1. Submits to group consensus versus takes independent stand. 2. Suggestible versus has mind of his own.

3. Provokes versus avoids conflict with adults.

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

items might all be considered aspects of a single trait: Autonomy versus Compliance. However, in the analyses discussed subsequently, these items were in fact related to separate although correlated dimensions which, in part, may account for the differences among the models of child behavior compared. To save space, the item designations given in this paper have been shortened from the original wordings to provide succinct definitions of both poles.'

The chief value of the ipsative or within-person ranking approach in- herent in the Q sort, for this study, was that it allowed the rater to focus upon one child until she felt that she had observed the child sufficiently to do a valid rating. The high correlation between ipsative ratings treated normatively and conventionally acquired normative ratings, shown by Block (1957), justified their further use in item-based factor and cluster analyses.

The final scores used for further analyses were the composites of the two psychologists' ratings. The reliabilities for the composited items varied from a low of .29 to a high of .88, with approximately 10 per cent of the reliabilities below .60 and another 10 per cent above .80. The mean value was approximately .68. As might be expected, the items with low reliabili- ties (below .60) did not show a sufficiently high pattern of intercorrelation with other items to be important contributors to the final cluster structures discussed subsequently. Items with high reliabilities (above .80) almost invariably were included as cluster definers.

When the composite item means for boys and girls were compared (Table 2), a fairly characteristic set of differences emerged. Boys were seen as more active, outgoing, and exploratory, and girls as more involved in intellectual, aesthetic, and interpersonal pursuits of a verbal nature. In addition, girls were described more frequently as indirect, manipulative, coercively dependent, and withdrawn, while boys were seen as more con- tent, good humored, self-assured, and actively friendly.

Child-Behavior Model

An initial cluster analysis by Tryon's method2 utilizing the product- moment correlations among the 95 items elicited a seven-cluster solution for

1 _{A list of the 95 items, their reliabilities, the means and standard}

deviations for boys and girls, and the factor coefficients _{from the two factor Principal Com-} ponents Analysis are on deposit with the American Documentation Institute.

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

payable to: Chief Photoduplication ₂ Service, Library of Congress.

All cluster and factor analyses performed in connection with this paper

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK

TABLE 2

SIGNIFICANT _Q-SORT ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES FOR BOYs X GIRLS Boys > girls:

High vs. low energy level

Good sense of humor vs. humorless Content vs. discontent

Doesn't seek vs. seeks overt assurance that he is liked Explores vs. does not explore environment

Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish Girls > boys

Acts too mature vs. pleasantly childlike demeanor Enjoys vs. does not enjoy aesthetic experience Exploits dependent state vs. seeks help realistically Interested vs. uninterested in pre-primer skills

Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward Chatters to obtain attention vs. talks in order to communicate

Note.-All differences reported have a p < .05 for

both boys and girls. The first two clusters were relatively orthogonal (r

=

.10 for boys, and r = .06 for girls) and reproduced 89 and 85 per cent of the mean of the original squared correlations for boys and girls, respectively. In general, the remaining clusters were highly correlated with the first two clusters. This is an analogous situation to that which Becker and Krug (1964) found conducive for developing their two-factor circumplex model for social behavior in children. Certainly, in the present case, a two-factor model seemed adequate to account for the major portion of the variance. A procedure similar to that used by Becker and Krug, but more rooted in the rationale of cluster analysis, was followed in ordering the interrelations

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

A principal-components solution was chosen to provide the most stable two-factor solution possible. All Q-sort items were then plotted in this two- factor space with their factor coefficients used as coordinates. The items were formed into clusters on the basis of (a) position on the circular plot, (b) pattern of intercorrelation of contiguous items, and, in a few in- stances, (c) theoretical relevance. The axes were rotated graphically to bring the boy and girl clusters into a similar position. The defining items for each of the eight clusters obtained from this ordering and the cluster re- liabilities appear in Table 3. The cluster scores are the unweighted com- posite of standardized scores for the defining items. The intercorrelations among items used as definers were of a magnitude such that the lowest aver- age r that any defining item has with the other defining items in a cluster is .52, with most average r's above .60. This accounts for the high reliabil- ity of the clusters. Because of its theoretical value, a simple hierarchical or second-order analysis was performed by compositing the defining items of of R. C. Tryon and made available for use by the Computer Center, University

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 3

DESCRIPTION OF CHILD-BEHAVIOR CLUSTERS

EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTION FOR BOYS AVERAGE

r Cluster I: Unlikeable-Likeable. Reliability = 89, = .45:

Alienates vs. attracts other children ... .72

Able vs. not able to form close friendships ... -. 71

Uses vs. does not use persuasion to get what he wants... -. . 65

Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish ... -.61

Cluster II: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .95, P = _.48: Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic. ... ... -.79

Irritable vs. even tempered ... .79

Obstructive vs. helpful ... 78

Becomes hostile vs. does not become hostile when hurt or frustrated.. .77

Content vs. discontent ... -.76

Helps vs. does not help other children adapt ... -.73

Cluster III: Impetuous-Self-Controlled. Reliability = _{.86, 2} = _.29: Impulsive vs. self-controlled ... .73

Impetuous vs. planful ... .. . 66

Thoughtless, inconsiderate vs. thoughtful, considerate ... .62

Cluster IV: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .91, P = _.26: Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanor with adults ... .78

Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults ... .76

Responsible vs. irresponsible about following rules ... -. 68

Affectionate vs. unaffectionate with nursery school staff... -.63

Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .89, P = .22: Submits to group consensus vs. takes independent stand... -.74

Conforming vs. willing to risk adult disapproval ... -.70

Suggestible vs. has mind of his own... -.69

Listens vs. actively participates in discussions ... -.58

Cluster VI: Imaginative-Stereotyped. Reliability = .88, f- = .08: An interesting, arresting child vs. uninteresting and bland... .64

Imaginative vs. unimaginative ... .62

Emotionally expressive vs. bland ... .61

Produces stereotyped vs. original work ... -.61

Curious vs. lacks curiousity ... ... .56

Cluster VII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .89, fP = _.40: Gives up vs. perseveres when adversity is encountered ... -.69

"Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performance demands ... .67

Sets goals which are easy vs. hard to achieve ... -.65

Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks ... .57

Withdraws vs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated... -.52

Cluster VIII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, f' = .51: High vs. low self-confidence ... .71

At ease vs. ill at ease at nursery school ... .69

Apprehensive vs. nonapprehensive ... -.68

Self-abasive vs. self-valuing... -.66

Conflicted vs. resolute about making decisions ... -.66

EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTION FOR GIRLs AVERAGE r Cluster I: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .80, P' = .33: Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic... ... -.58

Helps vs. does not help other children adapt... -.57

Alienates vs. attracts other children ... .56

Cluster II: Unsocialized-Well Socialized. Reliability = .88, P = .35: Thoughtless, inconsiderate vs. thoughtful, considerate ... .71

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK

Obstructive vs. helpful ... .66

Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward... .63

Does not vs. does regret wrong-doing ... .61

Cluster III: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .89, 2 = .22: Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults... .74

Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanor with adults... .73

Dependable, trustworthy vs. undependable, untrustworthy ... - .71

Cluster IV: Domineering-Tractable. Reliability = .88, 2 = 24: Bullies vs. avoids forcing will on other children ... .77

Managerial and bossy vs. tactful and modest ... .74

Permits self to be dominated vs. will not submit ... -.64

Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .91, If = .31: Submits to group consensus vs. takes independent stand... -.72

Suggestible vs. has mind of his own ... -.70

Not easily vs. easily intimidated or bullied ... .67

Conforming vs. willing to risk adult disapproval ... -. 66

Listens vs. actively participates in discussions ... -.64

Cluster VI: At Ease-Ill At Ease. Reliability = _{.93, fl = .44:} At ease vs. ill at ease at nursery school ... .75

Seldom vs. often spends time in withdrawn fantasy ... .74

Poorly vs. well oriented in his environment ... -.73

Withdraws vs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated... -.70

Self-abasive vs. self-valuing ... -.66

Cluster VII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, ?* = _.54: High vs. low self-confidence ... .73

Conflicted vs. resolute about making decisions ... -.71

Gives up vs. perseveres when adversity is encountered ... -.70

Cluster VIII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .94, i* = .47: Does not vs. does become pleasurably involved in tasks... -.78

Gives his best vs. expends little effort ... ... .77

Aimless vs. purposive ... -.76

"Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performance demands ... .76

Enjoys vs. avoids new learning experiences... .. .73

Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks ... .56

FOUR-CLUSTER SOLUTION FOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Disaffiliative-Affiliative. Reliability = .95-boys, .91-girls; f = _.49-boys,

.35-girls. Composite of Clusters I and II.

Resistive-Cooperative. Reliability = .94-boys, .92-girls; f* = .21-boys, .29-girls. Composite of Clusters III and IV.

Independent-Dependent. Reliability = .90-boys, .94-girls; i2 = .18-boys, .42-girls. Composite of Clusters V and VI.

Assertive-Withdrawn. Reliability = .93-boys, .95-girls; f = .52-boys, .56- girls. Composite of Clusters VII and VIII.

Two-CLUSTER SOLUTION FOR BOYS AND GIRLS Set A

Irresponsible-Responsible. Reliability = .96-boys, .94-girls; -

= _.45-boys,

.30-girls. Composite of Clusters I, II, III, IV.

Active-Passive. Reliability = .93-boys, .96-girls; P = .39-boys, .54-girls. Composite of Clusters V, VI, VII, VIII.

Set B

Nonconforming-Conforming. Reliability = .92-boys, .94-girls; 7' = .21-boys, .32-girls. Composite of Clusters III, IV, V, VI.

Stable-Unstable. Reliability = .93-boys, .94-girls; P = .66-boys, .58-girls. Composite of Clusters VII and VIII with Clusters I and II reflected. Note.-Average r

=

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

relevant clusters from the eight-cluster solution, giving one four-cluster and a pair of two-cluster solutions. Figure 1 illustrates the model of child be- havior which evolved from the data. The circumscribed points represent the position of the cluster defining items as plotted in the two-factor space. The separate boy and girl solutions were similar enough so that for the four-cluster and two-cluster solutions the individual clusters could be given the same designations. Although the items which were composited to de- fine the axis designated Active-Passive do not clearly measure this dimen- sion, the items which had the highest oblique factor coefficients for both boys and girls (participates energetically vs. remains unoccupied, self- starting vs. needs encouragement, enjoys vs. does not enjoy nursery school, and high vs. low energy level) clearly measure Active-Passive behavior.

Since none of the previously reported models dealing with relevant

NONCONFORMING BOYS BOYS U k A E I a A r T T- A \pk

p

UTO?oQu.,DOMNEpk"tG

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK

material have considered boys and girls separately, we will overlook for a moment any apparent differences between the boy and girl solutions in order to consider the generalizability of the model without regard to sex.

The model evolved as a parsimonious and meaningful post hoc solu- tion to the problem of data reduction and not as an attempt to define the real structure of child behavior. Although the raters were experienced psychologists with diverse theoretical commitments, the rating procedures were not ones that would minimize halo effects entering into the obtained intercorrelations among items. Passini and Norman (1966) demonstrated recently that Ss who are acquainted superficially can produce peer-rating factor structures that are highly similar to those obtained from Ss with whom raters are well acquainted. Similarly, how much of the factor struc- ture reported here is a function of a universal conceptual bias among raters remains moot. The conceptual bias would have to be more or less universal, however, since the results from diverse studies appear strikingly equivalent. Initially, Schaefer (1961) developed a hypothetical model based on an integration of his own work with Guttman's circumplex method and a review of previous work. Then, Becker and Krug (1964) developed an empirically derived model from a reworking of Becker's data analyzed previously from a standard factor-analytic approach. Both authors found substantial support in the literature for their models. The differences be- tween the Schaefer and the Becker and Krug models result primarily from the greater differentiation of the later model.

Figure 2 compares the child-behavior models of Becker and Krug (1964), Schaefer (1961), and the four-cluster solution for the current study. The four-cluster rather than the eight-cluster solution was chosen because its cluster designations are identical for boys and girls. Re- examination of the full model (Figure 1) will show even more marked sim- ilarities among the three models. With the exception of the area defined in the four-cluster solution as Independent, and its opposite Dependent, the models appear equivalent in the sense that for any point the behaviors de- scribed to either side of it, at the item level, are very similar for almost all models reviewed by Schaefer and by Becker and Krug. Within the Inde- pendent area, most other studies appear to have items defining an extension of the Resistive-Rebellious areas, but most of these studies lack a constella- tion of items directed at the positive aspects of noncompliance involved in Autonomous-Independent behaviors. By Contrast, our model distinguishes between Rebellious and Autonomous behavior for both boys and girls. The distinction proved to be helpful in interpretations of parent-child correlates, especially for girls.

The differences between the models are most marked at the poles. As the psychologist moves up through levels of abstraction from individual item definitions to labeling composite clusters or factors, more and more free play is granted to theoretical bias. The difference between Becker and

IRRESPONSIBLE •%. HOSTILITY (S) /i4-'7A;jq, ,. F.FIANT" 00, 0 HOSTILE 0% PE A IN _4e R T(B) R 0 t 0 V p E ; A R A S S E C I (S) _{(S) T I} V N E vE 0 _R 0 "(B) 0 00, COOPERAT/- •'f< 4.LOVE (S) '•/G/ •RESPONSIBLE

FIG. _{2.--A comparison} of two-factor child-behavior models. Outer ring =

Four-cluster _{solution from reported study; middle ring = Becker and Krug's} (1964) model; inner ring = Schaefer's (1961) model. Becker and Krug's major axes are indicated _{by (B) and Schaefer's by (S).}

Krug's polar dimension Emotional Stability and our Stable dimension is more a function of somewhat differing views of the human condition than of a difference in the ordering of variables.

Comparability of the Boy- and Girl-Cluster Solutions

As can be seen from Figure 1 and Table 3, the boy and girl models are very similar in both the designations given to the clusters and in a large number of the defining items within clusters. The only difference that re- flects content rather than style is the appearance of boy Cluster VI, Im- aginative-Stereotyped, which has no counterpart among the girl clusters. As is indicated by the position of its center mass close to the origin, this cluster is probably more closely related to a third orthogonal factor than it

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK is to the first two factors. In fact, the third cluster from the original cluster analysis by the Tryon method had as its defining items four of the five items defining Cluster VI. A similar third cluster emerged for girls, but it was even more highly dependent on the first two clusters than the boys, which in both cases were dimensions similar to Active-Passive and Irre- sponsible-Responsible. The area of child behavior concerned with crea- tivity appears fruitful as a possible third more or less orthogonal dimension upon which a three-dimensional model of child behavior might be con- structed. The domineering aspects of girl Cluster IV do not emerge clearly for boys, although for the Resistive-Cooperative composite clusters these items also have relatively high-factor coefficients for boys. This type of content analysis of the differences between solutions is informative but limited in that it lacks the necessary rigor of definition to allow for com- parison of correlates with a set of independent parent variables.

Recently, Tryon (1964) proposed an index of similarity between clusters or dimensions as a solution to the problem of matching factors from different samples when the identical set of variables is used. This problem and the previous attempts at solution are discussed by Harmon (1960). Tryon's statistic cos 0 was discovered empirically through the successful attempt to reproduce the known intercorrelation between clus- ters within a single group solution from the oblique factor coefficients, and, like r, its limits are

--1.8 When the cos 0 value between two clusters ap- proaches 1, the clusters are equivalent in the sense that the pooled set of item definers from the two clusters have very nearly the identical pattern of factor coefficients for both clusters. If the clusters are from the same group solution, the r between them will also approach 1. But once the value of cos 0 has been established for within-group solution comparisons, no logi- cal restrictions prohibit its use for across-group solution comparisons. The only restriction is that each solution must contain the same set of referent variables.

Table 4 gives the intercorrelation between the clusters within the boy a Actually, the intercorrelation reproduced was not the raw correlation based on factor scores, but, rather, the correlation between cluster domains (common factor r). This is simply an estimate of the correlation of composites, an old formulation _{recently reviewed by Ghiselli (1964). Cos 0 is exact only when the} definers for each cluster are precisely collinear, i.e., when they all fall on the same straight line in the space under consideration. This is rarely the case, but

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

been strikingly accurate. Frequently, it has been found preferable to refer only

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

I It %0 0 0 o" 4N' 00 t N N -~ ll?( ???

~

~V

C~I o ~) 00'*N C00 0 m \0C\C d - I _{0 0C4} 0 Cb U) CC) C) 0: OvC%0CI. Cl) O C - 0 >1 C CCC.) 0 m \0 (D C CC ) U)Uo C) Cb 0 0/) mH c

00

LoU)

0

V)

41vF9

C oe

U)

H

F9

cu

o

W

_f

19k

,

_N-o

~

_I..

,

~

co

Vc

~

~

cu

cu~

W

~

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

and girl solutions along with cos

e

Parent-Behavior Measures

In previous papers, Baumrind (1964; 1967) described in detail the procedures associated with the home visit and the Home Visit Sequence Analysis (HVSA). The home was the setting in which data concerning parent behavior were obtained. The psychologist who visited the home was not one of the pair that rated the child's behavior. In order to achieve a standardized situation, the home visit was structured identically for each family and occurred for all families during a period commencing from shortly before the dinner hour and lasting until just after the child's bed- time. This period is commonly known to produce instances of parent-child divergence and was selected for observation in order to elicit a wide range of critical interactions under maximum stress.

A system was developed for recording in detail those parent-child in- teractions where one member attempted overtly to influence the behavior of another. All protocols were coded after the home visits were concluded. The major interaction unit coded, called a control sequence, consisted of two or more causally related acts containing a single message and involving the same two family members as participants in an interchange initiated by one of them to alter the behavior of the other and ending with the other's compliance or noncompliance. Type I sequences are control sequences in- iniated by the parent in order to control or alter the behavior of the child or his future capacity to act. The following is a Type I sequence in which the parent uses minimal power, and the child complies after the parent per- sists:

MARK _{gets up from the table.} FATHEa: "What do you say, Mark?"

MARK: "I wanna go."

FATHER: _{"What do you say, Mark?"}

MARK: "Excuse _{me, please."}

Type II sequences are child-initiated control sequences where the child makes a demand of the parent. The following is a Type II sequence with

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK which the parent fails to comply, although the child uses increasingly greater power:

JOHN: "Can I go out?"

MOTHER: _{"Yes. Oh no, I guess you can't. I didn't realize how late it was."}

JOHN: "But why didn't you tell me the time?"

MOTHER: "You have to take a bath now."

JOHN: "Please, Mother. (Crying, beseeching, being terribly cute.) I never get to go down the street."

MOTHER: "Not _tonight, dear."

The coded information from the sequences was used as the basis for de- fining theoretically relevant variables, nine of which were used in this study. The nine variables chosen are defined in Table 5.

Parent Interviews

Each parent was interviewed separately and a tape-recorded tran- script made. The transcriptions were typed, and the psychologist who did the interviewing was able to review and study her interviews prior to com- pleting her final ratings on 56 rating scales. The individual scales which have been reported by Baumrind (1967) were designed to cover a broad domain of parent attitudes and practices related to child rearing. Many of the questions asked and the scales used to code the transcripts were adapted from the parent interview used by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), although the format and emphasis of the interviews are quite dif- ferent. The perspective taken, however, was that of self-report rather than clinical interpretations of parents' statements and demeanor. This is, the parent's appraisal of his or her own feelings and practices was taken at face value and the ratings made on that basis.

For the individual items, the significant mean differences between parental attitudes toward child rearing of boys versus girls and mothers versus fathers are given in Table 6. It is of interest that mothers of girls compared to mothers of boys say that they are more strict about neatness, demand obedience, control verbal protest, and use withdrawal of love. The withdrawal-of-love item for mothers of girls correlates negatively with the mother-interview cluster Warmth (-.64) and positively with the item Negative Sanctions. Frightening the Child (.62) which together with Withdrawal of Love formed the cluster defining maternal Punitiveness for girls. If the inference is valid (e.g., Bronson, Livson, & Katten, 1959; Hein- stein, 1965) that in California homes, at least, the mother is the more important socialization agent as well as the more nurturant parent, and if expressed attitudes provide information about actual differential reinforce- ment for boys and girls of direct expressions of feeling and self-assertive be- havior, then it is likely that preschool girls more than boys are punished for direct expression of feelings and in ways which would generate greater

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

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

TABLE 5

HOME-VISIT SEQUENCE ANALYSIS VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

VARIABLE DEFINITION

(a) Positive Outcome... The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the child complies.

(c) Accepts Power Conflict with Child.... The per cent of child-initiated sequences (Type II) where the parent does not evade child's request as a method of com- pliance.

(f) Independence Training, Control ... The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the message concerns cognitive insight into cause and effect relations or factual knowledge about the world.

(h) Respects Child's Decision... The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) in- volving noncompliance where the parent retracts directive on the basis of the child's arguments. (j) Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance... The per cent of parent-initiated

control sequences (Type I) where the parent uses reason with the directive.

(k) Encourages Verbal Give and Take.... The per cent of control sequences (Type I and Type II) in which the parent, in order to handle a parent-child divergence, uses power or reason or responds with power or reason to the child's demands, where the parent engages the child in argument, generally altering his course of action as a result.

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

(q) Uses Coercive Power Without Reason.. The per cent of parent-initiated control sequences (Type I) where the parent uses coercive power without giving a reason. (r) Takes Initiative in Control Sequences.. The per cent of total control

sequences (Type I and Type II) which were initiated by the parent (Type I) rather than the child (Type II).

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK

TABLE 6

SIGNIFICANT PARENT-INTERVIEW ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES MOTHER INTERVIEW

Mothers of boys > mothers of girls:

12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 44. Tolerance of verbal protest

Mothers of girls > mothers of boys: 2. Strictness: Neatness 10. Demand for obedience

13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love

27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggression toward parent 38. Maturity expectation: Does not reward dependency

FATHER INTERVIEW

Fathers of boys > fathers of girls:

11. Negative sanctions: Corporal punishment 18. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Praise

19. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Tangible reward 28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative Fathers of girls > fathers of boys:

None

MOTHER INTERVIEW X FATHER INTERVIEW

Mothers of boys > fathers of boys:

12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 14. Negative sanctions: Isolation

36. Maturity expectation: Permissiveness for exploration 37. Maturity expectation: Rewarding of self-sufficiency 42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication 47. Individual character of child perceived

48. Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship 50. Warmth: Approval

52. Warmth: Empathy

55. Conscientiousness: Sacrifice own needs to those of children Fathers of boys > mothers of boys:

10. Demand for obedience

20. Parents' feeling of control over child

22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures 23. Consistency: Follow-through in discipline

26. Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement

27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggression toward parent 28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative

32. Reason for restrictions: An absolutist ethical imperative Mothers of girls > fathers of girls:

1. Strictness: Care of family property 2. Strictness: Neatness

11. Negative sanctions: Corporal punishment 12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges 37. Maturity expectation: Rewarding of self-sufficiency 40. Independence: Encourages contact with other adults 55. Conscientiousness: Sacrifice own needs to those of children Fathers of girls > mothers of girls:

17. Negative sanctions: Frightening the child

22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures Note.--- < .05 for

I

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Parent-interview Clusters

As was the case with the final procedures used with the child be- havior, four principal axes factor analyses were performed on the inter- view data for mothers of boys, mothers of girls, fathers of boys, and fathers of girls. These analyses revealed that (a) the raw intercorrelations were, in general, much lower than for the child behavior, (b) all four solutions were similar but not similar enough to allow combining of boys and girls, and (c) there was no basis for establishing a firm two- or three-dimensional orthogonal structure in any of the solutions. Since there seemed to be little value in pursuing a workable model of parent attitudes, the decision- making features of the BC TRY cluster analytic system were utilized to provide final clusters as similar as possible across solutions. Table 7 gives the defining items, that is, those items which were composited to obtain cluster scores for the final clusters and the cluster reliabilities. For clarity of interpretation, additional items that have a relatively high average cor- relation with the definers are also listed. The clusters defining Warmth and Consistent Discipline emerged almost intact as the first two clusters from all four analyses. The relatively low reliabilities for some of the other clusters reflect the generally low order of intercorrelation among items and, in addition, fewer items clustered together than for the child behavior. Comparability of the Parent-Interview Clusters

Table 8 contains the raw intercorrelations among parent-interview clusters within a group solution, along with cos 0 values for across-group solution comparisons. In addition, both r and cos 0 values are given for the mother-father comparisons for boys and girls separately. For mothers, clus- ters measuring Warmth, Consistent Discipline, Maturity Demands, and Punitiveness were found for both boys and girls and were similar for both sexes (cos 0 > .80). However, the pattern of intercorrelations of the clusters differs for boys and girls. Maturity Demands for mothers of boys is relatively orthogonal to the other clusters, while it correlates highly with Consistency (.58) and negatively with Punitiveness (-.36) for girls. Two additional clusters designated Restrictiveness and Encourages Independent Contacts were found for boys but not for girls, and one cluster designated Socialization Demands was found for girls but not for boys. Encourages Independent Contacts showed a significant positive correlation with both maternal Warmth and Maturity Demands.

For fathers, four clusters were found and given identical designations for both boys and girls, although the similarity across sex was high only for Consistent Discipline (cos 0 = .85). Warmth and Strictness Concern- ing Orderliness had cos 0 values in the .70's, while Punitiveness had a similarity index of only .52. For fathers of boys, all four clusters were rela-

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK TABLE 7

DESCRIPTION OF PARENT-INTERVIEW CLUSTERS

MOTHER INTERVIEW-BOYS A VERAG r

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

48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship ... .59

53.* Warmth: Sympathy... .57

50.d Warmth: Approval... .56

42.1 Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... .54

52. Warmth: Empathy ... .53

Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .71, f2 = .20: 24.d Consistency: Child-rearing practices ... .53

23.d Consistency: Follow-through in discipline. ... .42

22.d Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures... .41

17. Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ... -.40

11. Negative sanctions: Corporal punishment ... -.38

Maturity Demands. Reliability = .61, f = .16: 34. Maturity expectation: Household responsibilities... ..43

37.d Maturity expectation: Rewarding of self-sufficiency ... .43

3. Strictness: Responsibilities about orderliness ... .40

Punitiveness. Reliability = .59, f* = .24: 13.d Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love... .41

17.1 Negative sanctions: Frightening the child... .41

42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... -.41

50. Warmth: Approval... -.40

51. Warmth: Absence _{of hostility ...} -.37

Restrictiveness. Reliability = .80, P = .10: 36.d Maturity expectation: Permissiveness for exploration ... -. 64

28.d Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative ... .56

54.d Conscientiousness: Keeping track of the child... .53

Encourages Independent Contacts. Reliability = .70, f = .17: 40.d Independence: Encourages contact with other adults... .54

41.d _{Independence:} Introduces child to new experiences. ... .54

51. Warmth: Absence of hostility ... .40

MOTHER INTERVIEW-GIRLS AVERAGE r Warmth. Reliability = .87, f, = _.47: 42.d Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... .63

53.d W armth: Sympathy ... .62

48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship... .61

50.! Warmth: Approval ... .60

13. _{Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love...} -.56

Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .84, f* = .32: 24.d _{Consistency: Child-rearing practices ...} . .60

23.4 Consistency: Follow-through in discipline... .60

20.d Parent's feeling of control over child... .55

22." Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures ... .51

Maturity Demands. Reliability = .77, P = .23: 34.d Maturity expectation: Household responsibilities... .56

3.d Strictness: Responsibilities about orderliness ... .55

23. Consistency: Follow-through in discipline ... .55

47. Individual character of child perceived ... .50 37.d Maturity expectation: Rewarding of self-sufficiency. .46

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Punitiveness. Reliability = .77, r- = .30:

13.d _{Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love ...} .62

17.d Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ... .62

23. Consistency: Follow-through in discipline ... -.57

42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication.... -.52

Socialization Demands. Reliability = _.65, f2 = .09: 7.d Strictness: Aggression toward other children ... .42

39." Maturity expectation: Intellectual achievement expected.... .37

6.d Strictness: Quarreling with sisters and brothers ... .37

FATHER INTERVIEW-BOYS AVERAGE r Warmth. Reliability = .87, 2 = .38: 48." Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship ... . 74

49.d Warmth: Demonstrativeness. ... ... .66

52.d Warmth: Empathy. ... .65

53. Warmth: Sympathy ... ... .61

50. W armth: Approval ... .60

Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .81, f2 = .15: 24.d Consistency: Child-rearing practices... .66

23.d Consistency: Follow-through in discipline ... .56

20.d Parent's feeling of control over child ... .54

Strictness Concerning Orderliness. Reliability = .87, = .08: 2.d Strictness: Neatness.. . ... ... ... _. .61

3.* Strictness: Responsibilities about orderliness ... .61

8. Strictness: Television ... ... .37

Punitiveness. Reliability = .69, f2 = .12: 43.d Communication: Expression of negative feelings to child.... .44

17.d Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ... .42

11.d Negative sanctions: Corporal punishment ... .41

51. Warmth: Absence of hostility ... -.35

10. Demand for immediate or total obedience. ... .34

13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love ... .32

FATHER INTERVIEW---GIRS AVERAGE Warmth: Reliability = .86, Pf = .18: 48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship ... .71

49.d Warmth: Demonstrativeness ... .68

50.d Warmth: Approval... .61

13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love ... -.46

Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .76, f2 = .39: 23.d Consistency: Follow-through in discipline. ... .80

21. Parent's appraisal of his/her general influence on child ... .73

20.d Parent's feeling of control over child ... .71

56. Conscientiousness: Acceptance of responsibility ... .69

24.d Consistency: Child-rearing practices ... .65

Strictness Concerning Orderliness. Reliability = .83, f2 = .18: 2.d Strictness: Neatness ... .63

1.d Strictness: Care of family property... . 61

3.V Strictness: Responsibilities about orderliness ... .61

Punitiveness. Reliability = .82, i' = .15: 17.d Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ... .61

13.d Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love... .60

26.d Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement ... --.59

51. Warmth: Absence of hostility ... -.47

Note.-A superscript d indicates the items defining the cluster; reliability = the reliability of the

composite of the cluster definers (Spearman-Brown); = reproducibility of the mean of the squared

correlations among items; average r - the average correlation of the item with the other cluster definers.

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK \OaO0"Mhl 000'0 ~~u00 4 M0 U 0 b0 4.o4 O?o0-' 0 mqt0tnOk 0 00?oC 0u > 0 r - _00'0C4 02 0.00u o3 0 0 0) -

Fel

? 'I

m

II', 23II h mo(

0) Z 000 t 0 t-o 0 rn 0 n cd~ 41 00 % 10 0 u v t- -m m pq 93 0 a?0. I IN 0 0 . . . . * so%0 0'0 ..g)0 2cj e()0 cl a U2 .. . a) aC ) C1 :m::. :0 '-f b~ 4

cVcd~(

41 :

:cd

GcIc3

c

b

o~

U

0

Cn

14 j Q

cu~u

O

0

>,

r.

> be

mv

o

Cd

Cd

COE

-r

~

~

~

i r

0cc~A4

Ix

w

o

1424

k

~

CHILD DEVELOPMENT

tively orthogonal; for girls, Warmth was correlated significantly with Con- sistent Discipline, and both Warmth and Consistent Discipline were cor- related negatively with maternal Punitiveness.

For the mother x father comparisons of identically designated clus- ters, it is generally the case for both boys and girls that even where cos 0 is high, r is low, indicating that although the same constellation of attitudes is salient for both mother and father clusters, there is relatively little predic- tive value from one parent to the other. A possible exception is Consistent Discipline which intercorrelated .43 for boys and .32 for girls. Although maternal and paternal Punitiveness are uncorrelated for boys, paternal Punitiveness is negatively correlated with maternal Warmth and Consistent Discipline. Paternal Consistent Discipline is correlated positively with ma- ternal Maturity Demands for both boys and girls and with maternal En- courages Independent Contacts for boys and maternal Socialization De- mands for girls. The fact that the child-behavior correlates of maternal Socialization Demands for girls, maternal Maturity Demands, and paternal Consistent Discipline for boys are similar is discussed in the Results section.

RESULTS

Sex-Related Efects of Parent Attitudes

Parent variables given identical or similar designations frequently correlate with child-behavior variables quite differently for boys and girls. It might appear to follow that different socialization laws are needed to predict the behavior of boys and girls. However, in the instances examined

(Bayley & Schaefer, 1964; Bronfenbrenner, 1961; Sears, Rau, & Alpert, 1965), speculations to that effect, while reasonable, do not follow unequiv- ocally from the data presented. The ambiguity is frequently with respect to the equivalence of the entities given the same designations. The variables are comparable if they correlate highly, but it is of course not possible to correlate directly across sex. Cluster-analytic techniques are helpful here in two ways: (a) a measurable entity with a higher reliability emerges with a well-defined set of referents when highly intercorrelated items are com- posited, and (b) it is then possible to obtain cos 0 values between clusters across solutions. When cos 0 values are high, the two dimensions are comparable. However, the possibility of a large difference in pattern of intercorrelation _{of clusters between groups arises to the extent that across-} group cluster comparisons give cos 0 values less than unity for all identi- cally designated clusters. Where such large differences exist, across-group comparison of effects for individual clusters cannot be interpreted clearly. For example, if Cluster A for Mothers of boys correlates positively with Hostility, and the identically designated Cluster A for mothers of girls cor- relates negatively with Hostility, then the meaning of the difference in cor-

DIANA BAUMRIND AND ALLEN E. BLACK relations between Cluster A with boy behaviors and Cluster A with girl behaviors is altered by the sex-related interaction of Hostility with Cluster A. Without resorting to partial correlation, the relations between a set of independent variables and a set of dependent variables for independent groups can be clearly understood only when the within-set patterns of in- tercorrelation among variables are similar for each group. Actually, calcu- lating correlations with long strings of partialed-out variables is statistically meaningless with the degrees of freedom available in psychological studies and seldom attempted except with selected variables chosen on the basis of observed relations.

When the criteria for selection for studying the differential relations between parent attitudes and boy and girl behavior is set to include only those clusters which have a high cos 0 value and a similar pattern of inter- correlation with other parent clusters, all paternal clusters are eliminated and only maternal Warmth, Consistent Discipline, and Punitiveness can be considered. The correlations of maternal Warmth and maternal Con- sistent Discipline with child behaviors are undifferentiated with regard to sex when it is noted that for the size N available, a difference in correlation between identically measured variables of approximately .40 is significant at the .05 level. (See Tables 11 and 12.) The positive correlation of ma- ternal Punitiveness with Hostile behavior for boys (.15) and negative cor- relation with the same behavior for girls (-.31), however, is suggestive of a sex-related difference in relation. If the above requirements are relaxed to include all similarly designated clusters, some interesting sex-related differ- ences can be considered. Maternal Warmth was correlated positively with Autonomy for boys (.26) and not at all for girls. Paternal Warmth was correlated positively with Autonomy for boys (.28) and negatively (-.21) for girls. In this connection, it may be noted that Autonomy has a sex- differentiated relation to paternal Consistent Discipline (.35 for boys, and -.05 for girls) and to paternal Punitiveness (.03 for boys, and .34 for girls). Paternal Consistent Discipline and paternal Punitiveness are them- selves negatively related clusters. These data, especially the fact that pa- ternal Warmth and paternal Punitiveness each have opposite associations with independence in boys and girls, support the hypothesis that girls more than boys require a certain degree of tension in their relation with a parent, as well as leeway to rebel in order to develop independence and self-assertiveness. It must be kept in mind, however, that the four Warmth clusters and the two paternal Punitiveness clusters do not entirely meet the requirements set for comparability.

Relations Between Parent-Attitude and Parent-Behavior Measures

A comparison of data derived from parent interviews with data de- rived from parent observation may suggest areas in which parents are