Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Recognition of emotional facial expression by abusive mothers and their children During, Sara May 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 D97.pdf [ 4.74MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096946.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096946-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096946-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096946-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096946-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096946-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096946-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096946-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096946.ris

Full Text

Recognition of Emotional Facial Expression by Abusive Mothers and Their Children By Sara May During B.Sc. (Honours), The University of Calgary, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1986 ^c^Sara May During, 1986 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my d e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f Psir.f+nt oU /  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 1956 Main M a l l V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1Y3 i i Abstract The purpose of this investigation was to examine the ability of abused children and their abusive mothers to decode facial expressions of emotion relative to non-abused children and their mothers and to assess the intradyadic relationship of these abilities. Forty-six children and their mothers (23 normal and 23 abusive dyads) were individually presented with a series of photographs of six posed emotional expressions, and asked to make a first-, second- and third-choice for each target emotion. Results indicated that abused children were less accurate than non-abused children in the identification of emotional expression, that younger children were less accurate that older children, and that children were less accurate with pictures of adults versus pictures of children. In comparison to the non-abused children, the abused children also appeared to be less orderly and systematic in their structuring of emotions. Conversely, the results indicated that abusive and non-abusive mothers did not significantly differ in the identification of emotional expression, nor in the structuring of the emotion domain. Additionally, abusive mothers did not show significantly greater unrealistic expectations of their children's behavior than did non-abusive mothers, but did perceive their children as having more behavior problems than did non-abusive mothers. The results were discussed in terms of issues related^.to maternal and child behavior and cognitions, patterning of emotional recognition responses, and the specific methodology employed in this study. Table of Contents Ab.s tract Table of Contents Lis t of Tables: List of Figures Lis t of Appendices Acknowledgements Introduction Mother-Child Behavior Behavioral Characteristics of the Mother Behavioral Characteristics of the Child Maternal Attitudes Toward and Expectations of the Child Personality and Emotional Characteristics Abusive Mothers Abused Children Emotional Expression Families Experiencing D i f f i c u l t i e s with Emotional Recognition Abusive Populations Purpose of the Present Study Method iv Subjects 26 Stimuli 27 Child Behavior Checklist 27 Child Development Questionnaire (CDQ) 29 Emotional Expression 29 Procedure 30 Scoring The Emotional Recognition Task 32 Results 33 Emotional Recognition Scores 33 Examination of Actual Choices on the 35 Emotional Recognition Task Revised Child Behavior Profile 36 Child Development Questionnaire (CDQ) 42 Histograms - Structural Model of Emotions 42 Discussion 45 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research 54 Footnotes 57 References 58 Appendices 70 L i s t of Tables PAGE Table 1: Demographic Variable Scores of Abusive and 28 Non-abusive Groups Table 2: Mean Child Emotional Recognition Scores: 34 Number Correct Table 3: Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: 35 Number Correct Table 4: Mean Child Emotional Recognition Scores: 37 Number of Times Each Photograph Chosen as a Fir s t Choice Table 5: Mean Child Emotional Recognition Scores; 38 Number of Times Each Photograph Chosen in Total Table 6: Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: 39 Number of Times Each Photograph Chosen as a Fir s t Choice Table 7: Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: 40 Number of Times Each Photograph Chosen in Total Table 8: Mean Maternal Ratings Assigned to Ten Emotional 41 Descriptors Used to Describe a Neutral Facial Expression Table 9: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the 43 Relationship Between the Revised Child Behavior Profile and Emotional Recognition Scores Table J.0; Mean Maternal Scores on the Child Development 44 Questionnaire v i List of Figures PAGE Figure 1: Percent Young Non-Abused Children 46 Selecting Each Photo as Disgusting Figure 2: Percent Young Abused Children Selecting 47 Each Photo as Disgusting v i i L ist of Appendices PAGE Appendix A: Advertisement for Subjects 71 Appendix B: Child Abuse Potential Inventory 73 Appendix C: Revised Child Behavior Profile 78 Appendix D: Child Behavior Checklist 80 Appendix E: Child Development Questionnaire 83 Appendix F: Consent Form 88 Appendix G: Demographic Information Form 90 Appendix H'.: Description of Faces Form 92 Appendix I: Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance 94 v i i i Acknowledgements I would like to thank the members of my committee, Ken Craig and Jim Russell, and extend special thanks to my supervisor, Bob McMahon, for his help and encouragement. I would also like to express my appreciation to agency personnel, mothers and children of Act II Parenting, Chesterfield House, Project Parent West and the Psychology Department of the B.C. Children's Hospital, and to Linda Camras and Jim Russell for allowing us to use their photographs as stimuli. Without their assistance this project would never have taken place. Also, I would like to thank my friends and fellow students, especially Sarah James, Sue Cross-Calvert and Jim Frankish, for their continuous help and patience. 1 Recognition of Emotional Facial Expression by Abusive Mothers and Their Children Child abuse is a persistent societal problem that is evident across generations and socioeconomic classes (Caplan, Watters, White, Parry & Bates, 1984; Friedman, Sandler, Hernandez & Wolfe, 1981). While the abuse of children has a lengthy and well-documented history, it has only been within the past 20 years that our understanding of child abuse has evolved from simple description to well-articulated and verifiable theories (Wolfe, 1985). This development reflects the growing concern about child abuse among research-oriented disciplines, whereas previously the service-oriented disciplines such as social work and law were primarily involved. Friedman and his colleagues (1981) have suggested that there are three primary approaches to the definition of child abuse. The first focuses solely on outcome, such that abuse is defined in terms of injuries inflicted upon children. The second approach requires that injuries be "intentionally" inflicted upon the child. The third approach views abuse as a "culturally determined label which is applied to behavior and injury patterns as an outcome of a social judgement on the part of the observer" (Parke & Collmer, 1975, p. 177). Most researchers have rejected the first definition, as it groups together accidental and non-accidental injuries, and excludes those incidents in which a parent strikes, but fails to injure, a child. The major problem with the second approach is that one cannot directly observe intentionality, and so it can only be determined inferentially. However, this is the approach that is used most frequently in assessment and treatment, with emphasis placed on behaviors presumed to be related to abuse, rather than on the abusive act itself. The third definition is 2 problematic in that it suggests that aggressive behavior toward children may be normative and appropriate under certain circumstances and in particular settings. This seems more applicable to what are commonly thought of as "everyday" disciplinary techniques (e.g., spanking) rather than to the destructive and often disfiguring type of aggression typical of physical child abuse. This ambiguity in definition is reflected in the difficulty encountered in determining the actual incidence of abuse. The research in this area is often controversial. Using self-report interview data with two-parent families with at least one child between the ages of 3 and 17 living at home, Gelles (1978) concluded that between 3.1 and 4.0 million children in the United States have been kicked, bitten or punched by parents at some time in their lives. While these estimates are considerably higher than those typically reported (e.g., Gil, 1970), Gelles proposes that his figures may still underestimate the incidence of such acts due to the age restriction of 3 to 17 years and the fact that only two-parent households were included in the survey. He also reports that there is a progressive reduction in most acts of abuse as children get older. A related dimension of abuse is the seriousness of the abusive act. Estimates of the number of children killed each year by parents or guardians in the United States are around 700 (Fontana, 1973; Gil, 1970). While such controversy about the incidence of abuse makes it difficult to evaluate trends or do large-scale preventative planning, all of the estimates clearly indicate an incidence rate high enough to justify increased attention, particularly in light of the very serious and often irreversible consequences that may result from child abuse (Critchley, 1982; Friedman et al., 1981; Green, 1981; Hjorth & Ostrov, 1982). 3 While it may be recognized that child abuse is an area worthy of attention, it is simplistic to view abuse as originating from a single factor. Rather, child abuse is multidimensional and seems to involve a wide range of variables. One must also note that child abuse lies on a continumn of parenting, and that there is often an overlap between abusive and non-abusive parenting. One must consider such factors as the behavioral patterns of both the abusing parent and the abused child; the attitudes and expectations held by the parent and child; and personality and emotional characteristics of individual parents and children* Each of these factors may interact with contextual variables such as social support systems, income level and so forth, to affect the likelihood of abuse. Each of these factors will be considered in detail in the following sections. Mother-Child Behavior Burgess and Conger (1977) suggest that when one looks at mother-child interaction, attention should be paid to the reciprocal character of that interaction. Studies in which the interactions of children and their abusive parents have been directly observed, either in the laboratory (e.g., Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Hyman & Parr, 1978; Mash, Johnston & Kovitz, 1983) or in the home (e.g., Burgess & Conger, 1977; Egeland & Brunnquell, 1979; Panyan & Friedman, 1976), have appeared with increasing frequency. In general, these studies seem to indicate that members of abusive dyads are less reciprocal and less equitable in their dealings with each other when compared to dyads from control families. Behavioral Characteristics of the Mother Abusive mothers have been described as ineffective, inadequate, verbally and physically negative towards their children, and generally lacking in the behavioral skills necessary for childrearing (Wolfe, 1985). Additionally, it has been suggested that in comparison to control mothers, abusive mothers possess poorer 4 problem-solving skills and related coping abilities. It has been noted that abusive mothers are frequently inconsistent in the management of their children, such that they attend to noncompliant behavior and ignore compliant behavior (Sandler, VanDercar & Milhoan, 1978). They often mix lack of demonstrativeness with emotional over-involvement, in addition to fluctuating between the use of punishment and the tendency to be lax in the supervision of the child (Smith & Hanson, 1975). Numerous studies point to a lack of child management skills, such that to compensate for lack of effectiveness, abusive parents resort to highly punitive techniques. Thus, child management is characterized by demanding behavior, overly severe and frequent physical discipline (Dubanoski, Evans & Higuchi, 1978; Smith & Hanson, 1975), and parental rejection and avoidance (Kempe & Kempe, 1978). Gil (1969, 1971) noted in his studies that 63% of abuse cases developed out of disciplinary action taken by a parent and that in 73% of cases, inadequately controlled anger on the part of the perpetrator was involved. Such results receive support from studies that suggest abusive parents exhibit tendencies to become upset or angry more readily than non-abusive parents (Spinetta, 1978), and act upon this anger with impulsive aggression often triggered by frustration with actual or perceived child behavior (Dubanoski et al., 1978; Spinetta & Rigler, 1972). Another aspect of maternal behavior is responsivity, which refers to the frequency and appropriateness of maternal action in direct response to child behavior. Hyman and Parr (1978) observed that in comparison to control mothers, abusive mothers displayed fewer responses to their children's initiatives and a less reciprocal manner of interaction in the Ainsworth strange situation. Similarly, Robison and Solomon (1979) reported a lack of mutuality and unprovoked, highly insensitive handling of children by abusive mothers. They observed abusing and control dyads engaging in a number of activities. It was found that abusive mothers 5 initiated actions approximately twice as frequently as controls. However, the abusive mothers responded to their children's actions only one-tenth as frequently as they themselves initiated actions, and responded to their children only one-third as frequently as control mothers responded to their children. In an observation of mother-infant attachment in excellent and inadequate care dyads in the Ainsworth strange situation, Egeland and Sroufe (1981) noted that a pattern of inconsistent care appeared to be operative in the inadequate-care dyads such that mothers were sensitive and responsive at times, but the responsivity was not geared to the child's ongoing needs. Rather, maternal care was based upon the changing moods of the mother. Researchers have also examined maternal involvement in children's activities, and the interest and energy mothers exhibit while engaged in these activities. The data from observation of abusive and non-abusive mother-infant dyads in free-play situations suggests that abusive mothers employ less variation in their strategies of tactile and vestibular stimulation than controls, implying that the interactive quality is that of reduced maternal involvement (Dietrich et al., 1980; Starr & Dietrich, 1979) . Mash et al. (1983) observed that in comparison to a non-abusive control group, abusive mothers were more directive and controlling of their children in task situations. Robison and Solomon (1979) suggested that many of the reported strategies used by abusive mothers in the handling of their children such as confinement, restraint of movement, and physically forced responses, stemmed from fear of loss of control. In comparison to controls, abusive mothers have also been found to be rigid and domineering (Johnson & Morse, 1968; Milner & Wimberley. 1980) . Such inconsistencies and aggressive coping styles in abusive mothers may be exacerbated by social factors such as marital breakdown. For example, good marital 6 quality appears to be associated with optimal child functioning and "sensitive" parenting in non-abusive families, as reflected in parental behaviors, attitudes and perceptions of the child (Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984). Salzinger, Kaplan and Artemyeff (1983) found that abusive and neglecting mothers were more isolated and socially insular, such that they had smaller social networks and spent less time within those networks. The investigators point out that even if efforts are made to change parental behavior, these new behaviors are not reinforced in the parents' social networks since many of their family and peers hold similar inaccurate perceptions and attitudes regarding childrearing. In summary, abusive mothers appear to be more directive and controlling with their children and their behavior towards their children is characterized by hostility, impulsivity and greater rates of negativism. Additionally, they exhibit avoidant, rejecting behavior patterns and are often inconsistent and unreliable in their dealings with their children. However, it should also be noted theat these mothers are often at times affectionate and caring. They are not "terrible" people; rather, they are people faced with extreme stressors and inadequate coping mechanisms. Behavioral Characteristics of the Child Attempts to isolate the discriminative features of abusive dyads have also focused on characteristics of the abused child. The view of the young as a source of stimulation controlling caretaker behavior has received support in numerous studies (e.g., Bell, 1971; Harper, 1971; Mulhern & Passman, 1979). Such a view has implications for the hypothesis that abused children may be perpetrators of their own abuse through the possession of personality traits and/or behavior patterns that are irritating or noxious. Giovanoni, Conklin and Iiyama (1978) proposed that the contribution of the child's endowment to the family environment is integrally related to problems in mother-child interaction. The child may bring to the relationship 7 attributes that are idiosyncratic and so demanding that an ill-equipped caretaker may be unable to handle them (e.g., colicky behavior, physical and/or intellectual disabilities). George and Main (1979) observed young abused and control children in social interaction with their caregivers and peers in a daycare setting. Abused children were found to be much less likely to approach their caregivers both verbally and non-verbally. Similar behavior has been noted in case studies (George & Main, 1980). Gaensbauer and Sands (1979) utilized free-play and task situations in their observation of the interactions between abused children and their parents. The abused children displayed affective withdrawal from interpersonal relations, as well as inconsistency and unpredictability in response to parenting overtures. Egeland, Breitenbucher and Rosenberg (1980) studied interaction in a feeding situation in an attempt to isolate factors in interaction patterns which could differentiate between abusive, excellent-care and control dyads. It was observed that "child irritability" differentiated well between abusive and excellent-care dyads and contributed most to prediction. Other variables with high discriminative function were low ease of care, low activity, and poor physical ability and motor maturity. Conversely, Mash et al. (1983) observed physically abusive and control mothers interacting with their preschool-aged children and noted that although the abusing mothers rated their children as more problematic, the data revealed no significant differences between the abused and control children. Utilizing the Ainsworth strange situation with abused and control infants, Hyman and Parr (1978) noted that no significant differences in response patterns existed between abused and control children. Similarly, using dramatic role play (vignettes in which the child acts out familiar roles) to assess the hypothesis that abused children would score higher on 8 impulsivity and aggression as compared to controls, Elmer (1977) reported no overall significant difference in the manifestation of these behaviors. In summary, the hypothesis that abused children possess behavioral characteristics which may serve to elicit abuse from susceptible parents has found some support. However, the findings appear to be highly dependent upon the specific characteristics of the populations studied and research strategies employed. As Kempe and Kempe (1978) have noted, it is difficult to determine whether behaviors of abused children are reactionary, as opposed to causal, factors in abuse. Maternal Attitudes Toward and Expectations of the Child While there does appear to be a relationship between child behavior and maternal behavioral response, the relationship is an imperfect one, such that consistent prediction is not possible (Friedrich & Einbender, 1983; Kempe & Kempe, 1978). Abusive mothers often cite their children's behavior as the immediate factor precipitating the abuse (Caplan et al., 1984), yet direct observations of these children frequently do not support such maternal reports. This suggests that important mediators exist between environmental input (i.e. child behaviors) and parental response. As a result, researchers have more recently broadened their focus to include the study of maternal beliefs and attitudes toward the child. For example, Rickard, Graziano and Forehand (1984) suggest that parental maladjustment may induce parents to perceive deviancy in their children's behavior. It may be that abusive mothers possess deficits in their ability to interpret their children's actions and to choose an appropriate response such that their cognitions do not match social reality. Little research has directly examined the attitudes and expectations of abused children. This is partially a reflection of the methodological difficulties related to the assessment of these characteristics in infants and young children (Barahal, 9 Waterman & Martin, 1981). The following discussion, therefore, will be directed only towards the abusive mother. Twentyman, Rohrbeck and Amish (1979) have proposed a model of abuse which relies heavily on the role of maternal perceptions in distressed mother-child interactions. They propose that abusive parents have cognitive deficits in the following areas: knowledge of development; parent-child role definitions; perceptions of appropriate child behavior; and accurate awareness of how others evaluate their parenting behavior. They presented a four-stage model such that: 1) parents possess unrealistic expectations, which may lead them to discipline the child at inappropriate times or in an inappropriate manner; 2) the child acts in a way to disconfirm these expectations; 3) the parent has a negative bias and reports significantly greater misattributions of child behavior than does a non-abusive parent (e.g. reporting the child intentionally disobeyed, when the child did not understand the rule or command); 4) the parent aggresses. Twentyman et al. point out that when the cognitive and behavioral distortions are combined with a lack of impulse control, an aggressive parental response is not surprising. They found that abusive parents have greater variability than controls in developmental expectations, a result confirmed in other research (Twentyman & Plotkin, 1982). Additionally, abusive parents held inaccurate expectations in a number of areas such as the child's self-care ability, the child's family responsibility, appropriate child behavior and feelings, appropriate methods of parenting and the child's responsibility to provide help to the parent. They also suggest that abusive parents evidence disregard of their children's needs, limited abilities and general helplessness. Twentyman et al.'s model is supported by the consistent finding that abusive mothers have difficulties in the area of perceptions and attitudes regarding the child. While it has been suggested that stressful environmental factors such as lower 10 socioeconomic status (Farran & Haskins, 1980; Gil, 1969; Gray, Cutler & Dean, 1977; Spinetta & Rigler, 1972; Straus, 1979), social isolation (Kempe & Kempe, 1978; Straus, 1979), marital breakdown (Smith & Hanson, 1975), and the child's success or failure on a task (Mulhern & Passman, 1979, 1981; Passman & Blackwelder, 1981) adversely affect mother-child interactions, the majority of stressed mothers do not abuse. However, it appears that what best differentiates mothers who do abuse are poorer patterns of interaction with their children and lack of understanding and awareness of the difficulties and demands involved in being a parent (Egeland et al., 1980). Studies have revealed that abusive parents bring mistaken notions of child rearing to the parenting role (Spinetta & Rigler, 1972); exhibit fears of external threat/control, hold unrealistic expectations for child performance, and fail to separate their own feelings from those of their children (Spinetta, 1979); feel unlovable, distrustful and worthless; perceive their children as "difficult"; and display greater negativism in their attitude toward their child (Dubanoski et al., 1978; Kempe & Kempe, 1978). For example, utilizing parental report of child behavioral strengths and weaknesses as measured by the Child Behavior Profile (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979), Wolfe and Mosk (1983) found that in comparison to non-abusive parents, abusive parents reported that their children displayed a significantly greater number of behavior problems and fewer social competencies. Additionally, it has been suggested that abusive parents are resentful and often hostile when their own needs are not met by their children and attribute parent-child difficulties to child characteristics as opposed to parental shortcomings (Brown & Daniels, 1968; Sandler et al., 1978). In a study examining the abuse potential of at-risk parents. Gold, Milner, Ayoub and Jacewitz (1984) found a significant positive relation between a high score 11 on factors such as rigidity, problems with family and others, and negative concept of the child/self and later confirmed abuse. Similarly, Azar, Robinson, Hekimian and Twentyman (1984) demonstrated that abusive mothers displayed significantly greater unrealistic expectations in regard to child behavior than non-abusing mothers. They also displayed poorer problem-solving ability, such that they generated fewer solutions and fewer types of solutions to childrearing problems. In an investigation examining the relationship between cognitive variables such as those discussed above and aggressive behavior, Larrance and Twentyman (1983) found that negative expectations and attributions (e.g., making external attributions for positive child behavior and internal attributions for negative child behavior) occurred more frequently with maltreating mothers that with control mothers. Rosenberg and Reppucci (1983) have suggested that abusive mothers appear to be most likely to abuse in situations in which they interpret their children's behavior as threatening. Thus, there is evidence to support Twentyman et al.'s hypotheses that abusive parents possess greater unrealistic expectations and misattributions of child behavior than do non-abusing parents. It appears, therefore, that the recognition that cognitive mediation plays an important role in child abuse is beneficial and further broadens current conceptualizations and understanding of abuse. Personality and Emotional Characteristics Abusive Mothers It has been suggested that behavioral patterns seem to exist which differentiate abusive and non-abusive dyads. Additionally, it appears that in comparison to non-abusive mothers, abusive mothers have cognitive deficits and distortions reflected in their attitudes and perceptions regarding their chidren. However, the question still remains as to why these mothers possess such faulty 12 perceptions and why they respond with physical aggression, whereas other distressed mothers do not. A popular early focus in the attempt to explain child abuse was on personality deficits in the abusing parent (particularly the abusing mother). Such parents were typically depicted as impulsive, hostile, and easily angered (e.g., Brown & Daniels, 1968; Dubanoski et al., 1978; Gil, 1971; Herzberger, Potts & Dillon, 1981; Silver, Dublin & Lourie, 1969; Spinetta, 1978; Spinetta & Rigler, 1972); rigid and authoritarian (e.g., Egeland et al., 1980; Milner & Wimberley, 1980; Smith & Hanson, 1975); unhappy, lonely and neurotic (e.g., Brown & Daniels, 1968; Milner & Wimberley, 1980; Smith & Hanson, 1975; Spinetta, 1978; Wasserman, 1967); and in possession of a poor self image and low self-esteem (e.g., Blumberg, 1974; Kempe & Kempe, 1978; Milner & Wimberley, 1980). Transference psychosis and role-reversal dependency have also been cited (e.g., Flynn, 1979; Galdston, 1965; Twentyman et al., 1979). However, such a psychopathological/parental personality deficit model has been criticised in that the results of studies addressing such correlates of abuse have often been inconsistent and contradictory (Gelles, 1973). Methodological problems such as the use of ready-at-hand populations and the ex-post facto nature of the research have limited the representativeness of the samples (Spinetta & Rigler, 1972). These and other related difficulties have hindered efforts to pinpoint a distinctive set of personality traits discriminating abusive from non-abusive parents (Gelles, 1973; Green, Gaines & Sandgrund, 1974). More recently, investigations have focused on maternal feelings and emotional reactions to their children (affective climate). Addressing the question of which factors in observations of mother-infant interactions discriminate between abusing dyads and controls, Egeland et al. (1979) reported that maternal interest in the child and maternal positive affect proved to be among the most discriminative factors. A 13 later study (Egeland et al., 1980) similarly found that patterns of mother-infant interaction (i.e., affective behavior) in feeding and play situations proved to be among the factors which best differentiated abusing and control groups. In an attempt to delineate the components of maternal and filial affect, Egeland et al. (1979) applied factor analysis to ratings of abusive and control interactions. The variables with the highest discriminant funciton coefficients included consolability and irritability in the infant and impulsivity, anxiety, hostility and suspiciousness in the mother. In support of these results, Silver et al. (1969) cite data which suggest the theme "violence breeds violence", such that the child's model for identification and imitation displays poor impulse control and direct expression of aggressive impulses. Stressing such modelling and social learning components of abuse, Vasta (1982) theorized that physical punishment (a learned coping style) escalated to physical abuse due to the mother's level of emotional arousal. Vasta goes on to cite studies which link physiological and cognitive arousal to human aggressive behavior. Thus, heightened emotional arousal may lead to aggressive responses to child behaviors, particularly behaviors perceived by the parent as unpleasant or undesirable. Wolfe (1985) states that anecdotal reports from abusive parents suggest that such parents frequently indicate that they become angry and tense to the point of discomfort when the child exhibits some behavior the parent perceives as unpleasant. Wolfe concludes that, while physiological and affective arousal can lead to responses other than aggression, there is a need for research examining the relationship between parental arousal and abusive behavior. Abused Children A similar research concern addresses the personality and emotional characteristics of the abused child. Recognizing the debilitating effects of abuse 14 upon the victims in the behavioral and cognitive domains, a number of investigators have looked for additional deficits in related areas such as the emotional domain. Green (1981) has hypothesized that abuse and the accompanying abnormal childrearing result in a core affective disturbance that is reflected in the child's failure to adapt to environmental demands. Green suggests that such behavior jeopardizes the future development of language, cognition, motililty, object relations, and self-esteem regulation. Similarly, Martin and Beezley (1977) observed that nine dimensions seem to characterize abused children including: 1) an impaired ability to enjoy life; 2) low self-esteem; 3) symptoms indicative of emotional turmoil, such as enuresis, poor peer relations, tantrums, sleep disturbances, hyperactivity and socially inappropriate behavior; 4) withdrawal; 5) oppositional behavior; 6) hypervigilance; 7) compulsivity; 8) pseudo-adult behavior; and 9) learning problems. With regard to social and emotional functioning, abused children have been reported to be more aggressive, less mature and less self-confident (Reidy, Anderegg, Tracy & Cotler, 1980) and to possess an air of depression, sadness and anxiety (Elmer, 1977). In therapeutic group work with abused preschool children, Critchley (1982) noted that the children tended to be anxious and fearful around adults. They evidenced defective interpersonal skills and did not seem to possess the ability to engage in fantasy. Additionally, the results of studies examining intellectual development attest to the deleterious effect of child battering and abuse on intellectual growth, indicating a relationship between prolonged child abuse and neglect and irreversible impairment of intellectual growth (Applebaum, 1977; Skeels & Fillmore, 1937). Relatively little attention has been directed to the emotional functioning of older children who are currently victims of abuse, or who were abused when younger. In recognition of the need for information about such children, Hjorth and 15 Ostrov (1982) compared abused and control adolescents, aged 12 to 16 years. The abused children (currently victims of abuse) were found to have greater psychopathology and impaired family relations, emotional stability, impulse control and coping skills, in addition to poorer self-image. The implication is that deficits found in young abused chidren are also seen in adolescents. There is a need for longitudinal and follow-up research to investigate whether the effects of abuse on the child dissipate with time or whether in fact, these effects become more debilitating as the child reaches adolescence and adulthood. The latter hypothesis is supported by evidence indicating that abusive parents were often abused as children (Caplan et al., 1984; Critchley, 1982). This suggests that abused children are at risk as adults to exhibit behavioral, cognitive and emotional deficits similar to those evidenced by their parents. Emotional Expression In summary, it is clear that physical abuse is related to a number of maternal deficits across behavioral, cognitive and emotional domains, and also may result in a variety of deleterious consequences for the abused child in parallel domains. In particular, a number of social and social-cognitive impairments have been noted in these children (Gaensbauer & Sands, 1979; Steele & Pollock, 1968). A positive relationship between difficulties in childhood social functioning and long-term adjustment problems (i.e. inter-generational abuse) has been demonstrated (Cowen, Pederson, Babijian, Azzo & Trost, 1973). An important aspect of social functioning is affective perspective-taking (role-taking), which is the ability to determine what another person is feeling (Vosk, Forehand & Figueroa, 1983). It is widely recognized that one's ability to recognize and understand others' emotional status is relevant to their social behavior and interpersonal relationships (Borke, 1971; Rothenberg, 1970), and is an important skill 16 acquired by children. Campos (1980,1981) suggests that in addition to serving as organizers of intrapsychological processes, emotions also serve a critical interpersonal social regulatory function. Emotional information in the form of facial expressions is a powerful determinant of behavioral outcomes. For example, Ekman and Oster (1979) propose that children are equipped with basic signalling capacities that serve to ensure certain kinds of attachment. Thus, children promote exchanges between themselves and caregivers/peers in which facial expressions often play an important role. The expressions of the human face have been studied from early times. Darwin (1872) gave the first complete systematic presentation of emotion, postulating universals in facial behavior on the basis of his evolutionary theory. Controlled studies examining the judgement of emotional expressions by observers are relatively recent. A pioneer in the field is Feleky (1914), who herself posed for various expressions and got others to judge them. She found that certain expressions were readily identified, while others caused confusion. Similar results have been obtained in more recent research on nonverbal communication. Studies have shown that accuracy of both encoding and decoding vocal and facial cues is greater than chance (Davitz, 1964; Ekman, Friesen & Ellsworth, 1972; Frijda, 1969; Zuckerman, Lipets, Koivumaki & Rosenthal, 1975). Researchers have also found that individuals vary markedly in their ability to judge correctly the affective states encoded by others (Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Zuckerman et al., 1975). However, there is still some question as to just how accurately emotion can be read from the face, suggesting that emotion may, in part, be read into the face (Ekman et al., 1972; Klineberg, 1938). It has been demonstrated that the same facial expression can be perceived as expressing different types of emotion, depending on faces previously seen by the observer (Russell, 1985). 17 The investigation of accuracy of recognition of expressions has highlighted issues of dimensionality and judgemental process. Bullock and Russell (1984) propose that emotional categories may be interrelated in a very systematic manner such that there is a definite order in the way people label emotional facial expressions. This implies that the domain of emotion is structured. Bullock and Russell adhere to Schlosberg's (1952) structural model, which suggests that emotions are made up of different "bits" of various dimensions - a bit of pleasantness, attention and so forth. Emotions are ordered within this dimensional space such that more similar emotions fall closer together in space and are more likely to be confused with each other. The most common label for one expression will apply in some degree to adjacent expressions. Therefore, one would expect to find similarities between obviously different emotions and differences between emotions having certain similarities. A related issue in the investigation of expression is that of universality, an issue relevant to the generalizability of results. This area has been contested over the years, but more recent work suggests that constants do exist across cultures in the expression of emotion (Ekman, Sorenson & Friesen, 1969; Izard, 1969). Ekman and Friesen (1971) postulated that universals should be found in the relationship between distinctive patterns of facial muscles and given emotions. To test this hypothesis, data were gathered from members of a preliterate culture in New Guinea, who had minimal exposure to literate cultures. Subjects were told a story, shown a set of three faces and asked to select the face which showed the emotion appropriate to the study. Results for both adults and children supported the hypothesis that particular facial behaviors are universally associated with particular emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise and disgust). Such evidence of constants in facial expression across cultures is consistent with studies finding similarities between facial behavior in blind and sighted children (Goodenough, 1932; 18 Thompson, 1941). However, the only evidence that facial expressions provide accurate information about the distinctions among several positive and negative emotions is for posed facial expressions. It would be desirable, therefore, to replicate such studies using spontaneous facial expressions. It is evident that the ability to produce and interpret facial expressions is a universally important component of interpersonal functioning, relating to the way in which we gather information about the people around us. Despite their importance, relatively little is known about the development of these abilities. It does appear that the encoding and decoding of facial expressions are different skills, aspects of which are sometimes not related (Zuckerman et al., 1975). In fact, research suggests that children are more skilled in the discrimination of facial expressions than in production, a skill difference which does not seem to disappear as the child grows older, but which appears to increase with age (Odom & Lemond, 1972). It may be that children learn to refine their encoding skills through the skills acquired for decoding. In that decoding skills are the skills which children learn first and use more effectively, decoding skills may be more directly linked to successful social adaptation. Decoding, the ability to understand emotions accurately as reflected on others' faces, is a complex task that develops progressively. A number of studies have demonstrated that infants are capable of differentiating facial expressions. The findings are consistent with evidence suggesting that the ability to extract stable categorical information relative to the human face emerges at approximately 7 months (Caron, Caron & Myers, 1982; Nelson, Morse & Leavitt, 1979). By 6 years of age, normal children can identify with significant accuracy a number of facial expressions currently thought to be universal expressions of emotion in humans (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). Performance gradually improves from this level in a 19 pattern of slow linear improvement (Izard, 1971). Thus, there is evidence for the early development of the ability to discriminate features and patterns that distinguish various facial expressions, and of the formation of general categories of facial expression. Preschool children know what the most common facial expressions look like, what they mean, and what kinds of situations typically elicit them (Ekman & Oster, 1979; Field & Walden, 1982; Odom & Lemond, 1972; Walden & Field, 1982). This observed pattern of slow linear improvement has suggested a number of developmental accounts. Some controversy exists as to the nature of such development. It may be that preschoolers' ability has been underestimated, such that they possess more skills than some developmental accounts suggest (Russell & Ridgeway, 1983). Adults also rely upon facial expression as an important source of information and communication. While noting that decoding performance, particularly the labelling of expressions, improves with age, Bullock and Russell (1984) found that adults still encounter difficulties with certain facial expressions. For example, adults' first choice across 14 emotion words were "correct" (agreed with the adult norm) 68 to 100% of the time. Other studies have found that adult subjects differ in both facial "expressiveness" (encoding ability) and in their ability to judge facial expressions (decoding ability) (Buck, Savin, Miller & Caul, 1972; Ekman & Oster, 1979; Zuckerman et al., 1975). Also, adults appear to use facial cues more in the determination of quality of affect, while body cues are more important in the communication of the intensity of affect (Ekman & Friesen, 1967). Zuckerman and her colleagues (1975) have outlined a number of parameters of facial expressiveness in adults. They found that the relationship between encoding and decoding cues of the same emotion appeared low and was often negative; females were slightly better encoders, and significantly better decoders than males; 20 acquaintance between sender and judge improved decoding scores among males but not among females; decoding scores varied according to channel of communication and type of emotion transmitted; and, for the visual channel, positive emotions (i.e., happiness and surprise) were better identified than negative emotions. Similarly, Felleman, Carlson, Barden, Rosenberg and Masters (1983) noted that adults' incorrect judgements were more likely to be judgements of anger or neutrality and less likely to be ones of happiness. For example, anger was most often misidentified as sadness and sadness misidentified as anger. Feinman and Feldman (1982) observed that mothers were able to decode spontaneous expressions of happiness in children. However, they experienced difficulties with expressions of sadness, fear and anger, with anger being decoded at levels worse than chance and frequently being confused with sadness. They note that little is known about parental decoding ability, and hypothesize that parental role-taking skills (i.e., decoding ability) might be linked to emotional well-being in the child. In support of such a hypothesis, Daly, Abramovitch and Pliner (1980) found a positive relationship between mothers' encoding and their children's decoding of facial expressions of emotion, suggesting that the development of the child's nonverbal skill may be dependent on maternal nonverbal behavior. Families Experiencing Difficulties with Emotional Recognition One could hypothesize that children's social difficulties may be at least partially related to difficulties with the recognition of emotional expressions. For example, Zuckerman and Przewuzman (1979) noted that decoding ability is correlated with social adjustment and conceptual-motor development and that emotionally disturbed children who are better at encoding/decoding are seen as better adjusted by parents and punished less harshly than non-disturbed children. Similarly, Zabel (1979) found that emotionally disturbed children were significantly less proficient in overall emotional recognition ability than were 21 controls. He suggested that disturbed children may tend to experience a more emotionally deprived and restricted environment which does not promote normal emotional repertoires. Similar deficits have been documented in mentally-handicapped populations. Gray, Fraser and Leudar (1983) found that a sample of mentally-handicapped individuals was less adept than controls in recognizing facial expressions of emotion. They appeared to make similar confusions as controls, with the exception of experiencing greater difficulty recognizing anger and fear, frequently confusing them with each other and with other emotions. Depictions of high intensity and rejecting emotions were particularly poorly handled, with the subjects either inaccurately labelling or refusing to identify the emotion. Yarczower and Daruns (1982) suggest that a history of punishment or disruptive effects of anxiety and/or socialization processes may account for the social inhibition of facial expression evident in some children. They found evidence of such inhibition in both first and fourth graders, as reflected in decreased facial expressiveness when another person was with the child, and increased uncertainty of raters in assigning emotion labels to such expressions. In the same vein, using peer ratings and peer sociometrics to identify accepted and rejected children, Vosk et al. (1983) found that accepted children obtained significantlly higher scores than rejected children on the identification of emotions displayed in videotaped interactions. This finding was substantiated by both peer and teacher ratings, indicating that accepted children were viewed as being more accurate than rejected children in perceiving emotions of others. Additionally, the investigators point out that simply teaching socially deficient children appropriate behavior will not be sufficient. Rather, skills to correctly identify emotions in others will be necessary before the behaviors can be used appropriately in interactions. 2Z Abusive Populations A recent research focus has been to examine abused children's ability to identify emotionality as it relates to their ability to understand subtle and complex interpersonal relationships, an area in which abusive populations exhibit marked deficits. In a study comparing the social-cognitive styles of abused children with a matched control group, Barahal et al. (1981) reported that abused children experienced difficulty in identifying emotions presented in the form of audiotaped scenarios. Alternatively, Camras, Grow and Ribordy (1983) examined abused children's ability to recognize emotions as manifested by facial expressions. The study examined the ability of abused and non-abused children to identify facial expressions of six emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust and surprise. Twelve brief stories were presented, each representing a child experiencing one of the six emotions. With each story, three photographs of a child showing three different facial expressions of emotion were displayed. The child chose the facial expression which he or she judged appropriate for the child in the story. Additionally, the relative social competencies of abused and normal children were assessed by means of the California Preschool Social Competency Scale. The results of the study indicated that abused children were less accurate than non-abused children in identifying emotional expressions and were perceived by their teachers as being less socially competent than their peers, suggesting that abused children's social difficulties may be connected to inaccurate perceptions of others' emotions. An area related to the identification of emotional expressions is the production of such expressions. Clinical observations of abused children have noted increases in negative and ambivalent affect, such as unreadable facial expressions and indirect means of seeking contact (Elmer & Gregg, 1967). In a comprehensive study addressing the regulation of emotional expression in infants from two contrasting 23 care taking environments (abusive versus control), Gaensbauer (1982) exposed infants to a playroom lab situation designed to elicit a range of emotional behavior. The intensities of six emotions - pleasure, interest, fear, anger, sadness, distress - were rated at continuous intervals throughout the session. Results indicated that discrete emotions could be reliably identified and that the infants' emotional responses showed a dynamic and adaptive patterning in relation to stimulus events. However, differences between the control and abused groups were noted for almost every affect, with the abused infants showing less adaptive affective regulation. Thus, it appears that abused children experience difficulties in both decoding and encoding of emotions. However, George and Main (1980) have suggested that while signals of abused infants and children may be generally unclear, abusive mothers may also be unskilled or unwilling to interpret them. However, in the area of abuse, the issue of ability to recognize facial emotional expression has been addressed solely in abused children, and even there, not extensively. Therefore, the need exists to examine emotional recognition behavior more thoroughly in both abused children and their abusive mothers. Purpose of the Present Study The purpose of the present study was to examine the ability of abused children and their abusive mothers to decode facial expressions of emotion relative to non-abused children and their mothers and to assess the intradyadic relationship of these abilities. Using a paradigm similar to Camras et al. (1983), the study examined the extent to which abused children and their abusive mothers misinterpret facial emotional expression. Camras et al.'s findings indicate that abused preschoolers are less accurate than non-abused preschoolers in identifying emotional expressions. However, these results apply only to the abused child. There has not been any examination of this ability in abusive mothers. Given the well-documented 24 findings indicating that many abusive mothers evidence unrealistic expectations, inaccurate attributions and other cognitive deficits in regard to interactions with their children (Alexander, 1973; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Larrance & Twentyman, 1983; Mash et al., 1983; Twentyman et al., 1979), the supposition that abusive mothers may show deficits similar to their children's in decoding emotional expression seems highly plausible. Thus, the present study examined the ability to recognize emotions as manifested by facial expression in both abusive mothers and their children. The relationship between maternal and child's abilities to decode emotional expressions was also examined. The majority of studies dealing with facial expressions utilize spontaneous or posed displays of emotion. It has long been recognized that under the correct circumstances, emotional states are associated with expressive nonverbal facial expression (Buck et al., 1982). That photographs accurately reflect emotional states has been supported in a number of studies. Fellman et al. (1983) found that children's spontaneous displays of happiness were more recognizable than posed displays. However, there was no difference in recognizability between posed and spontaneous productions for other expressions (sadness, anger, neutrality). Ekman has done extensive work developing the Facial Action Coding System and has generated sets of photographs of facial expressions which have been shown to be prototypical expressions of emotions (Ekman, 1976). Photographs developed according to Ekman's model were used in the present study. The children studied were separated into two age groups by a median split consisting of younger (2.5-4.3 years) and older (4.3-9.5 years) children. The study utilized photographs of both adults and children in order to investigate whether individuals were differentially able to identify facial expressions of children versus 25 adults. Because of the exploratory nature of this hypothesis, no prediction was made as to direction of effect. It was hypothesized that abused children would be less accurate than non-abused children in the identification of emotional expression. This deficit should be evident at both age levels, with relative ability gradually improving with age. It was further predicted that abusive mothers would be less accurate than non-abusive mothers in the identification of emotional expression. It was expected that a positive correlation would exist between mothers' and children's decoding abilities, such that the more impaired in decoding facial expressions an abusive mother was, the more impaired her child would be. It was predicted that this correlation would also be found in the control group. It was also expected that when presented with a relatively neutral and ambiguous facial expression, abusive mothers would more often select negative (versus positive) descriptors, whereas non-abusive mothers would respond in a random fashion. Based on the findings of Twentyman et al. (1979) and Wolfe and Mosk (1983), which suggest that abusive parents often perceive their child as "difficult" and display greater negativism in their attitude toward the child, it was hypothesized that an inverse relationship would exist between scores on the parent-completed Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and both mother's and child's scores on the emotional recognition task. Additionally, the Child Development Questionnaire (Mash, 1980) was used to assess maternal knowledge of developmental milestones. It was hypothesized that abusive mothers would show significantly greater unrealistic and inaccurate expectations of their children in comparison to control mothers. 26 Method Subjects Forty-six children and their mothers (23 normal and 23 abusive dyads) participated in the present study. The children were split into two age groups using a median split procedure with the younger group consisting of children between the ages of 32 to 50 months (2.5-4.3 years) and the older group consisting of children between the ages of 51 to 114 months (4.3-9.5 years). Sex was balanced within each age range. The abusive sample consisted of abusive mothers and their children referred to the research project with their prior consent by workers from child abuse programs in which all mothers were part of the ongoing caseload. The abusive mothers' referral to, and involvement with, the child abuse program was based upon significant evidence of child abuse involving such factors as a primary referral for physical abuse, self-report of child abuse by the mother, abuse-related court action, or child abuse witnessed by others. The abused children generally had experienced moderate levels of abuse (e.g., bruising, fractures) and hospitalization had rarely been required. A large number of children had concurrently experienced neglect. Excluded from participation were mothers/children who had been formally diagnosed as psychotic. Children and mothers in the control group were recruited through newspaper advertisement and posted notices (see Appendix A). Mothers in the non-abusive sample had no history of referral for child abuse. From an initial group of 37 dyads, 23 dyads were selected for inclusion in the final analyses. The dyads selected were those which most closely resembled the abusive dyads on a number of criteria. The group of non-abused children was balanced as closely as possible with the group of abused children on age, sex and receptive vocabulary ability (as measured by the 27 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981)). The two groups of mothers were balanced with respect to marital status and level of education. The abusive and non-abusive samples were compared on various demographic variables (age and sex of child, child's scale score on the PPVT-R, and mother's years of education and marital status). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The results of a series of individual t-tests indicated that the two groups were not significantly different in terms of PPVT-R score, t(44)=1.78, £=.08; child's age, t(44)=0.94, £=.35; or mothers' years of education, t(44)=1.46, £=.16. Independent samples chi-square analyses indicated that the groups did not differ in terms of marital status, *(1, N=46)=.00, £=100, or child's sex, *(1, N~46)=.09, £=.76. The abusive and non-abusive samples were also compared with respect to maternal responses on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAP; Milner & Wimberley, 1979). The CAP is a 160-item, parent-completed screening device that was designed to assess an individual's child abuse potential. The CAP has been demonstrated to be both valid and reliable (Milner & Wimberley, 1979, 1980), and has been shown to be effective in discriminating abusers from non-abusers (Milner, Gold, Ayoub & Jacewitz, 1984; Milner & Wimberley, 1979) (see Appendix B). As expected, abusive mothers scored significantly higher (M=214.38, SD=81.88) than the non-abusive mothers (M=115.83, SD=104.42), t(44)=3.56, £=.001. Stimuli Child Behavior Checklist. Maternal perception of child behavioral strengths and weaknesses was measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). Items checked on the CBCL were subsequently scored on the Revised Child Behavior Profile (RCBP; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). The RCBP consists of a number of factors which were obtained through factor anaylses of Table 1 Demographic Variable Scores of Abusive and Non-Abusive Groups Demographic Variable Group Abusive M SD Non-abusive M SD Age a PPVT-Rb Education 0 55.78 22.00 9.6.00 14.30 11.74 1.42 62.30 24.62 103.52 14,36 12.74 2.97 Child's Sex Male Female Marital Status Married Single Number 15 8 6 17 Number 13 10 7 16 ^Age of the child i s stated in months. DPPVT-R refers to scale scores on the Peab.ody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised. cEducation refers to mother's years of formal education. 29 checklists completed by parents of children referred for mental health services. Second order factor analyses have found that these narrow band factors form two broad band factors labelled Externalizing and Internalizing. It is also possible to calculate a Total Behavior Problem score which is the sum of responses on the behavior problem items. There are separate forms of the RCBP for boys and girls at each of three age levels (4-5, 6-11, 12-16). A number of the CBCL's psychometric properties have been examined. High test-retest and inter-parent reliabilities and the ability to discriminate between non-referred children and those who have been referred for behavior problems have been reported for the inventory (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981) (see Appendices C and D). For the purpose of the present study, analyses were limited to the Internalizing and Externalizing scores and the Total Behavior Problem score on the behavior problem scale. Child Development Questionnaire (CDQ). Maternal knowledge of developmental milestones and issues was measured by the CDQ (Mash, 1980). The questionnaire consists of 40 descriptions of child behavior (e.g., the child rides a tricycle, the child knows right from left). The mother must choose from a number of age ranges the age range at which she thinks an average child is most likely to possess the ability (e.g., motor, communication and self-help skills). There are also 10 statements addressing developmental issues that are answered true or false. Three scores from the CDQ were utilized: total number correct; total number of items greater than age norms; and total number of items less than age norms (see Appendix E). Emotional expression. The stimuli which were presented to the subjects consisted of two sets of photographs of six posed emotional expressions. These stimuli were used for a number of reasons. Extensive research has indicated that this set of six emotions includes prototypical expressions of emotions (Ekman, 1972; 30 Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Izard, 1971). Also, all of the photographs had been used in one or more previous studies of emotional recognition (Bullock & Russell, 1984; Camras, 1980; Camras et al., 1983). The child facial expressions were presented to the subjects in the form of 5 X 7 inch glossy black and white photographs. Each photograph showed the face of a 12-year-old girl model posing a facial expression of one of the following six emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise and disgust. The photographs were those used by Camras et al. (1983). To obtain the expression photographs, the model was instructed by Camras as to the facial muscle movements involved in each of the facial expressions of emotion. The model was photographed while producing these muscle movements. Inspection of the photographs by two persons in Camras' group trained to use the Facial Action Coding System (Ekman & Friesen, 1978) confirmed that the model had produced the specified muscle movements. The expressions posed have been described by Ekman and Friesen (1975) and are considered to be cross-culturally recognizable expressions of emotion. The adult facial expressions were presented to the subjects in the form of 3 X 5 inch glossy black and white photographs. Each photograph showed the face of an adult female model posing a facial expression of one of the same six emotions depicted in the child stimuli (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust). An additional photograph was of a neutral, ambiguous expression. The photographs have been employed by Bullock and Russell (1984) in their research. The photographs were generated in a manner similar to that used to generate the child stimuli. Procedure Depending on the source of referral, testing was conducted at the University of British Columbia, at the agency site, or in the family home. The mother was escorted to the testing room by the experimenter, while her child was taken to a 31 separate room with toys and magazines. The mother was asked to sign a consent form (see Appendix F) and complete a demographic information sheet (see Appendix G). She was then shown a neutral, ambiguous photograph and asked to rate the applicability of 10 affective labels to the photograph (see Appendix H). The mother was then told that she and her child would be asked to identify emotional expression in a series of photographs. The procedure consisted of six trials, one for each emotion word for each set of stimuli (adult and child faces). The mother's task on each trial was to pick from the photograph display three faces for the emotion word. The mother was shown the two photograph displays (child faces and adult faces) in sequence, the order of display being . randomly determined for each subject. To begin a trial, the experimenter shuffled and then set out the six photographs in a random array on the table in front of the mother. The experimenter then asked, "Which person is X? Can you show me the X person?", with X replaced by one word selected randomly from the set of six emotion test words. After the mother chose a photograph, the experimenter removed it from the display and repeated the question with the same emotion word. When the second photograph had been chosen and removed, the experimenter repeated the question a third time. The mother's final choice completed the trial. The experimenter then re-shuffled the six photographs, randomly selected another emotion test word, set out the six photographs in a new random order, and began another trial. Over the six trials, the mother made 18 choices for six emotion words, with trials, words and photographs in various separate random orders. Following the completion of the first six trials, six more trials were conducted in a similar format using the photograph display not used in the first six trials. 32 When the mother had completed the task, her child was escorted to the testing room. The child was administered the PPVT-R and participated in the emotional recognition task. While the child was engaged in these tasks, the mother completed the Child Behavior Checklist, the Child Development Questionnaire, and the Child Abuse Potential Inventory in another room. The order of testing (mother first versus child first) was counterbalanced. Scoring the Emotional Recognition Task For the emotional recognition task, each subject was given two scores (ranging from 0 to 6) equal to the total number of correct first choices made on the adult photograph series ("adult-correct") and child photograph series ("child-correct"), respectively. They were also given a total score reflecting the sum of these two scores ("total-correct"). Additionally, each subject received six scores, ranging from 1 to 12, indicating the number of times each photograph was chosen in the first-choice position over all 12 trials (labelled; "first-sad", "first-disgusted", "first-angry", "first-afraid", "first-surprised", "first-happy"). Each subject also received six scores, ranging from 0 to 36, reflecting the number of times each photograph was chosen in any of the first-, second-, or third-choice positions over all trials (labelled; "total-sad", "total-disgusted", "total-angry", "total-afraid", "total-surprised", "total-happy"). The photo which a subject chose was recorded for every first, second and third choice. Ror_ each of the 10 descriptors on the rating form for the ambiguous photograph, the mother chose a number from 1 to 8, with 1 indicating the descriptor was "extremely inaccurate" and 8 indicating that the descriptor was "extremely accurate". 33 Results Emotional Recognition Scores For the children's data (see Table 2 & Appendix I), a repeated-measures univariate analysis of variance was carried out, in which Group (abusive versus non-abusive) and Age Group (32 to 50 months versus 51 to 114 months) were the between-groups factors and Stimuli Type (adult model versus child model) was the within-groups factor. The main effect for Group was significant, F(l,42)=10.41, £=.002. The non-abused children (M=8.52) scored significantly higher than the abused children (M=6.35). There was also a significant main effect for Age Group, F(l,42)=8.03, £=.007, such that older children scored significantly higher (M=8.43) than younger children (M=6.43). Finally, a significant main effect for Stimuli Type was found, F(l,42)=4.11, £=.05. Children performed significantly better when child faces were used as stimuli (M=3.96) than when adult faces were used as stimuli (M=3.48). None of the interactions were significant. For the mothers' data (see Table 3 & Appendix I), a repeated-measures univariate analysis of variance was calculated, in which Group (abusive versus non-abusive) was the between-groups factor and Stimuli Type (adult model versus child model) was the within-groups factor. Neither the main effects for Group and Stimuli Type nor the Group by Stimuli Type interaction were significant. An examination of the mean values revealed that all of the marginal means were above 5 (a perfect score being 6), indicating that mothers in both groups performed very well on the task. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the relationships between mother and child scores (number of total correct first choices) on the emotion recognition tasks. No significant relationship was found in either the abusive (r=.32, £=.07) or control (r=-.16, £=.23) groups. 34 Table 2 Mean Child Emotional Recognition Scores: Number Correct Group ^_ Subset Abusive Non-abusive Marginal Young Children Child Stimuli 2. 93 (J .331 4.11 CI .05) 3. 39 34) Adult Stimuli 2. 57 a .221 3.78 (.0 .67) 3. 04 (I. 19) Marginal 2. 75 (1 • 271 3.94 (0 .87) Old Children Child Stimuli 4. 00 (1 .73) 4.86 CO .95) 4. 52 a . 34) Adult Stimuli 3. 67 (1 .41) 4.07 (1 .00) 3. 91 a . 16) Marginal 3. 83 (1 • 54) 4.46 (1 .04) Note. Numbers i n parentheses represent standard deviations. Maximum score = 6. 35 Table 3 Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: Number Correct Group  Subset Abusive Non-abusive Marginal Child Stimuli 5.30 CI.02). 5.70 (0.70) 5.50 (0.89) Adult Stimuli 5.22 Cl.04) 5.52 (.0.67) 5.37 (.0.88) Marginal 5.26 (.1.021 5.61 (.0.68) Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. Maximum score = 6. 36 Examination of Actual Choices on the Emotional Recognition Task In addition to examining the number of correct choices made on the first choices of the emotional recognition task, further analyses were performed on data from all three choices. These analyses were carried out in order to investigate whether subjects in the abusive and non-abusive groups differed in the frequencies with which they chose specific emotion photographs. Looking first at the children's data and the total frequencies with which each of the six emotional expressions (sad, disgusted, angry, afraid, surprised, happy) were selected as a first choice over all trials, individual t-tests revealed no significant differences between the two groups (see Table 4). No significant differences were found between the total frequency with which each of the six expressions were selected as first, second and third choice combined over all trials (see Table 5). An identical pattern of results was obtained when individual t-tests were applied to mothers' data (see Tables 6 and 7). T-tests were also utilized to compare the abusive and non-abusive mothers' ratings of the applicability of each of 10 descriptors to the single ambiguous photograph. There were no significant differences between the two groups on any of the descriptors (sleepy, bored, sad, disgusted, angry, afraid, surprised, excited, happy, calm) (see Table 8). Revised Child Behavior Profile . Mothers' responses from the Child Behavior Checklist were scored on the Internalizing, Externalizing and Total Behavior Problem subscales of the RCBP. Individual t-tests were calculated to compare abusive and non-abusive mothers' responses. Abused children were perceived as significantly more deviant by their mothers on the Internalizing (M=62.26 versus M=54.61), t(44)=2.81, £=.007; Externalizing (M=62.70 versus M=56.87), t(44)=2.10, £=.04; and Total Behavior Problem (M=63.96 versus M=56.78), t(44)=2.47, £=.017, scales of the RCBP. 37 Table 4 Mean Child Emotional Recognition Scores: Number of Times Each  Photograph Chosen as a Fi r s t Choice Group  Expression Abusive Non'-abusiye t 3 £ Sad 1. ,83 CO. .94). 2, ,17 (1. .03) 1, ,17 0. ,25 Disgusted 2. .13 (1. .14) 1. ,70 (.1. .15) -1. .29 0. ,20 Angry 1. .91 a . .54>. 2. ,04 a . .26) 0. ,31 0. .75 Afraid 1. ,78 (!. .13) 1. ,74 a . .18) -0. ,13 0. ,90 Surprised 1. .61 (1. .031 1. .57 ( l . • 47) -0. ,12 0. .91 Happy 2. ,74 a . .051 2. ,74 Co. • 75) 0. ,00 1. ,00 Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. a d f = 44. Optimal score = 2. 38 Table 5 Mean C h i l d Emotional Recognition Scores : Number of Times Each Photograph Chosen i n To t a l Group Expression Abusive Non-abusive t a Sad 5.70 (1.991 6.17 (1.83) 0.85 0.40 Disgusted 6.00 (2.09). 5.91 (.1.73) -0.15 0.88 Angry 5.91 (1•731 5.48 (.1.88) -0.82 0.42 A f r a i d 6.83 (1.971 7.78 (1.88) 1.68 0.10 Surprised 6.70 Q.551 6.43 (2.45X -0.43 0.67 Happy 4.83 (.1.441 4.17 (.1.03) -1.77 0.08 Note. Numbers i n parentheses represent standard deviations. a d f = 44. Maximum score = 12. 39 Table 6 Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: Number of Times Each  Photograph Chosen as a Firs t Choice Group  Expression Abusive Non-abusive _t a _p_ Sad 2. .57 a . • 27) 2. ,22 CO. .52) -1, ,21 0. .24 Disgusted 1. .48 CO. .85) 1. ,87 (0. • 55) -1, .86 0. .07 Angry 2. .09 Co. .85) 1. ,96 CO. .37) -0, ,68 0, .50 Afraid 2. .00 (0. .67). 2, .13 CO. .55) 0. .72 0, .48 Surprised 1. .91 Co. • 52) 1. ,83 CO. .49) -0. ,59 0. ,56 Happy 1. ,96 Co. .37) 2. .00 Co. .00) 0. .57 0. ,58 Note. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. adf = 44. Optimal score = 2. 40 Table 7 Mean Mother Emotional Recognition Scores: Number of Times Each  Photograph Chosen i n To t a l Group  Expression Abusive Non-abusive _ t a _p_ Sad 6. ,48 (1. 241 6, ,26 a . • 45) -0. ,55 0. 59 Disgusted 5. ,70. a . 52) 5. .83 (1. .471 0. ,30 0. 77 Angry 6. ,30 C2. 03) 6, .61 (1. .53) 0. .57 0. 57 A f r a i d 8. ,26 a . 691 7. .70 (!. .66) -1. , 14 0. 26 Surprised 6. .26 a . 36) 6, .48 ci. .38) 0. .54 0. 59 Happy 3. ,00 Co. 95) 3. .13 .06) 0. .44 0. 66 Note. Numbers i n parentheses represent standard deviations. a d f = 44. Maximum score = 12. 41 Table 8 Mean Maternal Ratings Assigned to Ten Emotional Descriptors Used to Describe a Neutral F a c i a l Expression Group  Desciptor Abusive Non-abusive t a Sleepy 2.52 (2.041 1.87 Cl.29) -1.29 0.20 Bored 4.70 (2.31) 4.13 (1.96) -0.90 0.38 Sad 3.57 (2.11). 2.70 Cl.77) -1.52 0.14 Disgusted 3.57 (2.25) 3.57 C2.39) 0.00 1.00 Angry 2.78 C1.73X 2.65 CL 8 7 ) -0.25 0.81 A f r a i d 2.57 (.1.83) 2.57 (.1.67) 0.00 1.00 Surprised 2.74 (2.14) 1.91 (1.51) -1.52 0.13 Excited 2.17 (1.531 1.39. (1.08) -2.01 0.05 Happy 2.78 a . 9.1). 2.52 (1.81) -0.48 0.64 Calm 5.35 (2.35) 5.17 (.1.95) -0.27 0.79 Note. Ratings ranged from 1 to was "extremely inaccurate" and "extremely accurate". Numbers deviations. a d f = 44. 8, with 1 i n d i c a t i n g the descriptor 8 i n d i c a t i n g the de s c r i p t o r was i n parentheses represent standard 42 Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the relationships between Internalizing, Externalizing and Total Behavior Problem scores and mother's/child's score on the emotion recognition task (i.e., number of total correct first choices). The correlational analyses were conducted separately for the abusive and non-abusive groups. No significant correlations were found for either group (see Table 9). Child Development Questionnaire (CDQ) Examination of the individual t-tests revealed that no significant differences existed between abusive and non-abusive mothers on the three CDQ measures: total number of items correct; total number of items greater than age norms; and total number of items less than age norms (see Table 10). Histograms - Structural Model of Emotions The emotional recognition data were also analyzed in a manner suggested by a structural model of emotion which attempts to represent the fact that emotions vary in their degree of similarity to one another. In order to look at the patterning of the emotional recognition choices, first, second and third choices other than for the modal adult choice were examined in order to determine what proportion of choices fell on those expressions which Bullock and Russell's (1984) structural model indicates are adjacent to the "correct" photograph (the modal adult choice). For the "sad" and "happy" photographs, there was one adjacent expression. By chance, 20% (one-fifth) of these choices would be the adjacent expression, whereas the structural model predicts a greater proportion (although not necessarily 100%). Combining data from young and old children and across adult and child stimuli for "sad" and "happy", 23.83% of the abused children's 193 choices were of the predicted adjacent expression. Of the non-abused children's 189 choices, 27.51% were of the predicted adjacent expression. A z-test for significant differences between two independent 43 Table 9 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Relationship Between the Revised Child Behavior Profile and Emotional Recognition Scores Mothers' Scores Children's Scores Scale Abusive Non-abusive Abusive Non^abusive RCBP Internalizing Externalizing Total Behavior Problems .19 -.26 G19) (.12) .26 -.23 (.19) C.15) .28 -.32 (.101 (.07) .07 -.20 (.37) (.18) .10 -.20 (.32) (.25) .16 -.13 (.24) (.28) Note. Numbers in parentheses represent probability values. 44 Table 10. Mean Maternal Scores on the Child Development Questionnaire Group Score Abusive Non-abusive £ Number 16.35 (.3.23).. 17.52 (.3.46) 1.19 0.24 Correct Number Above 9.74 (.4.45) 8.30 (4.69) -1.06 0.29 Age Norms Number Below 19.87 (3.95) 20.04 (4.42) 0.14 0.89 Age Norms Note. Scores refer to raw scores. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations. a d f = 44. 45 proportions indicated that the groups were not significantly different, z=.65, p_>.05. Combining data across adult and child stimuli for "sad" and "happy, 34.40% of the abusive mothers' 186 choices were of the predicted adjacent expression. Of the non-abusive mothers' 184 choices, 36.41% were of the predicted adjacent expression. A z-test indicated that the groups were not significantly different, z=.40, p_).05. The remaining photographs (disgusted, angry, afraid, surprised) each fell between two adjacent expressions. By chance, 40% (two-fifths) of the choices would be the two adjacent expressions, whereas the structural model again predicts a greater proportion. Combining data from young and old children and adult and child stimuli across the four expressions, 50.87% of the abused children's 403 choices were of the predicted adjacent expressions. Of the non-abused children's 392 choices, 57.91% were of the predicted adjacent expressions. The difference between the two groups was found to be significant, z=1.99, E<.05. Combining data from adult and child stimuli across the four expressions for the mothers' data, 63.61% of the abusive mothers' 371 choices were of the predicted adjacent expressions. Of the non-abusive mothers' 371 choices, 67.65% were of the predicted adjacent expressions. A z-test indicated that the groups were not significantly different, z-1.15, p_>.05. These quantitative results were confirmed by a visual examination of histograms for the test words. To illustrate the difference in response pattern for abused and non-abused children, results for the emotion "disgusted" are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Discussion The purpose of the present study was to investigate the ability of abused children and their abusive mothers to decode facial expressions of emotion relative to non-abused children and their mothers, and to assess the intradyadic relationship of these abilities. The study also examined the extent to which individuals in the FIGURE 1 PERCENT YOUNG NON-ABUSED CHILDREN SELECTING EACH PHOTO AS DISGUSTING 4 = Afraid 5 = Surprised 6 = Happy FIGURE 2 47 PERCENT YOUNG ABUSED CHILDREN SELECTING EACH PHOTO AS DISGUSTING lOO-i 9 0 -8 0 -2 3 4 5 6 2 = Disgusted CHILD SET 3 = Angry 4 = Afraid 5 = Surprised 6 = Happy 48 two groups were able to differentially identify facial expressions of children versus adults. The third purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between maternal perceptions of child behavior and mothers' and children's emotional recognition abilities. Finally, the present study examined actual emotional recognition behavior in the abusive and non-abusive groups using a structural model of emotion (e.g., Russell, 1980) and investigated the patterning of errors. The hypothesis that abused children would be less accurate than non-abused children in the identification of emotional expression was supported. Abused children were incorrect more often than non-abused children when decoding facial expressions of both adults and children. This finding lends further support to those of Camras et al. (1983). Camras presented the children with brief stories representing a child experiencing one of the same six emotions used in the present study, and asked the child to choose the facial expression judged to be appropriate for the child in the story. It is of interest to note that the present study and that of Camras differed on the task presented to the children, yet both suggest that children who have been abused are less accurate than non-abused children in identifying emotional expression. The finding is also similar to that obtained by Barahal et al. (1981), who studied abused children's responses to emotion scenarios presented on audiotape. That abused children have been found to perform more poorly than non-abused children across these studies using different tasks increases the generalizability of the finding. The results of the present study are important in that they encompass a number of dimensions not included in previous research in this area (Barahal et al., 1981; Camras et al., 1983). In the present study, the abusive and non-abusive groups were balanced on receptive vocabulary ability as measured by the PPVT-R, children's age and sex, and mother's marital status and years of education. Camras et al. 49 controlled for child's age and sex and Barahal controlled for intellectual differences between the groups. The control of these variables provides tentative support for the conclusion that the finding that abused children are less accurate than non-abused children in identifying emotional expression is not due solely to intellectual or demographic differences between the two groups. Camras has suggested that the findings that abused children evidence deficits in comparison to non-abused children imply that abused children's social difficulties (e.g., Critchley, 1982; George & Main, 1979; Martin & Beezley, 1977) may be due in part to inaccurate perceptions of other children's emotions. The results of the present study suggest that abused children are less accurate than non-abused children when faced with either child or adult emotional expressions. It may be, therefore, that abused children's social difficulties with both children and adults are related to inaccurate perception of emotions. However, it is important to note that the less accurate decoding of adult as opposed to child expressions is not specific to abused children in that the same differential ability was found in non-abused children. We are not aware of other research which has found that children in general experience this differential decoding ability between adult and child expression. It is also important to note that even though a significant difference was found between the two groups, there was also some overlap, such that some abused children's scores were equivalent to or higher than some non-abused children's scores. Comparisons of emotional recognition scores of young and old children indicated that older children in both groups did significantly better than younger children. This finding is consistent with other research which indicates that children's emotional recognition performance gradually improves from the preschool years until the early teens (Camras, 1980; Izard, 1971). In both the abusive and 50 non-abusive groups, the children evidenced this trend of change and improvement in decoding ability with increasing age. The hypothesis that abusive mothers would be less accurate than non-abusive mothers in the identification of emotional expression was not supported. Abusive and non-abusive mothers did not differ in their decoding performance using either adult or child photographs. The distributions of their second and third choices for each emotion were also not significantly different, nor was the number of times each emotion was selected in the first choice position. Additionally, abusive mothers did not differ from non-abusive mothers in their ratings of the applicability of emotional descriptors to a neutral facial expression. The lack of significant differences on any of these measures implies that abusive mothers may not possess deficits similar to those of their children in the ability to identify emotional expressions. These findings seemingly contradict those reported by Caplan et al. (1984), which suggest that many adults who abuse their children have been abused as children, and carry the social, cognitive and emotional deficits characteristic of abused children into adulthood. Therefore, one might expect that the abusive mothers in the present study, presumably some of whom were abused as children, would also manifest the decoding deficit characteristic of abused children as adults. While it is likely that a number of the abusive mothers in the present study were abused as children, it was not possible to obtain such historical information. Future research would be aided by the inclusion of such data. It is also possible, however, that the problems abused children experience in the decoding of emotional expression may be remediated by the time they reach adulthood. If, as suggested by previous research, abusive mothers possess a number of social and cognitive deficits, one might expect that abused children would suffer from exposure to such a maternal environment. That is, the more impaired a 51 mother's functioning is, the more impaired her child's functioning should be. The results of the present study do not support such a hypothesis with respect to emotional decoding abilities. Mothers' and children's emotional recognition scores were not correlated in either the abusive or the non-abusive groups. Thus, there did not appear to be an intradyadic relationship in either group. Further research is needed to investigate the reasons for inaccurate perceptions of emotion among abused children, as it does not appear that maternal decoding ability plays a major role. It is possible, however, that a relationship may exist between maternal encoding (as opposed to decoding) ability and children's expression recognition abilities. For example, Burgess and Conger (1978) found that abusive parents engaged in fewer positive interactions with their children than non-abusive parents, interactions being partially evaluated through the use of facial and vocal cues. This would imply that abusive mothers might possess deficits in encoding. It would be worthwhile to further evaluate the role of mothers' expressive behavior in the development of both abused and non-abused children's capacity to recognize facial expressions of emotions. In summary, the investigation of mothers' decoding ability in the present study revealed no significant difference between abusive and control mothers, implying that abusive mothers do not possess deficits similar to those of their children in the ability to identify emotional expressions. However, it is possible that real group differences between abusive and non-abusive mothers regarding the ability to identify emotional expressions and the interpretation of ambiguous expressions would not be detected in the present study if the methodology used was not a sensitive or valid approach to study such behaviors. The photographs and task used were the same for both the children and the mothers. It may have been that the stimuli and task were not difficult and/or sensitive enough to detect differences in decoding ability. This may also have been true for the ratings of the ambiguous photograph. This interpretation is supported by the results, which indicate that both abusive and non-abusive mothers were quite accurate in their ability to recognize emotional expressions, suggesting the possibility of a ceiling effect. This fact may also be related to the lack of relation between mothers' and children's abilities. If the mothers are making few errors, there will not be much variability in their results as compared to the results of their children, increasing the likelihood that no correlation would be found. In addition to the findings suggesting that abused children were less accurate than non-abused children in the identification of emotional expressions, the analysis of the data in a manner suggested by a structural model of emotion (e.g., Woodworth, 1938; Russell, 1980) indicated that not only were abused children less accurate, but they also appeared to be less orderly and systematic in their structuring of the emotion domain. Non-abused children were more likely to perceive emotional expressions as organized in the same way that adults do in that they appeared to organize the emotion domain along dimensions such as pleasure and arousal (as described by Bullock and Russell, 1984). They were more likely to treat expressions similar in pleasure and arousal (e.g., disgust and anger) as alike, which reflects good organization of the emotion domain. ^ In contrast, the abusive and non-abusive mothers did not differ significantly on the distribution of their second-, third-, or incorrect first-choices for any emotion. The distributions obtained in both groups resembled those found in Bullock and Russell's (1984) study of normal mothers. However, non-significant trends in the data suggest that abusive mothers are somewhat less likely to select emotional expressions that fall closer together in dimensional space for their choices for each 53 target emotion. It would be useful to conduct further research using a more sensitive and/or comprehensive set of emotional expression stimuli to further examine this trend. The present study also utilized two measures of maternal perceptions and knowledge of child behavior/development. The abusive and non-abusive mothers were found to differ on the CBCL, which measures maternal perception of child behavioral strengths and weaknesses, but not on the CDQ, which assesses maternal knowledge of developmental milestones. These findings regarding the CBCL are consistent with previous research in pointing out the negativism in abusive mothers' attitudes toward their children (Twentyman et al., 1979; Wolfe & Mosk, 1983). Thus, abusive mothers in the present study reported that their children had more internal (e.g., withdrawal, shyness, moodiness), external (e.g., aggressiveness, tantrums) and total behavior problems in comparison to non-abused children. Due to the nature of the questionnaire, it cannot be determined if abused children actually are more problematic than non-abused children; what is informative, though, is the way in which the abusive mothers perceive their children's behavior. It is interesting to note that significant relationships between CBCL scores and mothers' and children's emotional recognition scores were not found in the present study in either the abusive or non-abusive groups. Therefore, children who were reported by their mothers as being more problematic were not necessarily more impaired on the emotional recognition task. This might be interpreted as evidence that mothers are not accurate reporters of their children's behavior, or that these two tasks do not measure related behaviors. Further research is required to investigate this issue more directly. The finding that abusive mothers did not differ significantly from non-abusive mothers on CDQ scores was not expected. A number of studies have found that 54 abusive parents have greater variability than controls in developmental expectations and hold inaccurate expectations in a number of areas such as the child's self-care ability, appropriate child behavior and feelings, and the child's family responsibility (Spinetta, 1979; Twentyman & Plotkin, 1982; Twentyman et al., 1979). Azar et al. (1984) also found that abusive mothers showed significantly greater unrealistic expectations than did comparison mothers on the Parent Opinion Questionnaire (POQ), which employs items involving complex sequences of child behavior. However, the CDQ, which measures knowledge of developmental milestones, did not. They suggested that the obtained results were related to the fact that parental aggression frequently follows complex interpersonal events (as measured by the POQ), not just the simple acts that are assessed by milestone questionnaires. It may also be that the results obtained in the present study reflect the fact that the abusive mothers were currently involved in treatment programs, a component of which was instruction regarding child development. Therefore, one might expect that the abusive mothers would benefit from such instruction, such that they would be able to complete a measure such as the CDQ as accurately as non-abusive mothers. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research Abused and non-abused children were found to respond differently with respect to the choices they made for the emotional recognition task. The findings of the present study support the hypothesis that abused children are less accurate than non-abused children in the identification of emotional expression. This deficit is evident regardless of age levels (2.5-4.3 years and 4.3-9.5 years) and across adult and child photographs. Additionally, it appears that the observed deficit is not restricted to accuracy. Abused children appear to have an ill-defined notion of emotional concepts in comparison to non-abused children. Futher research using a 55 more comprehensive set of emotional expression stimuli (e.g., Bullock & Russell, 1984) appears warranted. The finding that abused children were less accurate than non-abused children on the emotional recognition task when balanced with respect to PPVT-R scores lends support to the conclusion that the findings were not due solely to receptive vocabulary differences between the two groups of children. However, one cannot argue that the PPVT-R is a comprehensive test of intellectual ability (Sattler, 1982). Further research which addresses this factor in a more comprehensive fashion is required to corroborate the findings of the present study. Despite the finding that abusive and non-abusive mothers did not differ with respect to their performance on the emotional recognition task, it may be premature to assume that the mothers do not differ in their ability to decode emotional expression. While the results did not yield significant support for the stated hypotheses, they did fall in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. It is not unreasonable to assume that significant results might be obtained if a more sensitive and/or comprehensive set of emotional expression stimuli were used. Further research using such stimuli, or focusing on different subgroups of abusive mothers (e.g., mothers who themselves were abused as children) will help to clarify the issue. In light of the present findings and those of Azar et al. (1984) concerning the operationalization of maternal "unrealistic expectations", future research should attempt to clearly define and measure such expectations. It seems that it will be more useful to rely on measures such as the POQ, which employs items involving complex sequences of child behavior of the type that frequently precedes parental aggression. Future research concerning the emotional recognition ability of members of abusive families may help further our understanding of the multidimensional factors 56 involved in child abuse. This knowledge may enable us to design and implement more effective treatment strategies to combat this persistent societal problem and lessen the distress experienced by all members of abusive families. 57 Footnotes *This review of the literature will focus on the role of mothers as opposed to fathers in child abuse. There is a much greater frequency of child abuse by mothers versus fathers (Straus, 1979), and there is a relative lack of data concerning father-child interaction in both abusive and non-abusive families. This lack of data may be a function of greater accessibility to mothers, who may be more available to participate in research and more likely to be the focus of treatment. 58 References Achenbach, T. M. (1978). The Child Behavior Profile: I. Boys aged 6 through 11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 478-488. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The Child Behavior Profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47,223-233. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communications in normal and deviant families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 223-231. Appelbaum, A. S. (1977). Developmental retardation in infants as a concomitant of physical child abuse. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 5, 417-423. Azar, S. T., Robinson, D. R., Hekimian, E., & Twentyman, C. T. (1984). Unrealistic expectations and problem-solving ability in maltreating and comparison mothers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 687-691. Barahal, R. M., Waterman, J. , Martin, H. P. (1981). The social cognitive development of abused children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 508-516. Bell, R. Q. (1971). Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behaviour by offspring. Developmental Psychology. 4, 63-72. Blumberg, M. L. (1974). Psychopathology of the abusing parent. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 28, 21-29. 59 Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy? Developmental Psychology. 5, 263-269. Brown, J . A., & Daniels, R. (1968). Some observations on abusive parents. Child Welfare, 47, 89-94. Buck, R., Savin, J. V., Miller, E. R., & Caul, W. (1972). Communication of affect through facial expressions in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 23, 362-371. Bullock, M., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Preschool children's interpretation of facial expressions of emotion. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 7, 193-214. Burgess, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (1977). Family interaction patterns related to child abuse and neglect: Some preliminary findings. Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal. 1, 269-277. Burgess, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectful, and normal families. Child Development. 49. 1163-1173. Campos, J. J. (1980-1981). Human emotions: Their new importance and their role in social referencing. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development. Annual Report, 1-7. Camras, L. A. (1980). Children's understanding of facial expressions used during conflict encounters. Child Development. 51, 879-885. Camras, L. A., Grow, J . G., & Ribordy, S. C. (1983). Recognition of emotional expression by abused children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 325-328. Caplan, P. J . , Watters, J . , White, G., Parry, R., & Bates, R. (1984). Toronto Multiagency Child Abuse Research Project: The abused and the abuser. Child  Abuse and Neglect. 8, 343-351. Caron, R. F., Caron, A. J. , & Myers, R. S. (1982). Abstraction of invariant face expressions in infancy. Child Development. 53, 1008-1015. Critchley, 0. L. (1982). Therapeutic group work with abused preschool children. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care. 20, 79-85. Cowen, E. L., Pederson, A., Babijian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438-446. Daly, E. M., Abramovitch, R., & Pliner, P. (1980). The relationship between mother's encoding and their children's decoding of facial expresions of emotion. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 25-33. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray. Davitz, J. R. (1964). A review of research concerned with facial and vocal expressions of emotion. In J. R. Davitz (Ed.), The communication of emotional meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dubanoski, R. A., Evans, I. M., & Higuchi, A. A. (1978). Analysis and treatment of child abuse: A set of behavioural propositions. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2, 153-172. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service. ~~ Egeland, B., Bretenbucher, M., & Rosenberg, O. (1980). Prospective study of the significance of life stress in the etiology of child abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 48, 195-205. Egeland, B., & Brunnquell, D. (1979). An at-risk approach to the study of child abuse: Some preliminary findings. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 18, 219-235. Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Attachment and early maltreatment. Child Development. 52, 44-52. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In J. K. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P. (1976). Pictures of facial affect. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1967). Head and body cues in the judgement of emotion: A reformulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 24, 711-724. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 17, 124-129. Ekman, P., & Friesen ,W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). The facial action coding system. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P. (1972). Emotion in the human face: Guidelines for research and an integration of findings. New York: Pergamon Press. Ekman, P., & Oster, H. (1979). Facial expressions of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology. 30, 527-554. "~ ~~ Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotions. Science. 164, 86-88. Elmer, E. (1977). A follow-up study of traumatized children. Pediatrics. 59, 273-279. Elmer, E., & Gregg, G. S. (1967). Developmental characteristics of abused children. Pediatrics. 40, 596-602. Farran, D. C , & Hoskins, R. (1980). Reciprocal influence in the social interactions of mothers and three-year old children from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Child Development. 51, 780-791. Feinman, J. A., & Feldman, R. S. (1982). Decoding children's expressions of affect. Child Development. 53, 710-716. Feleky, A. M. (1914). The expression of the emotions. Psychological Review. 21, 33-41. Felleman, E. S., Carlson, C. R., Barden, R. C , Rosenberg, L., & Masters, J. C. (1983). Children's and adults' recognition of spontaneous and posed emotional expressions in young children. Developmental Psychology. 19, 405-413. Field, T. M., & Walden, T. A. (1982). Production and discrimination of facial expressions by preschool children. Child Development, 53, 1299-1311. Flynn, W. R. (1979). Frontier justice: A contribution to the theory of child battery. American Journal of Psychiatry. 127. 375-379. Fontana, V. J. (1973). Somewhere a child is crying: Maltreatment - causes and prevention. New York: Macmillan. Friedman, R. M., Sandler, J. , Hernandez, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1981). Child abuse. In E. Mash & L. Terdal (Eds.), Behavioral assessment of childhood disorders. New York: Guilford Press. Friedrich, W. N., & Einbender, A. J. (1983). The abused child: A psychological review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 12, 244-256. Frijda, N. H. (1969). Recognition of emotion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. 4, New York: Academic Press. Gaensbauer, T. J. (1982). Regulation of emotional expression in infants from two contrasting caretaking environments. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 21, 163-170. Gaensbauer, T. J. , & Sands K. (1979). Distorted affective communications in abused/neglected infants and their potential impact on caregivers. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 18, 236-250. Galdston, R. (1965). Observations on children who have been physically abused and their parents. American Journal of Psychiatry. 122. 440-443. Gelles, R. J. (1973). Child abuse as psychopathology: A sociological critique and reformulation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 43, 611-621. Gelles, R. J. (1978). Violence toward children in the United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42, 580-592. George, C , & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of young abused children: Approach, avoidance and aggression. Child Development, 50. 306-318. George, C , & Main, M. (1980). Abused children: Their rejection of peers and caregivers. In T. Field, S. Goldberg, D. Stern, & A. Sostek (Eds.), High-risk infants and children: Adult and peer interactions. New York: Academic Press. Gil, D. G. (1969). Physical abuse of children: Findings and implications of a nationwide survey. Pediatrics, 44. 857-865. Gil, D. G. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child abuse in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gil, D. G. (1971). Violence against children. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 33, 637-648. Giavonnoni, J. M., Conklin, J. , & Ilyama, P. (1978). Child abuse and neglect: An explanation from the perspective of child development knowledge. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates, Inc. Gold, R. G., Milner, J. S., Ayoub, C , & Jacewitz, M. M. (1984). Predictive validity of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 52, 879-884. Goldberg, W. A., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). Role of marital quality in toddler development. Developmental Psychology. 20, 504-514. Goodenough, F. L. (1982). Expression of the emotions in a blind-deaf child. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 27, 328-333. Gray, J. D., Cutler, C. A., Dean, U., & Kempe, C. H. (1977). Prediction and prevention of child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 1, 45-58. Gray, J. M., Fraser, W. L., & Leudar, I. (1983). Recognition of emotion from facial expression in mental handicap. British Journal of Psychiatry. 142, 566-571. Green, A. H. (1981). Core affective disturbance in abused children. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 9, 435-446. Green, A. H., Gaines, R. W., & Sandgrund, A. (1974). Child abuse: Pathological syndrome of family interaction. American Journal of Psychiatry. 131, 882-886. Harper, L. V. (1971). The young as a source of stimuli controlling caretaker behavior. Developmental Psychology, 4, 73-88. Herzberger, S. 0., Potts, D. A., & Dillon, M. (1981). Abusive and nonabusive parental treatment from the child's perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49, 81-90. Hjorth, C. W., & Ostrov, E. (1982). The self-image of physically abused adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 11, 71-76. Hyman, C. A., & Parr, R. (1978). A controlled video observational study of abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2, 217-222. Izard, C. E. (1969). The emotions and emotion constructs in personality and culture research. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of modern personality theory. Chicago: Aldine Press. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. 65 Johnson, B., & Morse, H. A. (1968). Injured children and their parents. Children. 15, 147-152. Kempe, R. S., & Kempe, C. H. (1978). Child abuse. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Larrance, D. T., & Twentyman, C. T. (1983). Maternal attributions and child abuse. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 92, 449-457. Martin, H. P., & Beezley, P. (1977). Behavioral observations of abused children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 19, 373-387. Mash, E. J . (1980, January). The Child Development Questionnaire. Unpublished Instrument, Family Study Project, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Mash, E. J . , Johnson, C. J. , & Kovitz, K. (1983). A comparison of the mother-child interactions of physically abused and non-abused children during play and task situations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 12. 337-346. Milner, J. S., Gold, R. S., Ayoub, C , & Jacewitz, M. M. (1984). Predictive validity of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory. Manuscript submitted for publication. Milner, J. S., & Wimberley, R. C. (1979). An inventory for the identification of child abusers. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 35. 95-100. Milner, J. S., & Wimberley, R. C. (1980). Prediction and explanation of child abuse. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 875-884. Mulhern, R. K., & Passman, R. H. (1979). The child's behavioral pattern as a determinant of maternal punitiveness. Child Development. 50. 815-820. Mulhern, R. K., & Passman, R. H. (1981). Parental discipline as affected by the sex of the parent, the sex of the child, and the child's apparent responsiveness to discipline. Developmental Psychology. 17. 604-613. 66 Nelson, C. A., Morse, P., & Leavitt, L. A. (1929). Recognition of facial expressions by seven-month-old infants. Child Development. 50. 1239-1242. Odom, R., & Lemond, C. (1972). Developmental differences in the perception of facial expressions. Child Development. 43, 359-369. Panyan, M. C , & Friedman, R. M. (1976). Naturalistic observations of abusive families. Paper presented at the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York. Parke, R. D., & Collner, C. W. (1975). Child abuse: An interdisciplinary analysis. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) Review of Child Development Research. 5. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Passman, R. H., & Blackwelder, D. E. (1981). Rewarding and punishing by mothers: The influence of progressive changes in the quality of their sons' apparent behavior. Developmental Psychology. 17, 614-619. Reidy. T. J . , Anderegg, T. R., Tracy, R. J . , & Cotler, S. (1980). Abused and neglected children: The cognitive, social, and behavioral correlates. In G. J. Williams & J. Money (Eds.), Traumatic abuse and neglect of children at home. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Rickard, K. M., Graziano, W., & Forehand, R. (1984). Parental expectations and childhood deviance in clinic-referred and non-clinic children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 13, 179-186. Robison, E., & Solomon, F. (1979). Some further findings on the treatment of the mother-child dyad in child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect. 3, 247-251. Rosenberg, M. S., & Reppucci, N. D. (1983). Abusive mothers: Perceptions of their own and their children's behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51, 674-682. Rothenberg, B. (1970). Children's social sensitivity and the relationship to interpersonal competence, intrapersonal comfort, and intellectual level. Developmental Psychology, 2, 335-350. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 39, 1161-1178. Russell, J. A., & Ridgeway, D. (1983). Dimensions underlying children's emotion concepts. Developmental Psychology. 17, 795-804. Salzinger, S., Kaplan, S., & Artemyeff, C. (1983). Mothers' personal social networks and child maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 92. 68-76. Sandler, J . , Van Dercar, C , & Milhoan, M. (1978). Training child abusers in the use of positive reinforcement practices. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 16. 169-175. Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities (2nd ed.) (p. 283). Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. Schlosberg, H. (1952). The description of facial expressions in terms of two dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 44. 229-237. Silver, L. B., Dublin, C. C , & Lourie, R. S. (1969). Does violence breed violence? Contributions from a study of the child abuse syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry. 126, 404. Skeels, H. M., & Fillmore, E. A. (1937). The mental development of children from underprivileged homes. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 50, 421-439. Smith, S. M., & Hanson, R. (1975). Interpersonal relationships and child-rearing practices in 214 parents of battered children. British Journal of Psychiatry. 127. 513-525. Spinetta, J. J. (1978). Parental personality factors in child abuse. Journal of  Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 46, 1409-1414. Spinetta, J. J., & Rigler, D. (1972). The child-abusing parent: A psychological review. Psychological Bulletin. 77, 296-304. Starr, R. H., & Dietrich, K. N. (1979, March). Child abuse prediction and parent-child interaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco. Steele, B., & Pollock, C. (1968). A psychiatric study of parents who abuse infants and small children. In R. Heifer & C. H. Kempe (Eds.), The battered child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Straus, M. A. (1979). Family patterns and child abuse in a nationally representative American sample. International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect. 3, 213-225. Thompson, J. (1941). Development of facial expression of emotion in blind and seeing children. Archives of Psychology. 37. 264. Twentyman, C. T., & Plotkin, R. C. (1982). Unrealistic expectations of parents who maltreat their children: An educational deficit that pertains to child development. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 38, 497-503. Twentyman, C. T., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Amish, P. L. (1979). A cognitive-behavioral reformulation of the role-reversal process. Rochester: University of Rochester Press. Vasta, R. (1982). Physical child abuse: A dual-component analysis. Developmental  Review, 2, 125-149. Vosk, B. N., Forehand, R., & Figueroa, R. (1983). Perception of emotions by accepted and rejected children. Journal of Behavioral Assessment. 5, 151-160. Walden, T. A., & Field, T. M. (1982). Discrimination of facial expression by preschool children. Child Development. 53. 1312-1319. Wasserman, S. (1967). The abused parent of the abused child. Children. 14, 175-179. 69 Wolfe, D. A. (1985). Prevention of child abuse through the development of parent and child competencies. In R. J. McMahon & R. DeV. Peters (Eds.), Childhood Disorders: Behavioral-developmental approaches (pp. 195-217). New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc. Wolfe, D. A., & Mosk, M. D. (1983). Behavioral comparisons of children from abusive and distressed families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 51, 702-708. Yarczower, M., & Daruns, L. (1982). Social inhibition of spontaneous facial expressions in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43. 831-837. Zabel, R. H. (1979). Recognition of emotions in facial expressions by emotionally disturbed and nondisturbed children. Psychology in the Schools. 16, 119-126. Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43, 111-122. Zuckerman, M., Lipets, M., Koivukamki, J., & Rosenthal, R. (1975). Encoding and decoding nonverbal cues of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32, 1068-1076. Zuckerman, M., & Przewuzman, S. J. (1979). Decoding and encoding facial expressions in preschool-age children. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Psychology. 3, 147-163.. 70 Appendices 71 Appendix A Advertisement for subjects Appendix B Child Abuse Potential Inventory C A P I N V E N T O R Y F O R M Joel S Milnei 0 CooyiKjht. Mav 1977 Printed m (he united Stales Date: Marital Status: Sin Mar Sep I Name: Highest Grade Completed: Number < Age: Sex: Male Female Age of Children: 74 INSTRUCTIONS: The following quest ionnaire inc ludes a series of statements which may be appl ied to yourself . Read each of the statements and determine if you A G R E E or DISAGREE with the statement. If you agree with a state-ment, circle A for agree. If you disagree with a statement, circle OA for disagree. Remember to read e a c h statement; it is important not to skip any statement. • O O O 1. I like to be alone A DA 2. I enjoy having pets A DA 3. I have always been strong and healthy A D A 4. The church is responsible for teaching a child right from wrong A D A 5. I am a con fused person A D A 6. I do not trust most people A D A 7. People expect too much from me A DA 8. Chi ldren should never be bad A D A 9. I am often mixed up A D A 10. Spanking that only bruises a child is okay A D A 11. My family has emotional problems A D A 12. I somet imes act without thinking A D A 13. You cannot depend on others A D A 14. I am a happy person A D A 15. Otf terpeople have caused me to be unhappy A D A 16. Teenage girls need to be protected A D A 17. I am often angry inside A D A 18. S o m e t i m e s I feel all alone in the world — A D A 19. Everything in a home should always be in its p lace A D A 20. I somet imes worry that I cannot meet the needs of a chi ld A D A 21. I a lways know what is right and wrong A D A 22. I often feel rejected A D A 23. I am often lonely inside A D A 24. Little boys should never learn s issy games A D A 25. I often feel very frustrated A D A • O O O 75 0«00 26. Children should never disobey A DA 27. I love all children A DA 28. Sometimes I fear that I will lose control of myself A DA 29. I sometimes wish that my father would have loved me more A DA 30. I have a child who Is clumsy A DA 31. I am not very attractive A DA 32. My telephone number is unlisted A DA 33. The birth of a child will usually cause problems in a marriage A DA 34. I am always a good person A DA 35. I never worry about my health A DA 36. I sometimes worry that I will not have enough to eat A DA 37. I have never wanted to hurt someone else A DA 38. I am an unlucky person A DA 39. I am usually a quiet person A DA 40. Children should never be spoiled A DA 41. Things have usually gone against me in life A DA 42. Picking up a baby whenever he cries spoils him A DA 43. My parents did not really want me A DA 44. I never lose my temper A DA 45. I have a child who is bad A DA 46. I always think of others first A DA 47. I sometimes feel worthless A DA 48. My parents did not really care about me A DA 49. I am sometimes very sad A DA 50. Children are really little adults A DA 51. I have a child who breaks things A DA 52. I often feel worried A DA 53. It is okay to let a child stay in dirty diapers for a while A DA 54. A child should never talk back A DA 55. Sometimes my behavior is childish A DA 56. I am often easily upset A DA 57. Sometimes I have bad thoughts A DA 58. People sometimes mix me up A DA 59. A crying child will never be happy A DA 60. I have never hated another person A DA 61. People must not spoil children A DA 62. I always do what is right A OA 63. I am often worried inside A DA 64. I have a child who is sick a lot A DA 65. Sometimes I do not like the way I act T. r; A DA 66. I keep all of my promises A DA 67. People have caused me a lot of pain A DA 68. Children should stay clean A DA 69. I have a child who gets into trouble a lot A DA 70. I never get mad at others A DA 0^00 ! oo«66 71. I always get along with others A OA 72. It is sometimes frightening to be responsible for the development of a child A DA 73. I find it hard to relax A DA 74. These days a person doesn't really know on whom one can count A OA 75. My life is happy A DA 76. I have a physical handicap A DA 77. Children should have play clothes and good clothes A DA 78. Other people do not understand how I feel A DA 79. A five year old who wets his bed is bad A DA 80. Children should be quiet and listen A DA 81. I have several close friends in my neighborhood A DA 82. The school is primarily responsible for educating the child A DA 83. My family fights a lot A DA 84. I have headaches A DA 85. As a child I was abused A DA 86. Spanking is the best punishment A DA 87. I do not like to be touched by others A DA 88. People who ask for help are weak A DA 89. Children should be washed before bed A DA 90. I do not laugh very much A DA 91. Sometimes I behave like a child A DA 92. People should take care of their own needs A DA 93. I have fears no one knows about A DA 94. My family has problems getting along A DA 95. Life often seems useless to me A DA 96. A child should be potty trained by the time he's one year old A DA 97. A child in a mud puddle is a happy sight A DA 98. People do not understand me A DA 99. I often feel worthless A DA 100. Other people have made my life unhappy A DA 101. I am always a kind person A DA 102. Sometimes I do not know why I act as I do A DA 103. I have many personal problems A DA 104. I have a child who often hurts himself A DA 105. I often feel very upset A DA 106. People never take advantage of me A DA 107. My life is good rr A DA 108. A home should be spotless A DA 109. I am easily upset by my problems A DA 110. I never listen to gossip.. .."i .7 A DA 111. My parents did not understand me A DA 112. Many things in life make me angry A DA 113. My child has special problems A DA 114. I like all children A DA 115. Children should be seen and not heard A DA 00«0 ] 77 OOO* 116. Most chi ldren are alike A DA 117. Chi ldren should not cry A DA 118. I am often depressed A DA 119. Chi ldren should be thoughtful of their parents A DA 120. I am often upset A DA 121. Few people have as many problems as I do A DA 122. A g o o d chi ld keeps his toys and clothes neat and orderly A DA 123. Ch i ldren should always make their parents happy A DA 124. It is natural for a chi ld to somet imes talk back A DA 125. I a m never unfair to others A DA 126. Occas iona l ly , I enjoy not having to take care of my child A DA 127. Chi ldren should always be neat A DA 128. I have a chi ld who is slow A DA 129. A parent must use punishment if he wants to control a chi ld 's behavior A DA 130. Chi ldren should never cause trouble A DA 131. It is normal for a child to somet imes disobey A DA 132. A chi ld needs very strict rules A DA 133. Chi ldren should never go against their parents'orders A DA 134. I often feel better than others A DA 135. Chi ldren somet imes get on my nerves A DA 136. A s a ch i ld I was often afraid A D A 137. Chi ldren should always be quiet and polite A DA 138. I am often upset and do not know why A D A 139. I somet imes fear that I may spoi l my child A DA 140. I somet imes fear that my chi ldren will not love me A DA 141. I have a good sex life A DA 142. I have read articles and books on child rearing A D A 143. I often feel very alone A DA 144. Peop le should not show anger A D A 145. I often feel alone A DA 146. I never say bad words A D A 147. Right now, I am deeply in love A DA 148. My family has many problems A DA 149. I never do anything that is bad for my health A DA 150. I am always happy with what I have A D A 151. Other people have made my life hard •> A DA 152. I laugh s o m e a l m o s t every day A D A 153. I somet i m e s worry that my needs will not be met A D A 154. I often feel afraid ? . T: A DA 155. I never act silly A D A 156. A person should keep his bus iness to himself A D A 157. I never raise my voice in anger A DA 158. As a ch i ld I was knocked around by my parents A DA 159. I somet i m e s think of myself before others A DA 160. I a lways tell the truth A DA 000« Appendix C Revised Child Behavior Profile i ! a , x : « a z' z[ s ' » ' 3. j . - i a s x i s 3 | 3 - 3 , 3 . 3 3 ' - 3 S; r ; ~' r < r ' r S - 2 - 8,= 2 - 3 C 3 - S £ *;» 3 e * i . 3 t S ft' - , « : a a . * i a : » 5 3 3 r ~ s , = s . ; ;'s::;;s:=" r = . r ' = :s.3 3 * z.c i ' - i . s - s i J B i E l E = c C:R:= SIS.S t ; ; 3 a = S » » 3 3 ' 3 ) 3 : 3 i s z c r 8 s s = s 1 J 1 = ! a , R : i 7 ^ » i 3 4 5 t ; s : S : 5 , S ! 3 t , a ; 5 . = . 5 ' 3 . 3 * t 3 3 ' Si S: =: =• = : C j * 1 = ' S f S : = ' 3 ' S 3 I S 3: S: 31 5: * | s ; S ! 3 ! a : S, * ; 3" S: 8 • j . i , i : ' = i ' ; JE . : c ! ~ | R i = ; : s i « ; = ; i t ! : ^ : ; - ' s : 3 : x ] s : a ; 3 ! » : 3 ; s i 3 ' ; i f f | r i S i r i s i « i s i s : J S ! » i ? ' I J If J > i J i j 3 4 J J J iliiIiiiliilliHiiifiiiiiiilsiiii! , 1 : : ; ; J ; : : : ; : i t : t ; 8 : i i : ! ! • ' : I 1 ! j : 1 , i : ' 1 i . 11 ~! 8 £ X 2 3 S |I 11111 I I I|II II | I I I I 11 11 I | I I I I £ 3, IS" o o E — O o ^ - J 2 «L> =K = a -11 I I 11 11 I | I I I I | 1111 11 i i i I 11 i i I I I 11 I i i i i I i i 11 111 i i 11 11 I I i n i I i i s I i i l l i l l l i i j l l J • i llll! i ! !! i l l l i l l l l l l l i l in ?fsIrf||f S 5 » 1*111x11 - s S 3 = 2 ? -iSij.«j« s*5*5 *1 ill ,jl I|| 'Mi l ium U i i j l J ^ l i i j h ' - i f f h hjJijfillffHjlaVUlljjjif IIIIII i f a s s * tluc]| |iuuon I I I 2 f s i i i ! Appendix D Child Behavior Checklist VIII. Below is a list of items that describe children. For each item that describes your child now or within the past 6 month*, please circle the 2 if the item is very true or often true of your child. Circle the 1 if the item is somewhat or sometimes true of your child. If the item is not true of your child, circle the 0. Please answer all items as well as you can. even if some do not seem to apply to your child. 0 = Not True (as far as you know) 1 = Somewhat or Sometimes True 2 = Very True or Often True 0 1 2 1. Acts too young for his/her age 16 0 1 2 31. Fears he/she might think or do something 0 1 2 2. Allprgy (describe): bad 0 1 2 32. Feels he/she has to be perfect 0 1 2 33. Feels or complains that no one loves him/her 0 1 2 3. Argues a lot 0 1 2 4. Asthma 0 1 2 34. Feels others are out to get him/her 0 1 2 35. Feels worthless or inferior 50 0 1 2 5. Behaves like opposite sex 20 36. Gets hurt a lot, accident-prone 0 1 2 6. Bowel movements outside toilet 0 1 2 0 1 2 37. Gets in many fights 0 1 2 7. Bragging, boasting 0 1 2 38. Gets teased a lot 0 1 2 8. Can't concentrate, can't pay attention for long 0 1 2 39. Hangs around with children who get in trouble 0 1 2 9. Can't get his/her mind off certain thoughts; ohspssinns frlpsr.rihe): 0 1 2 40. Hears things that aren't there (describe): 0 1 2 10. Can't sit still, restless, or hyperactive 25 55 0 1 2 41. Impulsive or acts without thinking 0 1 2 11. Clings to adults or too dependent 0 1 2 12. Complains of loneliness 0 1 2 42. Likes to be alone 0 1 2 43. Lying or cheating 0 1 2 13. Confused or seems to be in a fog 0 1 2 14. Cries a lot 0 1 2 44. Bites fingernails 0 1 2 45. Nervous, highstrung, or tense 60 0 1 2 15. Cruel to animals 30 0 1 2 16. Cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others 0 1 2 46. Nervous movements or twitching (describe): 0 1 2 17. Day-dreams or gets lost in his/her thoughts 0 1 2 18. Deliberately harms self or attempts suicide 0 1 2 47. Nightmares 0 1 2 19. Demands a lot of attention 0 1 2 48. Not liked by other children 0 1 2 20. Destroys his/her own things 35 0 1 2 49. Constipated, doesn't move bowels 0 1 2 21. Destroys things belonging to his/her family 0 1 2 50. Too fearful or anxious 65 or other children 0 1 2 51. Feels dizzy 0 1 2 22. Disobedient at home 0 1 2 52. Feels too guilty 0 1 2 23. Disobedient at school 0 1 2 53. Overeating 0 1 2 24. Doesn't eat well 0 1 2 54. Overtired 0- -1 2 25. Doesn't get along with other children 40 0 1 2 55. Overweight 70 0 1 2 26. Doesn't seem to feel guiTfy after misbehaving 56. Physical problems without known medical 0 1 2 27. Easily jealous cause: 0 1 2 28. Eats or drinks things that are not food 0 rt 1 4 2 9 a. Aches or pains (r iRsrr ih f i ) - u 0 1 1 4. 2 c. Nausea, feels sick 0 1 2 d. Problems with eyes (describe): 0 1 2 29. Fears certain animals, situations, or places, 0 1 2 e. Rashes or other skin problems 75 nther than school (describe): 0 1 2 f. Stomachaches or cramps 0 1 2 g. Vomiting, throwing up o 1 2 h Othnr (rlnsrrihe)-0 1 2 30. Fears going to school 45 Please see other side PAGE 3 0 = Not True (as far as you know) t = Somewhat or S o m e t i m e s True 2 = Very True or Of ten True 82 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Physically attacks people Picks nose, skin, or other parts of body (describe): 67. Runs away from home 68. Screams a lot 69. Secretive, keeps things to self 70. Sees things that aren't there (describe): 71. Self-conscious or easily embarrassed 72. Sets fires 73. Sexual problems (describe): 80 Plays with own sex parts in public 16 Plays with own sex parts too much Poor school work Poorly coordinated or clumsy Prefers playing with older children 20 Prefers playing with younger children Refuses to talk Repeats certain acts over and oven compulsions (describe): 25 30 74. Showing off or clowning 75. Shy or timid 76. Sleeps less than most children 77. Sleeps more than most children during day and/or night (describe): 78. Smears or plays with bowel movements 35 79. Speech problem (describe): 80. Stares blankly 81. Steals at home 82. Steals outside the home 83. Stores up things he/she doesn't need (describe): 40 1 84. Strange behavior (describe): 0 1 0 1 85. Strange ideas (describe): 0 1 2 86. Stubborn, sullen, or irritable 2 87. Sudden changes in mood or feelings 2 88. Sulks a lot 2 89. Suspicious 2 90. Swearing or obscene language 2 91. Talks about killing self 2 92. Talks or walks in sleep (describe): 2 93. Talks too much 2 94. Teases a lot 2 95. Temper tantrums or hot temper 2 96. Thinks about sex too much 2 97. Threatens people 2 98. Thumb-sucking 45 50 55 2 99. Too concerned with neatness or cleanliness 2 100. Trouble sleeping (describe): 2 101. Truancy, skips school 2 102. Underactive, slow moving, or lacks energy 2 103. Unhappy, sad, or depressed 2 104. Unusually loud 60 0 1 2 105. Uses alcohol or drugs (describe): 1 2 106. Vandalism 65 2 107. Wets self during the day 2 108. Wets the bed 2 109. Whining ' 2 110. Wishes to be of opposite sex 2 111. Withdrawn, doesn't get involved with others 2 112. Worrying 113. Please write in any problems your child has that were not listed above: 2 _70 2 2 PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL ITEMS. UNDERLINE ANY YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. Appendix E Child Development Questionnaire 02l9z Chi ld Development Questionnaire 8 4 L i s t e d below are descr ip t ions of c h i l d behavior. Please read each item c a r e f u l l y and decide at what age you think a c h i l d is most l i k e l y to f i r s t show th is a b i l i t y . Although there is considerable v a r i a b i l i t y among ch i ldren and even wi th in an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d , we would l i k e you to think of the average or most cotnmori age at which these behaviors appear c o n s i s t e n t l y . For each item, please drav an "X" through the age range at which you think i t genera l ly occurs on the age scale to the r ight nt the item. For example: The c h i l d r ides a t r i c y c l e . 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . Please complete a l l i*:ems. 1. The c h i l d indicates what 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 they want ( e .g . food or dr ink) with one s p e c i f i c word. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . 2. The c h i l d does up and 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 undoes buttons. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . yr s . y r s . yrs 3. The c h i l d shows a p r e f e r - 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 ence for using e i ther t h e i r r igh t or le f t hand. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 4. The c h i l d drinks from a cup 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 with h e l p . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 5. The c h i l d pr in ts the i r 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 f i r s t name. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 6. The c h i l d waves bye-bye. 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 7. The c h i l d walks up s t a i r s 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 without ass is tance . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 8. The c h i l d cuts with s c i s s o r s . 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. NOS . mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 9. The c h i l d follows objects 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 with t h e i r - e y e s . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 10. The ch i ld" feeds themselves 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 a c racker . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 11. The c h i l d t e l l s the i r age 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 when asked. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 12. The c h i l d ra ises themselves 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 to a crawling p o s i t i o n . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 85 Page 2 13. The c h i l d knows r ight 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 from l e f t . mos. mos. mos. mos . yr s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . 14. The c h i l d stays dry a l l 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 n i g h t . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs-15. The c h i l d eats s o l i d 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 foods. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y rs . 16. The c h i l d s i t s without 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 support . mos. mos. mos . mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs • yrs . 17. The c h i l d r o l l s over when 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 l y i n g on t h e i r stomach. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs . 18. The c h i l d feeds themselves 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 with a spoon. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . yr s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y rs , 19. The c h i l d walks without 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 ho ld ing on. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 20. The c h i l d plays pattycake. 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 21. The c h i l d uses a knife to 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 cut thei r meat. mos. mos. mos . mos . y r s . y r s . yr s . y r s . y r s . yrs 22. The c h i l d t ies shoelaces. 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. yr s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 23. The c h i l d catches a b a l l 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 bounced to them. mos . mos . mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 24. The c h i l d puts t h e i r shoes 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 on the correct f ee t . mos. mos. mos. mos. yr s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 25. The c h i l d understands 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 times of the day, ( e .g . mos. mos. "~mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs morning or evening) . 26. The c h i l d goes about the 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 neighbourhood on the i r own. mos. mos • mos. y r s . v r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 27. The c h i l d understands 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 whether they are a boy mos. mos .~~ mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs or a g i r l . 28. The c h i l d c o r r e c t l y names 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 pennies , n i c k l e s , dimes, mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs e t c . 86 Page 3 29. The c h i l d unwraps gum or 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-3 candy before ea t ing i t . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y rs . 30. The c h i l d separates from 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 t h e i r mother without a fuss . mos. mos. mos. mos y r s . y r s . v r s . y r s . y r s . y rs , 31. The c h i l d t e l l s jokes or 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 r i d d l e s . mos. mos. mos. mos . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs . 32. The c h i l d names the days 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 of the week. mos . mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 33. The c h i l d fo l lows simple 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 ins truct ions . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . yrs • y r s . y r s . yrs 34. The c h i l d asks to go to 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 the t o i l e t . mos. mos. mos. mos. yr s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 35. The c h i l d uses u t e n s i l s or 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 tools in the way for which mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs they were intended (e .g . cooking or c o n s t r u c t i o n ) . 36. The c h i l d hops on one foot . 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 37. The c h i l d r ides a b i c y c l e . 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 38. The c h i l d sleeps through 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 the night without waking. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 39. The c h i l d c o r r e c t l y names 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 c o l o r s . mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs 40. The c h i l d gives the i r f u l l 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 name when asked. mos. mos. mos. mos. y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . y r s . yrs Page 4 87 Please read the fol lowing items and c i r c l e T i f you fee l the statement i s true or F i f you fee l the statement is f a l s e . 1. What c h i l d r e n are born with plays a minor role in development. T F Environment i s most important. 2. A c h i l d ' s persona l i ty is completely determined by the time they T F are four years o l d . 3. Ch i ld ren inf luence their parents almost as much as parents in f luence T F t h e i r c h i l d r e n . 4. Most of the behavior di f ferences between boys and g i r l s are a funct ion T F of b i o l o g i c a l d i f ferences between the sexes. 5. Experience w i l l have very l i t t l e ef fect on when a c h i l d f i r s t walks. T F Maturat ion i s most important. 6. Ch i ldren learn to speak through l i s t e n i n g to o thers , imi ta t ion and T F c o r r e c t i o n by t h e i r parents. 7. Ch i ld ren know the di f ferences between r ight and wrong by the time T F they are two years o ld . 8. In genera l , boys have more developmental problems than g i r l s T F 9. Punishment is most e f fec t ive when i t is given qu ick ly and without T F exp lana t ion . 10. The i n t e l l i g e n c e of a ch i ld is related to how i n t e l l i g e n t h is mother i s . T F 0219z Appendix F Consent Form Appendix G Demographic Information Form DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FORM 91 We would like to learn more about the participants in this study. Please help by answering the following questions. 1. What are the ages and sex of your children? Sex Birthdate (Include year of birth) 2. What is your current marital status? (Check) single divorced widowed married/long term relationship separated 3. What is your age? 4. What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Check) Grade School High School College University Graduate School 5. What is your occupation? 6. Who is the major wage earner of your household? IF SELF, OMIT QUESTIONS 7 and 8 7. What is the occupation of the major wage earner in your household? 8. What is the highest level of education completed by the major wage earner? Grade School High School College University Graduate School 92 Appendix H Description of Faces Form 0025P 93 Description of Faces Please examine the face in the photograph carefully. Look for the feeling that is expressed there. Below is a l i s t of words that can be used to describe feelings. We would like you to rate how accurately each word below describes the feeling you see in the photograph. Please use the following 1-8 rating scale for your answer. (You are not restricted in any way in how you use the scale—whatever you think is most apropriate). 1 = extremely inaccurate 5 = slightly accurate 2 = very inaccurate 6 = quite accurate 3 = quite inaccurate 7 = very accurate 4 = slightly inaccurate 8 = extremely accurate angry sad excited sleepy calm surprised afraid happy disgusted bored Appendix I Repeated Measures Analyses of Variance 95 Emotional Recognition Scores: Children's Data Source ms £ Between Factors Group 18.25 10.41 .002** Age Group 14.08 8.03 .007** Group x Age Group 1.74 00.9.9 .325 Within Factors Stimuli Type 4.48 4.11 .049* Group x Stimuli Type 00.25 00.23 .633 Age Group x Stimuli Type 00.25 00.23 .633 Group x Age Group 00.31 00.28 .596 x Stimuli Type a d f =1, 42. *p_ .05. **p_ .01. Emotional Recognition Scores: Mothers' Data Source ms F a Between Factors G r o u P 2.78 2.19 .146 Within Factors Stimuli Type 0.39 1.49 .229 Group x Stimuli Type 0.04 0.17 .686 a d f = 1,44. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096946/manifest

Comment

Related Items