UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Interpersonal functional flexibility : an antecedent of authoritative parenting? Van Oeveren, Margaret Ann 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 V36.pdf [ 4.87MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097811.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097811-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097811-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097811-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097811-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097811-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097811-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097811-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097811.ris

Full Text

INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONAL FLEXIBILITY: AN ANTECEDENT OF AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING? By MARGARET ANN VAN OEVEREN B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D i v i s i o n of Family Sciences School of Family and N u t r i t i o n a l Sciences We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1988 © Margaret Ann Van Oeveren, 1988 In p r e s e n t i n g this thesis in partial f u l f i lmen t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r an advanced d e g r e e at the Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that t h e Library shall make it f ree ly available f o r re ference and s tudy . I f u r the r agree that pe rmiss ion f o r ex tens ive c o p y i n g o f th is thesis f o r scholar ly pu rposes may be g ran ted by the head o f m y d e p a r t m e n t o r b y his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is thesis fo r f inancial gain shall n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n pe rm iss ion . D e p a r t m e n t o f F a m i l y S t u d i e s The Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a Vancouver , Canada D a t e Sppt.PinhPr ?S , 1QBB DE-6 (2/88) Abstract It has been asserted that androgynous individuals are both competent and f l e x i b l e and that, as such, they should be most l i k e l y to be authoritative parents (highly demanding/highly responsive)(Spence & Helmreich, 1978). However, studies examining the association between psychological androgyny and t h i s optimal parenting strategy ( Baumrind, 1982; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) have reached c o n f l i c t i n g conclusions. The position taken in t h i s study i s that there i s a l o g i c a l association between androgyny and authoritative parenting at the construct l e v e l , but that the component of androgyny c r i t i c a l to th i s link i s functional f l e x i b i l i t y (the a b i l i t y to appropriately deploy both masculine and feminine attributes across multi-interpersonal domains) rather than the simple possession of both masculine and feminine t r a i t s per se. In view of t h i s argument, e a r l i e r studies share a s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n . Their operational d e f i n i t i o n s of androgyny f a i l to r e f l e c t the functional f l e x i b i l i t y aspect of the construct d e f i n i t i o n , thus allowing individuals who possess both masculine and feminine t r a i t s but who are not functionally f l e x i b l e to be c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous. This study had two objectives. The f i r s t was to retest Spence and Helmreich's (1978) hypothesis i i that androgyny i s p o s i t i v e l y related to authoritative parenting using a measure which would assess functional f l e x i b i l i t y . The second objective was to demonstrate that authoritative parenting requires f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to a whole range of interpersonal a b i l i t i e s rather than simply masculine and feminine a t t r i b u t e s . A sample of 96 mothers with children between the ages of 7 and 12 were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires which included Bern's (1974) Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), Paulhus and Martin's (1987) Battery of Interpersonal C a p a b i l i t i e s (BIC), and the Block (1965) Childrearing Practices Report: Q-Sort (CRPR). Contrary to what was expected, neither androgyny nor f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to the whole range of interpersonal attributes was p o s i t i v e l y associated with authoritative parenting. Certain problems with the content of the parenting measure may have contributed to the lack of association. To minimize some of the problems with i t s content the method of using the parenting Q-sort was revised. The new analyses involved categorizing mothers according to warmth and demandingness--a method similar to that used in e a r l i e r studies. In these further analyses few s i g n i f i c a n t differences in parenting style were found between androgynous mothers and other mothers. The most notable difference arose when the sex of the c h i l d was considered. Although, o v e r a l l , androgynous mothers were not more l i k e l y to be bad parents, they were more l i k e l y than other mothers to be permissive with their sons. i v Table of Contents Page Abstract i i Table of Contents v L i s t of Tables v i i Acknowledgements ix Introduction ; 1 Androgyny and Authoritative Parenting 4 Functional F l e x i b i l i t y and Authoritative Parenting .... 7 The Measurement of Interpersonal Functional F l e x i b i l i t y 13 The Problem 14 Method 16 Subjects 16 Procedure 16 Measures 17 Personal history and demographic data 17 The BSRI 18 The BIC 22 The CRPR 26 Results and Discussion 29 Sample Characteristics 29 Functional F l e x i b i l i t y and Authoritative Parenting .... 31 v The Independent Measures 35 The Dependent Measure 38 Fa c t o r A n a l y s i s of the P a r e n t i n g Q-Sort 41 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between the P a r e n t i n g F a c t o r Indexes and the Independent V a r i a b l e s 43 Androgyny as a P r e d i c t o r of A u t h o r i t a t i v e P a r e n t i n g Using Baumrind's P a r e n t i n g S t y l e C a t e g o r i e s 47 The BSRI index of androgyny and a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g 49 The c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny and a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g 52 Comparison of the three s e t s of r e s u l t s 54 Socioeconomic Status and A u t h o r i t a t i v e P a r e n t i n g 56 Co n c l u s i o n 57 Footnotes 62 References 64 Tables .. 68 Appendixes 89 v i L i s t of Tables Page Table 1. Demographic Correlates of Authoritative Parenting . 68 Table 2. Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for Model 1 69 Table 3. Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for Model 2 70 Table 4. Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for Model 3 71 Table 5. Regression Coe f f i c i e n t s for Model 4 72 Table 6. Regression Coe f f i c i e n t s for Model 5 73 Table 7. Items for Factor 1 with Factor Loadings. Responsiveness.... 74 Table 8. Items for Factor 2 with Factor Loadings. Neuroticism 76 Table 9. Items for Factor 3 with Factor Loadings. Demandingness 78 Table 10. Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor Indexes for the Total Sample 79 Table 11. Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor Indexes for Mothers of G i r l s 80 Table 12. Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor Indexes for Mothers of Boys 81 Table 13. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by BSRI Types for the Total Sample 82 v i i Table 14. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by BSRI Types for Mothers of G i r l s 83 Table 15. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by BSRI Types for Mothers of Boys 84 Table 16. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for the Total Sample 85 Table 17. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for Mothers of G i r l s 86 Table 18. Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for Mothers of Boys 87 Table 19. Correlations Between the Demographic Variables and the Parenting Factor Indexes 88 v i i i Acknowledgement I would l i k e to express my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to the members of my t h e s i s committee, Dr. C a r o l M a r t i n , Dr. Roy Rodgers, Dr. Jim White, and Dr. J e r r y Wiggins f o r t h e i r guidance throughout the completion of t h i s t h e s i s . ix Parenting style has been c i t e d as a major contributing factor in children's attainment of s o c i a l competency (Baumrind, 1966). Children's s o c i a l behavior varies primarily along two dimensions: 1) their propensity for responsible versus s o c i a l l y disruptive behavior, and 2) their tendency towards active versus passive behavior. Furthermore, these two dimensions are independent of one another. Within the context of North American culture, the competent c h i l d is generally defined as one who i s s o c i a l l y responsible (accomodating towards s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ) and yet active (self assertive and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ) (Baumrind, 1971). Baumrind (1967) has argued that parenting styles d i f f e r on four dimensions: (a) parental control, (b) maturity demands, (c) parent-child communication, and (d) nurturance; and tend to clu s t e r into or near three t y p i c a l patterns which are termed: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. Of course no parent f i t s a given pattern a l l of the time. The categories simply r e f l e c t dominant patterns. Parents who f i t the authoritarian c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are l i k e l y to attempt to shape, control, and evaluate the behavior and attitudes of their children in accordance with a set standard of conduct. They favor punitive, fo r c e f u l measures to curb their 1 children's self w i l l and believe in keeping their children in their place, thus r e s t r i c t i n g their autonomy. They value obedience, work, and the preservation of order and t r a d i t i o n a l structure. They discourage verbal give and take and are sometimes unresponsive to the point of rejecting their children (Baumrind, 1966). Parents who f i t the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of authoritative attempt to di r e c t their children in a r a t i o n a l , issue-oriented manner. They encourage verbal give and take, share with their children the reasoning behind their p o l i c i e s , and s o l i c i t their objections when they refuse to conform. They value autonomous self w i l l and d i s c i p l i n e d conformity. Firm control i s exercised at points of parent-child divergence but their children are not hemmed in by r e s t r i c t i o n s . They expect their children to conform to adult requirements but also to be independent and self d i r e c t i n g (Baumrind, 1966). Permissive parents are l i k e l y to behave in a nonpunitive, acceptant, and affirmative manner towards their children. They make few demands for household r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and orderly behavior, and allow their children to regulate their own a c t i v i t i e s as much as possible. They avoid the exercise of control and do not encourage their children to obey externally defined standards. They view themselves as a resource for their 2 children to use as they wish rather than as a c o n t r o l l i n g agent responsible for shaping their present or future behavior (Baumrind, 1966). The children of authoritarian and permissive parents exhibit less s o c i a l competency than children of authoritative parents (Baumrind, 1966). Despite their very d i f f e r e n t approaches to parenting, both authoritarian and permissive parents sh i e l d the c h i l d from the "opportunity to engage in vigorous interaction with people. Demands which cannot be met or no demands, suppression of c o n f l i c t or sidestepping of c o n f l i c t , refusal to help or too much help, u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y high or low standards, a l l may curb or understimulate the c h i l d so that he f a i l s to achieve the knowledge and experience which could r e a l i s t i c a l l y reduce his dependence upon the outside world..." (Baumrind, 1966, p.904). To learn how to express dissension and/or aggression in a self serving but prosocial manner, children require a strongly held position from which they are allowed to diverge when i t i s s o c i a l l y appropriate to do so (Baumrind, 1966) . It is authoritative parents who appear to have the most s o c i a l l y competent children. They balance high levels of warmth with high l e v e l s of control, and high lev e l s of demandingness with clear communication about what i s required of the c h i l d and 3 why. They exercise firm control over the actions of their children, yet engage in independence tr a i n i n g and do not reward dependency (Baumrind, 1966, 1971, 1982). Baumrind argues that through their tempering of control with warmth and communication, and their c a p a b i l i t y for compromising standards when s i t u a t i o n a l l y appropriate, these parents foster within their children both a sense of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and independence. Androgyny and Authoritative Parenting Given existing support for the position that authoritative parenting i s most f a c i l i t a t i v e of s o c i a l competency in children, the question a r i s e s : What, then, are the antecedents of this optimal parenting strategy? In a study designed to assess the association between parental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the s o c i a l i z a t i o n techniques employed by parents, Spence and Helmreich (1978) proposed, and found support for, a positive association between androgyny and authoritative parenting. Androgyny, as operationally defined, i s the equally high endorsement of both masculine and feminine personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Bern, 1981). Consistent with t h i s , Spence and Helmreich claim that androgynous parents are l i k e l y to be warmer and more accepting of their c h i l d than those who are r e l a t i v e l y 4 l a c k i n g i n feminine, e x p r e s s i v e a t t r i b u t e s ; but that at the same time they are l i k e l y to impose r e l a t i v e l y high demands on t h e i r c h i l d , e x p e c t i n g him (or her) both to develop the same l e v e l of i n s t r u m e n t a l competence that they e x h i b i t and to defer to them, the parent, as an autonomous, powerful a d u l t . In support of t h e i r argument Spence and Helmreich (1978) found that couples i n which both p a r t n e r s were androgynous or i n which one member was androgynous and the other feminine tended to be a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t s . Masculine-androgynous and masculine-feminine couples d i s p l a y e d behavior ranging between a u t h o r i t a t i v e and a u t h o r i t a r i a n . Baumrind (1982), using data from her f a m i l y s o c i a l i z a t i o n and developmental competence p r o j e c t , r e t e s t e d the hypothesis that androgyny i s p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g . Her s u s p i c i o n was that androgynous i n d i v i d u a l s would f a i l to enact the f l e x i b i l i t y which they c l a i m to possess. Indeed, she found that androgynous parents f a i l e d to be a g e n t i c (firm) even though they endorsed a g e n t i c as w e l l as communal v a l u e s . I t was sex-typed parents who more c l o s e l y matched the a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a t t e r n . Baumrind found that androgynous couples were " c h i l d c e n t e r e d " r ather than a u t h o r i t a t i v e . They tended to be e i t h e r democratic (high r e s p o n s i v e , medium demanding) or 5 permissive (high responsive, low demanding). In contrast, sex-typed couples f e l l under the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of authoritative (high responsive, high demanding), demanding (medium responsive, high demanding), and t r a d i t i o n a l (structured role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between mothers and fathers: mothers responsive but undemanding, fathers demanding but unresponsive). Sex-typed mothers and fathers tend to assume parenting roles which are complementary to one another (fathers being firm, mothers being warm) (Baumrind, 1982). In addressing the discrepancy between her results and those of Spence and Helmreich, Baumrind concluded that Spence and Helmreich's primary reliance upon adolescent's perceptions of their parent's attributes and parenting st y l e , rather than upon behavior observations and parental self reports, renders their results unreliable. It i s interesting to note, however, that i f Spence and Helmreich's subjects did err in their perceptions, their d i s t o r t i o n s were in the d i r e c t i o n of the stereotypic (sex-typed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) rather than i t s opposite (androgyny). "Students tended to perceive their same sex parent as possessing stereotypic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of their sex to a greater degree than themselves" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978, p.218). It would seem that a bias in th i s d i r e c t i o n would be more l i k e l y to diminish a positive association between androgyny and 6 authoritative parenting than to i n f l a t e i t . , Functional F l e x i b i l i t y and Authoritative Parenting The position taken here i s that there i s a l o g i c a l association between androgyny and authoritative parenting at the construct l e v e l . Spence and Helmreich's proposal that the unique attributes of the androgynous individual predispose them to the highly demanding/highly responsive style c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the authoritative parent makes i n t u i t i v e sense. However, the component central to the proposed link between androgyny and authoritative parenting i s not the possession of both masculine and feminine t r a i t s per se, i t i s the possession of functional f l e x i b i l i t y . Bern, herself, defines the "construct" of androgyny as the a b i l i t y "to remain sensitive to the changing constraints of the s i t u a t i o n and [to] engage in whatever behavior seems most ef f e c t i v e at the moment, regardless of i t s stereotype as appropriate for one sex or the other" (1975, p.635). Certainly, masculine and feminine attributes are the relevant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but the focus of the construct of androgyny i s c l e a r l y on the c a p a b i l i t y for appropriately deploying these a b i l i t i e s across a l l interpersonal domains. In view of the argument that i t i s functional f l e x i b i l i t y which l i n k s androgyny to authoritative parenting, certain 7 l i m i t a t i o n s of the e a r l i e r mentioned studies emerge. The f i r s t issues concern measurement. Operational d e f i n i t i o n s of androgyny based upon such measures as Bern's Sex Role Inventory (BSRI, Bern, 1974) and The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ, Spence & Helmreich, 1978) assume that equally high levels of endorsement of desirable masculine and feminine t r a i t s naturally presupposes the appropriate usage of these attributes across a l l domains. However, as pointed out by Kaplan (1979) "while [the essential parameters of s i t u a t i o n a l appropriateness, f l e x i b i l i t y , effectiveness, and integration] may be l i k e l y outcomes of an equal balance between masculinity and femininity, they are not necessary outcomes" (p.224). Indeed, Kaplan acquired c l i n i c a l support for the argument that an individual could possess an equal balance of masculine and feminine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and yet u t i l i z e them in ways which could only be described as r i g i d and/or dysfunctional. In other words, a person might be capable of both masculine and feminine behavior but only within s p e c i f i c domains (e.g., assertive within an occupational role, warm within an intimate relationship) or only in a dysfunctional sense (e.g., inappropriate deployment of aggression when the situation c a l l s for submission). Clearly, in equating the simple possession of masculine and feminine t r a i t s with, androgyny, existing measures f a i l to r e f l e c t the construct 8 d e f i n i t i o n . Both Spence and Helmreich (1978), who used the PAQ, and Baumrind (1982), who used the BSRI, categorized individuals as androgynous using measures which l i k e l y included within the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a more or less substantial portion of individuals who, although in possession of masculine and feminine att r i b u t e s , were not t r u l y androgynous. Since there i s no reason to assume a relationship between dysfunctional f l e x i b i l i t y (inappropriate or i n e f f e c t u a l usage of attributes) or r i g i d androgyny (domain s p e c i f i c usage of masculine and feminine attributes) and authoritative parenting, i t i s l i k e l y that the rate of inclusion of such individuals would have affected the strength of the association. In sum, the discrepancy between the results of the Spence and Helmreich study (1978) and the Baumrind study (1982) may in part be due to the inadequacy of the measures used for accurately assessing the concept of androgyny. Furthermore, as the BSRI and the PAQ e s s e n t i a l l y only measure the orthogonal t r a i t s of instrumentality/dominance and expressivity/nurturance (Spence & Helmreich, 1980; Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981) they only assess androgyny to the extent that these attributes are major components of masculinity and femininity. Neither index measures f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to 9 the range of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which Bern's l a b e l l i n g of her scales with the terms "masculine" and "feminine" would suggest. The f i n a l issue concerns the choice of androgyny as the independent variable. If androgyny has simply been used to represent functional f l e x i b i l i t y , the effect has been to r e s t r i c t the association between functional f l e x i b i l i t y and authoritative parenting to the l o g i c a l relationship between desirable masculine/feminine attributes and the control/warmth dimensions of parenting s t y l e . (In view of the e a r l i e r discussion of r i g i d androgyny and dysfunctional f l e x i b i l i t y , even th i s association i s tenuous.) There is c e r t a i n l y no reason to assume that a parent who i s both dominant and nurturant ( f l e x i b l e with respect to masculine and feminine behavior) w i l l also rate highly on the other two dimensions of parenting s t y l e : parent c h i l d communication and maturity demands. Parental control may be devoid of maturity demands and nurturance may come unaccompanied by communication. Spence and Helmreich's (1978) suggestion that androgynous individuals encourage their children to attain the same l e v e l of instrumental competence that they themselves possess (maturity demands) may be true in a number of instances, but i t is a motivational link which assumes the a b i l i t y to encourage autonomous self w i l l by restraining control; an a b i l i t y not synonymous with instrumentality or 10 expressivity. It is l i k e l y that functional f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to a whole range of positive and negative interpersonal a b i l i t i e s i s the requirement for authoritative parenting. In contrast to authoritarian and permissive parents who are e s s e n t i a l l y r i g i d in their style of interaction with their children, the behavior of the authoritative parent r e f l e c t s s i t u a t i o n a l s e n s i t i v i t y and response f l e x i b i l i t y . Parental control and warmth are exercised when warranted by the c h i l d ' s behavior. Furthermore, the type of parental control implemented is l i k e l y to be dependent upon the nature and severity of the child ' s transgression. Reasoning and rat i o n a l guidance are favored for f i r s t time and understandable offenses with more punitive measures reserved for repeated or incomprehensible disobedience. Importantly, parental control i s balanced with suitable displays of acceptance and affirmation, and with s i t u a t i o n a l l y appropriate e l i c i t a t i o n of autonomous self w i l l and independence. Clearly, authoritative parenting requires the a b i l i t i e s for dominance and nurturance (positive masculine and feminine a t t r i b u t e s ) , however i t also necessitates f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to a b i l i t i e s which f a c i l i t a t e communication and maturity demands and the a b i l i t y to restrain control or nurturance when i t is necessary to exercise what have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought 1 1 of as the "negative" antitheses of these: submissiveness and coldness. The e l i c i t a t i o n of a sense of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in a c h i l d requires the exercise of parental control in conjunction with e f f e c t i v e communication. Encouragement of a sense of independence in a c h i l d requires affirmation towards the c h i l d accompanied by a certain r e s t r a i n t of control. The authoritative parent must be capable of dominance when exercising control and must, be capable of submissiveness when encouraging independence. They must have the a b i l i t y to compromise their view or their control when the situation or the chi l d ' s position warrant i t . E f f e c t i v e communication often requires the c a p a b i l i t y for argument and tenacity as well as openness and frankness. The enforcement of d i s c i p l i n a r y measures often necessitates the temporary withdrawal of warmth, and achievement demands made upon the c h i l d require some degree of parental ambition. It may even be necessary, at times, for a parent to be cold towards their c h i l d in order to induce the g u i l t required as an impetus for mature behavior; or to be lazy in order to encourage self help a c t i v i t y . Although c e r t a i n l y major contributors, c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and nurturance are only a part of the behavioral repertoire required for authoritative parenting. 1 2 The Measurement of Interpersonal Functional F l e x i b i l i t y Paulhus and Martin (1986) have recently developed a new approach to the measurement of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . They argue that functional f l e x i b i l i t y involves the appropriate deployment of a large repertoire of c a p a b i l i t i e s rather than t r a i t s . Whereas t r a i t ratings assess average or t y p i c a l behavior, c a p a b i l i t y ratings measure the potential for performing the behavior (Wallace, 1966; Willerman, Turner, & Peterson, 1976). Because t r a i t measures require respondents to fi x themselves at some point along a rating scale, respondents cannot claim certain combinations of a b i l i t i e s (e.g., dominance & submissiveness) without contradicting themselves. In contrast, i t i s reasonable for a respondent to claim both the ca p a b i l i t y for dominance and submissiveness (Martin & Paulhus, 1984). The individual's functional f l e x i b i l i t y rating i s derived from their responses to the Battery of Interpersonal C a p a b i l i t i e s (BIC, Paulhus & Martin, 1987). The battery is composed of four questions about the individual's a b i l i t y to enact each of a series of interpersonal behaviors: For each attribu t e , subjects [are] asked a direct c a p a b i l i t y question, for example, "How capable are you of being dominant when the situation requires i t ? " Three additional questions [are] asked to assess (a) the d i f f i c u l t y of performing each behavior, (b) anxiety when performing each behavior, and (c) the tendency to avoid situations demanding such behavior. Responses to a l l 1 3 questions [are] rated on 7 point Likert scales anchored by "very much" (=7) and "not at a l l " (=1) (Paulhus & Martin, 1 986, p.12) . Unlike androgyny measures, the BIC measures a broad domain of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . To measure the f u l l range of interpersonal behaviors, the 16 interpersonal variables (dominance, warmth, introversion, etc.) which form the interpersonal circumplex (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1978, 1980) are used (Paulhus & Martin, 1986). These items include both s o c i a l l y desirable attributes (e.g., dominance) and s o c i a l l y undesirable a t t r i b u t e s (e.g., submissiveness). The Problem This study had two objectives. The f i r s t was to retest the hypothesis that androgyny (functional f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to instrumentality and expressivity) is p o s i t i v e l y related to authoritative parenting. By focusing on the individual's a b i l i t y to appropriately deploy these attributes across a l l interpersonal domains, the BIC provides a measure of these a b i l i t i e s which more closely approximates the "construct" d e f i n i t i o n of androgyny than do the BSRI and the PAQ. Where the BSRI and the PAQ have operationalized androgyny in terms of t r a i t s ( t y p i c a l behaviors), and with no regard for dysfunctional deployment or domain s p e c i f i c i t y , the BIC allows. for 14 operationalization of androgyny in terms of functional, multi-domain c a p a b i l i t i e s (Martin & Van Oeveren, 1986). The second goal was to demonstrate that the association between functional f l e x i b i l i t y and authoritative parenting is more powerful when the measurement of f l e x i b i l i t y i s extended to include a whole range of p o s i t i v e and negative interpersonal c a p a b i l i t i e s rather than simply the s o c i a l l y desirable t r a i t s of instrumentality and expressivity. Paulhus and Martin's (1987) Battery of Interpersonal • C a p a b i l i t i e s f a c i l i t a t e s assessment of both the range and the composition of the individual's behavioral repertoire. The l a t t e r allows for assessment of the individual's a b i l i t y to integrate what have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought of as polar opposites (e.g., dominance & submissiveness). In order to test the above predictions, a sample of mothers were administered questionnaires containing: Bern's (1974) Sex Role Inventory, Paulhus and Martin's (1987) Battery of Interpersonal C a p a b i l i t i e s , and The Childrearing Practices Report: A Set of Q-Items for the Description of Parental S o c i a l i z a t i o n Attitudes and Values (Block, 1965). It was hypothesized that androgyny, operationalized as the c a p a b i l i t y for appropriately deploying desirable masculine and desirable feminine a t t r i b u t e s , would exhibit a s i g n i f i c a n t l y more posit i v e 15 association with authoritative parenting than would androgyny, as operationalized by the BSRI. The second hypothesis was that there would be a stronger positive relationship between interpersonal functional f l e x i b i l i t y (the individual's f l e x i b i l i t y score with respect to a l l 16 interpersonal variables measured by the BIC) and authoritative parenting than between androgyny (the individual's f l e x i b i l i t y simply with respect to the masculine and feminine interpersonal variables of instrumentality and expressivity) and authoritative parenting. Method Subjects Women volunteers who had at least one c h i l d between the ages of 7 and 12 and who resided in the lower mainland area were s o l i c i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. The age range of 7 to 12 years was selected so as to allow for comparison with Baumrind's (1982) results (her subjects' children ranged in age from 8 to 10 years) while also f a c i l i t a t i n g the attainment of an adequately sized sample of mothers. Procedure In order to recruit mothers, contact l e t t e r s requesting volunteers (see Appendix A) were dis t r i b u t e d through after 16 school daycares and private schools. The l e t t e r included an outline of the objectives of the study, the participant c r i t e r i a , a space for the individual to indicate whether or not she was interested in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the study, and instructions for the indication of willingness to participate to be returned to the daycare or school. Packages containing a battery of four questionnaires (see Appendix B) were dis t r i b u t e d through the daycares and schools to subsequent volunteers. Mothers were asked to return their completed questionnaires to these same centers for the researcher to c o l l e c t . The questionnaires required aproximately one hour of the mothers' time. Once the questionnaire data had been obtained, a l l records containing the names and telephone numbers of the mothers were destroyed. Measures Personal history and demographic data. The f i r s t questionnaire contained questions concerning the mothers' personal history and demographic variables. The background information was obtained because mothers' age, educational l e v e l , profession, r e l i g i o u s background, and number of children, may influence the results of the study. The second, t h i r d , and fourth questionnaires were, as 1 7 mentioned e a r l i e r , Bern's (1974) Sex Role Inventory, Paulhus and M a r t i n ' s (1987) B a t t e r y of I n t e r p e r s o n a l C a p a b i l i t i e s , and The C h i l d r e a r i n g P r a c t i c e s Report: A Set of Q-Items f o r the D e s c r i p t i o n of P a r e n t a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n A t t i t u d e s and Values (Block, 1965). The order of the l a t t e r three q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was counterbalanced. The BSRI. The BSRI (Bern, 1974) i s designed to assess p s y c h o l o g i c a l androgyny. I t c o n s i s t s of 60 p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Twenty of these a t t r i b u t e s are s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y feminine (e.g., g e n t l e , understanding, a f f e c t i o n a t e , s e n s i t i v e to the needs of others) and 20 are s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y masculine (e.g., independent, s e l f r e l i a n t , ambitious, a s s e r t i v e ) . There are a l s o 20 items that f u n c t i o n as f i l l e r items (e.g., happy, c o n c e i t e d , t r u t h f u l ) . A person f i l l i n g out the BSRI i s asked to i n d i c a t e on a 7- :point L i k e r t s c a l e the s e l f -d e s c r i p t i v e n e s s of each of the 60 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s c a l e i s l a b e l l e d at each p o i n t and ranges from 1 ( never or almost never true ) to 7 ( a l w a y s or almost always true ) (Bern, 1981). F e m i n i n i t y and m a s c u l i n i t y were t r e a t e d as two independent dimensions r a t h e r than as two ends of a s i n g l e dimension. A person who i s high (above the median) on both dimensions i s c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous. A person who i s low (below the median) on both dimensions i s c l a s s i f i e d as u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d 18 and a person who is high on one dimension but low on the other is termed either masculine or feminine (Bern, 1981). The l o g i c a l independence of masculinity and femininity has been empirically demonstrated by low, non-significant correlations between the two scales. In two studies reviewed by Bern (1981) the correlations between femininity and masculinity were -.14 for a sample of 279 women and .11 for a sample of 444 men in the f i r s t study, and .00 for 340 women and -.05 for 476 men in the second study. Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher (1981, 1983) have recently questioned the fact that Bern's median s p l i t typology i s an es s e n t i a l l y additive index. Bern (cited in Lubinski et a l . , 1981) has suggested that masculinity and femininity temper each other so that negative manifestations of one tend to cancel out those of the other. In response to thi s Lubinski et a l . proposed that androgyny be measured as an interactive concept and suggested a multiple regression model designed to include the interaction of the BSRI's masculinity and femininity scales as indexed by their product. They argued that "for [androgyny] inventories ... to have predictive u t i l i t y , M x F must display a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction in the prediction of relevant psychological c r i t e r i a . If not, i t w i l l be enough to interpret findings as correlates of M and F without recourse to such 19 interactive concepts as androgynous and undifferentiated" (1981, p.729). Given the l o g i c a l superiority of this method of indexing androgyny i t was the one used for the present research. Psychometric analyses indicate that the BSRI has high internal consistency and test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y . When computed separately for men and women across two samples, c o e f f i c i e n t alphas for the femininity score, the masculinity score, and the femininity minus masculinity difference score ranged from .75 to .87. Product moment correlations computed between the f i r s t and second administrations proved a l l three scores to be highly r e l i a b l e , with the lowest test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t being .76. Furthermore, an empirical check on the re l a t i o n between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y response set and an individual's scores on the BSRI indicated that BSRI scores were not measuring a general tendency to describe oneself in a s o c i a l l y desirable manner (Bern, 1981). The BSRI has also been tested for construct v a l i d i t y . A study designed to assess the correspondence between an individual's score on the BSRI and their behavioral adaptability (Bern, 1975) revealed that androgynous subjects were more l i k e l y than non-androgynous subjects to engage in whatever behavior seemed appropriate at the time, regardless of the sex-typing of the behavior. "Androgynous subjects of both sexes displayed a 20 high l e v e l of masculine independence when under pressure to conform, and they displayed a high l e v e l of feminine playfulness when given the opportunity to interact with a tiny k i t t e n " (p.642). The results for the non-androgynous subjects showed an almost, but not e n t i r e l y , complementary pattern. As expected, masculine males displayed independence but not playfulness, and feminine males displayed playfulness but not independence. Females, however, exhibited a d i f f e r e n t pattern. Masculine females displayed the anticipated independence, but also a moderate amount of playfulness. Feminine females, as . expected, f a i l e d to display independence. However, contrary to predictions, they also f a i l e d to display playfulness. Bern and Lenney (1976) have also demonstrated that sex-typed individuals are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than androgynous individuals to select gender appropriate a c t i v i t i e s and to reject gender inappropriate a c t i v i t i e s , even when many of the external constraints on gender inappropriate a c t i v i t y have been removed and the choice of a gender appropriate a c t i v i t y w i l l cost them money. Moreover, sex-typed subjects reported feeling more nervous and peculiar after performing a gender inappropriate a c t i v i t y than did androgynous or cross sex-typed subjects. 21 The BIC. The BIC (Paulhus & Martin, 1987) i s composed of four questions about perceived c a p a b i l i t i e s on each of the 16 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that form the interpersonal circumplex (gregarious, unassuming, aloof, arrogant, ambitious, warm, lazy, cold, extraverted, t r u s t i n g , introverted, c a l c u l a t i n g , dominant, agreeable, submissive, and h o s t i l e ) . For each at t r i b u t e subjects are asked to rate their general c a p a b i l i t y for performing the behavior, the d i f f i c u l t y they experience in performing the behavior, the anxiety they experience in performing the behavior, and their tendency to avoid situations requiring such behavior. (In t h i s study, an exploratory question assessing the subject's motivation to perform the behavior was also included for each attribute.) Functional f l e x i b i l i t y is calculated as the sum around the circumplex of the respondent's 16 c a p a b i l i t y ratings. (Similar indexes can be computed for the anxiety, avoidance, and d i f f i c u l t y ratings; and an index of intradimensional f l e x i b i l i t y i s computed by considering the eight bipolar dimensions of the circumplex one at a time and giving the respondent a "1" for each c a p a b i l i t y with a score above 4 on both bipolar opposites.) (Paulhus & Martin, 1986). It has recently been suggested that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s "ambitious" and "lazy" may not belong in the interpersonal realm and that the circumplex variables represented by the labels 22 "ambitious-dominant" and "lazy-submissive" are more accurately represented by the labels "assured-dominant" and "unassured-submissive" (Wiggins, 1987, personal communication). In that the inclusion of p o t e n t i a l l y non-interpersonal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may affe c t the predictive power of the BIC (as an index of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y ) , analyses were done with two versions of the measure—one in which these two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are retained and one in which they are replaced with "assured" and "unassured". Following Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's (1981) argument concerning the scoring of the BSRI, the " c a p a b i l i t i e s " conception of androgyny was calculated as the product of the respondent's c a p a b i l i t y ratings for dominance and warmth. It should be noted, however, that no such claim regarding interaction between components has been put forth concerning c a p a b i l i t i e s . The proposed superiority of a c a p a b i l i t i e s index over a t r a i t index of androgyny in predicting authoritative parenting derives from the functional f l e x i b i l i t y argument. Thus, proof of the hypothesis does not necessitate that this product, index explain variance beyond that accounted for by i t s components (the sum of the individual's c a p a b i l i t y ratings on dominance and warmth). Given that the two c r i t i c a l components of f l e x i b i l i t y are a 23 wide behavioral repertoire and the a b i l i t y to adjust to s i t u a t i o n a l demands, Paulhus and Martin's (1986) operationalization of t h i s construct has inherent face v a l i d i t y . In addition, t h i s index of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y has demonstrated both convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y . In a factor analysis of 10 measures of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y , Paulhus and Martin (1986) found that the four indexes derived from the BIC (sum of c a p a b i l i t i e s ratings, sum of anxiety ratings, sum of avoidance ratings, and sum of d i f f i c u l t y ratings) clustered together; while the other available measures, which f a i l to assess either the breadth of the behavioral repertoire or the a b i l i t y to adjust to s i t u a t i o n a l demands, c l e a r l y separated. Three factors showed eigenvalues above unity and together explained 58% of the variance (Paulhus and Martin, 1986). The four c a p a b i l i t y related composites of f l e x i b i l i t y loaded on the f i r s t factor, l a b e l l e d Functional F l e x i b i l i t y . Two indexes derived from Bern's concept of androgyny 1 and a measure of the 2 variance of an individual's t r a i t scores around the circumplex marked the second factor, labelled Androgyny. A s i t u a t i o n a l i t y index based on Goldberg's (1981) t r a i t rating categories and Snyder's (1974) self monitoring scale loaded on a t h i r d factor, labelled S i t u a t i o n a l i t y . The intradimensional 24 index derived from the BIC was not included in the factor analysis because i t correlated .88 with the sum of c a p a b i l i t i e s index. Paulhus and Martin (1986) suggest that the two androgyny measures may have loaded on a separate factor because they are trait-based rather than capability-based and because they focus only on the dominance/nurturance quadrant of the circumplex (Wiggins & Holzmuller, 1981), thus tapping only a small domain of s o c i a l l y desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The fact that the s i t u a t i o n a l i t y index, which assesses the number of " i t depends" responses (Goldberg, 1981) emerged as d i s t i n c t even from the trait-based measures i s not surprising i f one considers that the s i t u a t i o n a l individual i s claiming a lack of t r a i t s (Paulhus & Martin, 1986). In a second study (Paulhus & Martin, 1986) a battery of adjustment measures were administered along with the nine f l e x i b i l i t y measures. According to Leary (1957) individuals who are able to change their behavior to suit s i t u a t i o n a l demands should report higher self esteem than people who are more r i g i d in their interpersonal interactions. Interestingly, only the four c a p a b i l i t y - r e l a t e d composites correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with self esteem ( a l l were close to .30). "Neither the difference index of androgyny nor the circumplex variance index showed even 25 a t r e n d " (p.21), and the product index of androgyny, a f t e r i t s product components were entered i n t o a r e g r e s s i o n equation, showed no p r e d i c t i v e power above and beyond i t s components. The s i t u a t i o n a l i t y index showed a h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n with s e l f esteem, and the s e l f m o n itoring s c a l e a negative but n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n . C l e a r l y , these other a v a i l a b l e measures of f l e x i b i l i t y are tapping something q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from " f u n c t i o n a l " f l e x i b i l i t y . A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Marlowe Crowne (1960) S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e along with the c a p a b i l i t y composites r u l e d out the p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e i r being contaminated with s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e responding. The CRPR. The C h i l d r e a r i n g P r a c t i c e s Report (CRPR, Block, 1965) c o n s i s t s of 91 s o c i a l i z a t i o n - r e l e v a n t statements that are a d m i n i s t e r e d i n a Q-sort format with a f o r c e d - c h o i c e , seven-step d i s t r i b u t i o n . The i n s t r u c t i o n s a d vise the parent to focus on a s p e c i f i e d c h i l d i n the f a m i l y ( i n t h i s case, one between the ages of 7 and 12) while responding to the Q-items. To o b t a i n more p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n s of c h i l d r e a r i n g a t t i t u d e s and v a l u e s , the items are phrased i n the a c t i v e v o i c e (e.g., I do, I ask, I emphasize, I b e l i e v e ) and emphasize a b e h a v i o r a l o r i e n t a t i o n . The Q-sort format minimizes response s e t s such as s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , acquiescence, and d i f f e r e n t i a l use of hyperbole; and, through the use of items which have been s t a t e d 26 in r e l a t i v e l y neutral terms, i t minimizes defensiveness (Block, 1965). The test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of the CRPR has been assessed twice. In the f i r s t study, 90 psychology students were asked to describe t h e i r childrearing philosophies, using the CRPR, at the beginning of a course, and then again eight months l a t e r . The average c o r r e l a t i o n between the two tests was .707 (range = .38 to .85; sigma = .10). In the second study 66 peace corps volunteers were asked to use the CRPR to describe the chil d r e a r i n g practices of their parents. Three years l a t e r , upon completion of their peace corps duty, they repeated the process. The average correlation between the two tests was .64 for descriptions of mothers and .65 for descriptions of fathers (the ranges were respectively .04 to .85 & .13 to .85; sigmas = .26 & .23). In that the time intervals for both of these studies were considerable (1 and 3 years) i t i s l i k e l y that the correlations obtained represent the lower l i m i t of test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y (Block, 1965). Furthermore, while "test-retest data have not been obtained from samples of parents, i t i s expected that their self descriptions would show even greater s t a b i l i t y over time" (Block, 1965, p.6). The CRPR also exhibits construct v a l i d i t y . A study designed to assess the relation between self reports, as indexed by the 27 CRPR responses, and actual maternal behaviors toward children, as indexed by observer-provided Q-sort data, found appreciable coherence in the results derived from the two sources (Block, 1965). In that the CRPR assesses a person's general philosophy towards parenting, numerous approaches may be taken to scoring the data obtained (Block, 1965). For the purpose of this study, the scoring procedure had to measure just how clos e l y the person approximated the authoritative s t y l e , as described by Baumrind (1966). To accomplish t h i s , 3 parenting experts independently Q-sorted the CRPR items so as to express this style of parenting. Baumrind's description of the authoritative parent was used by each as a guideline. The average correlation between these three p r o f i l e sorts was .76. These Q-sorts were then averaged item by item to obtain a single, consensual p r o f i l e of this pattern of parenting. The actual CRPR Q-sorts of the mothers being studied were then each correlated with t h i s p r o f i l e item by item. The higher the correlation the more that individual's responses approximated the authoritative parenting s t y l e . The corr e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t thus served as the mother's score on authoritative parenting. The averaging process used in forming the consensual p r o f i l e resulted in a number of items being given values that 28 were not whole numbers, so adjustments had to be made to regain the forced-choice pattern of 13 items given each value on the 7 point rating scale. Beginning at the upper end of the scale, items with values a fra c t i o n below 7 were rounded up u n t i l 13 items had been given a value of 7. Next, the 13 items with the highest values, not already assigned a value of 7, were given a value of 6. The 13 items with the highest values, not already assigned a value of 6, were given a value of 5, and so forth down to the value 1. See Appendix C for the number of items given each value and the range of values assigned to each of the 7 rating points. In cases where the c r i t e r i a of 13 items per each of the 7 rating points necessitated placing items with the same fraction at d i f f e r e n t points, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the individual expert ratings was taken into consideration. In two instances where similar d i s t r i b u t i o n s made two or more items comparable choices, the placement decision was based on face v a l i d i t y . Results and Discussion Sample c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The questionnaire was returned by 96 mothers. Of these mothers, 89 followed the forced-choice procedure for the parenting Q - s o r t . The 7 mothers that did not follow the Q - s o r t 29 instructions and an additional number that f a i l e d to complete either the BSRI (4 mothers) or the BIC (3 mothers) were not included in analyses involving these measures. Although the mothers were not randomly selected, there was wide variation on most demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Ages ranged from 26 to 48 years (M=37.8). Educational l e v e l s ranged from completion of grades 11 or 12 to graduate l e v e l degrees (M = 2 to 4 years of post-secondary education). Ethnic backgrounds, while predominantly white anglo saxon, included a wide spectrum of d i f f e r e n t races and cultures. The range for family socioeconomic status was also f a i r l y inclusive varying from self-supporting single parent mothers in low status occupations to married women in dual, high status, career families. One target c h i l d was selected for each family. The children's ages ranged from 7 to 12 years (M = 8.9 years). The numbers of male versus female children were roughly equivalent; 38 mothers responding in regard to female children and 50 responding in regard to male children. Birth order rankings for the target c h i l d were also representative; there were approximately the same number of youngest, oldest, and only children. Middle children were the least represented category. Preliminary analyses revealed s i g n i f i c a n t associations between a number of the demographic measures and authoritative 30 parenting as assessed using the p r o f i l e technique (see Table 1). Mother's education, father's education, income, and socioeconomic status were a l l p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the mother's use of the authoritative parenting s t y l e . (See Appendix D, Table 1 for correlations among the demographic measures, and Appendix D, Table 2 for correlations between the demographic measures and the independent variables.) Functional F l e x i b i l i t y and Authoritative Parenting Multiple linear regression was used to compare the variance in authoritative parenting accounted for by the BSRI, the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny, and the Functional F l e x i b i l i t y Index. The f i r s t regression equation tested the hypothesis that the " c a p a b i l i t i e s " conception of androgyny would predict a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of variance in authoritative parenting after c o n t r o l l i n g for the variance accounted for by the BSRI. Following Lubinski, Tellegen, and Butcher's (1981) argument concerning androgyny as being an inherently interactive concept, the equation (labelled Model 1) took the following form: Y = B,M + B„F + B0(MxF) + B.CD + BC W + B,(CDxCW) + A. 1 2 3 4 5 6 where Y i s the predicted value of authoritative parenting, M and 31 F represent Bern's masculinity and femininity scales, (MxF) represents the interaction between masculinity and femininity, CD and CW represent Paulhus and Martin's measures of c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and warmth, (CDxCW) represents the interaction between these c a p a b i l i t i e s , B1 through Bg represent the respective regression c o e f f i c i e n t s , and A i s the constant. The variables were entered into the equation step-by-step in order to identi f y how much each of them improved the equation's predictive power. The order of the entry reflected the conceptual assumption that the c a p a b i l i t i e s conception of androgyny would demonstrate superior predictive power. It was expected that, once the variance accounted for by the BSRI had been removed, the c a p a b i l i t i e s conception of androgyny would account for a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the remaining variance in authoritative parenting. As stated e a r l i e r , proof of the hypothesis did not necessitate that the product of CD and CW explain variance beyond that accounted for by the sum of i t s components. Contrary to what was expected, none of the variables in the regression equation accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the variance in parenting (see Table 2), To try to diminish the discrepancy between the number of items contributing to the BSRI indexes (20 items each) and the number of items contributing to 32 the c a p a b i l i t y indexes (1 item each), two variations of t h i s equation were also t r i e d . The f i r s t variation of the equation (labelled Model 2) simply replaced the long versions of the masculinity and femininity scales with the short versions (10 items each). The second v a r i a t i o n of the equation (labelled Model 3) also altered the c a p a b i l i t y indexes. Instead of including only the questions that assess the l i k e l i h o o d of performing the response, the indexes were extended to include the questions assessing the d i f f i c u l t y , anxiety, avoidance, and motivation associated with the performance. In both variations the variables in the regression equation s t i l l f a i l e d to account for a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the variance in parenting (see Tables 3 & 4). It should be noted that even in these variations there were s t i l l more BSRI items than c a p a b i l i t i e s items. Bivariate correlations and scatterplots for each of the independent variables with the dependent variable were then examined. Both the correlations and the scatterplots indicated a lack of linear association between any of the independent measures and the dependent measure. The second regression equation tested the hypothesis that functional f l e x i b i l i t y ( a l l 16 interpersonal c a p a b i l i t i e s ) would predict a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of variance in authoritative parenting above that which i s accounted for by the sum of 33 c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and warmth. This equation (labelled Model 4) took the form: Y = BjCD + B2CW + B 3FF + A. where. Y is the predicted value of authoritative parenting, CD and CW represent the c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and warmth, FF represents functional f l e x i b i l i t y with respect to the remaining 14 c a p a b i l i t i e s indexed by the BIC, B 1 through B^ represent the respective regression c o e f f i c i e n t s , and A i s the constant. Capability ratings for dominance and warmth were excluded from the overal l functional f l e x i b l i t y index to avoid unnecessary m u l t i c o l l i n e a r i t y between the independent measures in the regression equation (see Appendix D, Table 3 for correlations among the independent v a r i a b l e s ) . Again the order of entry r e f l e c t e d presumed predictive power. Once the variance accounted for by c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and warmth had been removed, functional f l e x i b i l i t y was expected to account for a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the remaining variance in authoritative parenting. As expected from the results of the f i r s t regression analysis, there was no linear association between either the ca p a b i l i t y for dominance or the c a p a b i l i t y for warmth and authoritative parenting. A s i g n i f i c a n t association between 34 functional f l e x i b i l i t y (the sum of the 14 remaining interpersonal c a p a b i l i t i e s ) and authoritative parenting did emerge but it- was the inverse of what was predicted (see Table 5). In contrast to the expected positive association, the regression of functional f l e x i b i l i t y on authoritative parenting revealed a negative linear association. Substitution of the BIC items "ambitious" and "lazy" with the items "assured" and "unassured" as suggested by Wiggins (1987, personal communication) (labelled Model 5) produced a si m i l a r , although non-significant, result (see Table 6). The Independent Measures In an attempt to understand why the BSRI scales for masculinity and femininity and the c a p a b i l i t y indexes for dominance and warmth a l l f a i l e d to predict authoritative parenting, the independent variables were examined for possible i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . Mothers' scores on the masculinity and femininity scales of the BSRI proved to be consistent with the norms (for females) reported by Bern (1981). The mean (5.13) and the standard deviation (.48) for the femininity scale were similar to those found for the females in Bern's sample (M=5.05, SD=.53). For the masculinity scale the mean (4.87) and the standard deviation (.72) were also similar to the results found 35 by Bern (M=4.79, SD=.66). Mothers' scores on the BIC c a p a b i l i t y questions did not prove to be uniformly consistent with e a r l i e r findings. A comparison with Paulhus and Martin's (1987) results yielded r e l a t i v e consistency between samples on mean scores for items that are s o c i a l l y desirable (e.g., dominant, warm, gregarious, ambitious, trusting, e t c . ) . In contrast, for s o c i a l l y undesirable items (e.g., submissive, cold, aloof, lazy, c a l c u l a t i n g , e t c . ) , the present sample demonstrated consistently lower mean scores. This finding indicates that these mothers were less l i k e l y than the university students (used in Paulhus & Martin, 1987) to endorse these c a p a b i l i t i e s . The mean across these items was 3.93, whereas for Paulhus and Martin's sample i t was 4.85. This finding indicates a comparatively higher rate of s o c i a l l y desirable responding than was evident with the former university student sample. The higher rate of s o c i a l l y desirable responding by the mothers in this sample may help to explain the inverse association between the FFI (the sum of a l l 14 c a p a b i l i t i e s ) and authoritative parenting. The mothers who were w i l l i n g to endorse the more negative c a p a b i l i t i e s and thus have high scores oh functional f l e x i b i l i t y may not perceive these interpersonal responses as being as s o c i a l l y undesirable as do the other mothers. This may result in their perceiving 36 more situations as e l i c i t i n g these responses, and thus, their engaging in parenting strategies that, by external standards, use these more negative c a p a b i l i t i e s more than i s appropriate. St r u c t u r a l l y , mothers' responses to the c a p a b i l i t y questions were consistent with e a r l i e r findings. A p r i n c i p a l factors analysis with varimax rotation produced the same d i s t i n c t i v e p o s i t i v e manifold pattern reported by Paulhus and Martin (1987). In contrast to the t y p i c a l c i r c u l a r structure of t r a i t s (Wiggins, 1979) the interpersonal c a p a b i l i t i e s a l l collapsed into the f i r s t quadrant indicating p o s i t i v e correlations among the c a p a b i l i t i e s . In the t r a i t circumplex the horizontal axes are marked by the dimensions of warmth and h o s t i l i t y indicating that these t r a i t s are negatively correlated. In the c a p a b i l i t y manifold the dimensions of warmth and h o s t i l i t y emerged as orthogonal factors. As predicted by Paulhus and Martin, c a p a b i l i t i e s for warmth and h o s t i l i t y can reasonably be claimed by a respondent whereas this i s not the case when subjects report on their t y p i c a l or t r a i t l i k e behavior. The one finding not replicated was the presence of the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance at the center of the manifold. In the present analysis, the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance appeared along the horizontal axis (marked by h o s t i l i t y ) . While not c r i t i c a l to determining the structure of c a p a b i l i t i e s , t h i s finding 37 raises some doubt concerning Paulhus and Martin's (1987) suggestion that the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance may be fundamental to a l l other c a p a b i l i t i e s . In summary, the structure of the mothers' scores on the c a p a b i l i t y questions generally replicated e a r l i e r studies of the structure of c a p a b i l i t i e s (Broughton & Paulhus, 1984; Paulhus & Martin, 1987) and provided additional support for the finding that c a p a b i l i t i e s have a d i f f e r e n t underlying structure than do t r a i t s . To summarize what was found regarding the independent measures, the BSRI scales for masculinity and femininity demonstrated no i r r e g u l a r i t i e s . The means and the standard deviations were comparable to those reported for Bern's (1981) normative sample. The s t r u c t u r a l analysis of the BIC items replicated the positive manifold pattern of c a p a b i l i t i e s reported by Paulhus and Martin (1987). There was only one finding inconsistent with e a r l i e r work. The mothers in this sample tended to respond in a more s o c i a l l y desirable manner than did the university students in Paulhus and Martin's sample. The Dependent Measure E a r l i e r studies (eg. Baumrind, 1982; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) have found an association between masculinity and 38 femininity and authoritative parenting. It i s possible that the f a i l u r e to re p l i c a t e e a r l i e r results might be due to properties of the dependent measure, so the parenting Q-sort p r o f i l e was examined for possible d e f i c i e n c i e s . A comparison of the Q-sort p r o f i l e used in the present study with the type of items and the method used by Baumrind (1982) raised three potential problems with the parenting p r o f i l e . The f i r s t problem i s that the Block Q-sort, which purportedly includes some index of parental control, does not contain a f u l l range of questions concerning cont r o l . For instance, i t does not contain items that assess the parent's use of firm enforcement ( e.g., whether the parent forces confrontation when the c h i l d disobeys, whether the parent exercises enforcement after i n i t i a l noncompliance, and whether the parent can be coerced by the c h i l d ) . Items that assess only the parent's b e l i e f in parental directiveness or their i n i t i a l response to disobedience from the c h i l d do not measure the ongoing process of parental control. The subsequent reaction from the c h i l d (whether they comply or continue to disobey) and the parent's response to this are important to consider in distinguishing between parents who have the a b i l i t y to maintain their stand regardless of the ch i l d ' s response to their d i r e c t i v e , and those that do not. The second and t h i r d potential problems, which are related, 39 concern the r e l a t i v e contribution of certain dimensions of parenting to the Q-sort p r o f i l e . It appears that there are (a) many more items that assess responsiveness than those that assess control and (b) that the Q-sort contains too many items unrelated to authoritative parenting. No attempt was made to balance responsiveness and control or to eliminate irrelevant items in the p r o f i l e . A l l Q-sort items were included in the p r o f i l e so as to maintain the forced-choice properties of a common mean and standard deviation for a l l mothers. Correlational analysis i s not sensitive to differences in elevation or dispersion. If the forced choice were eliminated by dropping irrelevant items i t would be unclear what the corr e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between each mother's Q-sort and the p r o f i l e of authoritative parenting meant. Baumrind used a very d i f f e r e n t technique. She c l a s s i f i e d parents according to their scores on the dimensions of responsiveness and demandingness. This procedure helps to maintain balance between responsiveness and demandingness. In sum, the Block Q-sort i s not an ideal way to assess parental control because i t lacks items that measure firm enforcement. Furthermore, the p r o f i l e technique, although p o t e n t i a l l y a viable method, can be biased by an imbalance in the items used as a basis for computing corr e l a t i o n s . 40 Factor Analysis of the Parenting Q-Sort To explore the content of the Q-sort and to i d e n t i f y some empirical dimensions with which to try to replicate the methodology of the e a r l i e r studies (Baumrind, 1982; Spence & Helmreich, 1978) mothers' responses to the Q-sort were factor analyzed. Such analysis of the Block Q-sort t y p i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e s between 28 and 33 factors (Block, 1965) (31 were i d e n t i f i e d with th i s sample); c e r t a i n l y far too large a number for the present purpose. Using Rickel and B i a s a t t i ' s (1982) choice of a two factor solution (which they labeled "Restrictiveness" and "Nurturance") as an estimate of the most interpretable number of factors, varimax rotations were applied in which two, three, and four factor solutions were considered. Upon examination, the three factor solution was selected as most interpretable for t h i s sample. Together, these three factors accounted for 19% of the variance in the unrotated solution. The items with factor loadings of .35 and above or -.35 and below were retained for each factor. Table 7 shows the 19 items retained for Factor 1 with their factor loadings, Table 8 shows the 14 items retained for Factor 2 with their factor loadings, and Table 9 shows the 9 items retained for Factor 3 with their loadings. A summary score was obtained for each mother on each factor by adding the individual items that were retained for each factor (see 41 Appendix D, Table 4 for correlations among the factor indexes). Before summing the items for each factor index the rating scale was reversed for items with negative loadings. The items in Factor 1 represent the nurturant aspects of parenting, for instance, warmth, communication, and enjoyment of the parental role. A high score also includes a willingness to employ chil d r e a r i n g practices that encourage independence in the c h i l d . As indicated from their negative loadings, authoritarian childrearing practices and strategies used to induce the ch i l d ' s compliance through anxiety represent the opposite of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Factor 1 was labeled "Responsiveness". The items in Factor 2 represent more neurotic tendencies such as over-involvement with the c h i l d , worry concerning the chi l d ' s health, and encouragement of emotional dependency on the part of the c h i l d . A high score on th i s factor also includes some degree of r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s , however, i t i s a form of rest r a i n t accompanied by a reluctance to punish the c h i l d . Factor 2 was la b e l l e d "Neuroticism". The items in Factor 3 represent a form of parental control. They include the endorsement of childrearing practices that encourage reasonably mature behavior and achievement on the part of the c h i l d . The items also r e f l e c t parental consistency and use of parental authority. This factor was la b e l l e d 42 "Demandingness". Correlations Between the Parenting Factor Indexes and the  Independent Variables Correlations were calculated for each of these three factor-derived indexes with the independent variables (masculinity, femininity, dominance, and warmth) (see Table 1 0 ) . (The c a p a b i l i t y for trust was combined with the c a p a b i l i t y for warmth to try to compensate for the r e s t r i c t i v e e ffect that s o c i a l l y desirable responding had on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses for this c a p a b i l i t y . ) Based on the prediction that androgynous parents would be more authoritative parents, the Responsiveness index was expected to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the BSRI femininity scale and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (& t r u s t ) ; and the Demandingness index was expected to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the BSRI masculinity scale and the c a p a b i l i t y index for dominance. The masculinity scale and the c a p a b i l i t y index for dominance were not expected to be related to Responsiveness. Likewise the femininity scale and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (& trust) were not expected to be related to Demandingness. The correlations between Neuroticism and each of these independent variables was performed for exploratory purposes. 43 The results provided p a r t i a l support for the predictions (see Table 10). As expected, the Responsiveness index was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with both the femininity scale ( £=.27, £=.006) and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (£=.19, p_=.04). However, in contrast to what was expected, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t association between Demandingness and either the masculinity scale or the c a p a b i l i t y index for dominance. Furthermore, there were s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations between Demandingness and both the femininity scale (r=-.24, D=.01) and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (£=-.17, p_=.05). When these analyses were done c o n t r o l l i n g for the sex of the c h i l d (see Tables 11 & 12), an interesting pattern emerged. The expected association between Demandingness and the masculinity scale emerged as s i g n i f i c a n t for mothers of g i r l s (£=.29, p_=.04). The association between the Demandingness index and the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance was also positive (£=.25, p_=.07). For mothers of boys, the association between the index for Demandingness and the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance became inverse (£=-.23, p_=.05). There was no association between the index for Demandingness and the masculinity scale for mothers of boys. Correlations computed for Demandingness with each of the items that form the masculinity scale revealed varied degrees and directions of associations. While there were no 44 s i g n i f i c a n t positive associations, there were s i g n i f i c a n t negative associations between Demandingness and the item "defending one's b e l i e f s " (r=-.40, £=.002) ar>d the item "taking a stand" (r=- .26, p_=.04). Why the predicted association between masculinity and Demandingness occurred for mothers of g i r l s and not for mothers of boys i s unclear. One possible explanation i s that the index for Demandingness i s weighted heavily on items pertaining to achievement (an expectation t r a d i t i o n a l l y held for boys) rather than other kinds of directiveness. Mothers low on masculine t r a i t s may hold more stereotypic b e l i e f s concerning sex roles (Frable, in press), and thus, make fewer such demands on g i r l s . In contrast, mothers high on masculine t r a i t s may hold less stereotypic b e l i e f s (Frable, in press), and thus make more achievement demands on g i r l s . The negative association between the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance and Demandingness indicates that mothers who score high on the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance are less demanding of boys than mothers that score low. If mothers' scores on the cap a b i l i t y for dominance also r e f l e c t how stereotypic their b e l i e f s about sex roles are, i t would make sense that mothers low on t h i s c a p a b i l i t y would encourage boys, more than g i r l s , to achieve. Mothers who score high on the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance 45 may f e e l there are enough s o c i a l d i r e c t i v e s emphasizing male achievement and thus deemphasize parental demands. Because of the prediction that androgyny (which combines a high l e v e l of masculinity/dominance with a high l e v e l of femininity/warmth) would be associated with authoritative parenting (which combines a high l e v e l of demandingness with a high l e v e l of responsiveness) the negative correlations between Demandingness and both the femininity scale and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (& trust) were unexpected. However, a scatterplot of the association between Demandingness and femininity revealed a somewhat cu r v i l i n e a r pattern indicating that mothers who were both demanding and feminine (as would be the case i f androgynous mothers were authoritative parents) tended to be moderately high rather than extremely high on femininity--a finding not incompatible with the above prediction. A scatterplot of the association between Demandingness and the c a p a b i l i t y index for warmth (•& trust) revealed that there was s t i l l a problem with the range of responses on the index for warmth. The ratings for th i s c a p a b i l i t y bore l i t t l e association with the ratings for Demandingness, but were located predominantly at the upper end of the scale (indicating a high l e v e l of warmth & t r u s t ) . The negative co r r e l a t i o n arose from 46 the tendency of the r e l a t i v e l y small number of mothers that r a t e d themselves lower on the c a p a b i l i t y f o r warmth (& t r u s t ) to r a t e themselves in the moderately high range on the items c o n t r i b u t i n g to the index f o r Demandingness. In the e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s the Ne u r o t i c i s m index (Factor 2) was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with both the f e m i n i n i t y s c a l e (r=.26, p=.008) and the c a p a b i l i t y index f o r warmth (r=.28, p=.004), and n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e (r=-. 20, r_»=. 03) . T h i s f i n d i n g i s of i n t e r e s t because there i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between the Responsiveness index and the m a s c u l i n i t y s c a l e . While both Responsiveness and N e u r o t i c i s m may represent more t r a d i t i o n a l l y feminine p a r e n t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , items comprised by the l a t t e r appear to be more incompatible with the p o s s e s s i o n of masculine p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Androgyny as a P r e d i c t o r of A u t h o r i t a t i v e P a r e n t i n g Using  Baumrind's P a r e n t i n g S t y l e C a t e g o r i e s Because the three f a c t o r s o l u t i o n f o r the p a r e n t i n g Q-sort i n c l u d e d dimensions r e p r e s e n t i n g responsiveness and a form of demandingness, category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , approximating those used by Baumrind (1982), c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d so as to r e t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s that androgynous mothers are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than other mothers to be a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t s . The use 47 of category c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s based on mothers' scores on the indexes for Responsiveness and Demandingness eliminated the p o s s i b l i t y that an association between androgyny and authoritative parenting was being lost due to an unequal balance between these two dimensions or to the intrusive effect of items which did not load s i g n i f i c a n t l y on either of them. Based on Baumrind's (1982) procedure, mothers' scores on the indexes for Responsiveness and Demandingness were collapsed to form trichotomies of high, medium, and low scores for each dimension. Mothers were then c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e i r combination of scores on the two dimensions. By using a trichotomous categorization, patterns can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d not only by the degree of responsiveness and- demandingness but by the degree of imbalance between them (Baumrind, 1982). The nine possible combinations were: authoritative (high demanding, high responsive), demanding (high demanding, medium responsive), authoritarian (high demanding, low responsive), undifferentiated (medium demanding, medium responsive), democratic (medium demanding, high responsive), permissive (low demanding, high responsive), nondirective (low demanding, medium responsive), rejecting/neglecting (low demanding, low responsive), and undifferentiated/nondirective (medium demanding, low responsive). Baumrind recategorized the l a t t e r subjects as 48 either undifferentiated or nondirective depending on the individual's scores. For t h i s study the category was l e f t as i s . Baumrind included a tenth category, l a b e l l e d t r a d i t i o n a l , that represented families in which the father was demanding and the mother was responsive. This category was not included in the following analyses because fathers' parenting was not assessed. The BSRI index of androgyny and authoritative parenting. In an attempt to replicate the method of analyses used in e a r l i e r studies (Baumrind, 1982; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), a median-s p l i t procedure was used to ident i f y mothers' sex-typing. Mothers high on both masculinity and femininity were c l a s s i f i e d as androgynous. Mothers high on masculinity and low on femininity were c l a s s i f i e d as masculine. Mothers high on femininity and low on masculinity were c l a s s i f i e d as feminine. Mothers low on both masculinity and femininity were c l a s s i f i e d as undifferentiated. To compensate for any bias created by an a l l female sample, the medians from Bern's (1981) normative sample were used in place of the present sample medians. 4 Chi square analyses were used to test the significance of predicted congruence between BSRI sex-typing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and parenting style types. In Table 13 the number of mothers in each parenting type by each sex-type are presented. The results are based solely on mothers' scores and so are not d i r e c t l y 49 comparable to results based on couple data; nevertheless, the pattern which emerged bore closer resemblance to Baumrind's (1982) results than to those reported by Spence and Helmreich (1978). Spence and Helmreich (1978) found that couples in which both partners were androgynous or in which one member was androgynous and the other feminine tended to be authoritative parents. Masculine-androgynous and masculine feminine couples displayed behavior that ranged between authoritative and authoritarian. In contrast, Baumrind (1982) found that androgynous couples (couples in which one or both members were androgynous) were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than other couple types to be authoritative-democratic (the "best" parents). They were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than other parents to be democratic-permissive (childcentered) and they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less l i k e l y to be authoritative-demanding (con t r o l l i n g but f a i r ) . ^ When the comparison was limited to androgynous and sex-typed couples (couples in which the father was masculine and the mother was feminine), sex-typed parents were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than androgynous parents to be represented in what t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s would term "good" parenting styles (authoritative, demanding, and t r a d i t i o n a l ) and androgynous parents were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than sex-50 typed parents to be represented in what t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s would term "bad" parenting styles (permissive, rejecting/neglecting, nondirective and authoritarian). The present findings run counter to Spence and Helmreich 1s (1978) claim that androgynous parents are more l i k e l y to be authoritative parents. Similar to Baumrind's findings for couples, androgynous mothers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y 2 than others to be democratic- permissive ("Y. [ 1 » N=8.5] = 6.8, 2=<.01) and were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than others to be authoritative-democratic. This l a t t e r result i s surprising because the androgynous mothers in Baumrind's sample d i f f e r e d from her other mothers only in their use of g u i l t induction--a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c not used to c l a s s i f y parenting s t y l e s . It was the androgynous fathers who were comparatively lacking on firmness. In contrast to Baumrind's findings for couples, but as would be expected from her results for mothers alone, androgynous mothers were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y less l i k e l y than others to be authoritative-demanding. When the present analysis was limited to only androgynous and sex-typed mothers, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between their respective representations in either the "good" or the "bad" parenting style categories. There was, however, a difference in which of the "bad" categories each was 51 represented. Exploratory analyses revealed that androgynous mothers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than other mothers to be permissive (X [ 1 , N=85]=7.12, p_=<.0l), whereas feminine mothers (sex-typed) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than others to be rejecting/neglecting ( X 2 [ 1 , N=85]=4.33, JD=<.05). When these analyses were run c o n t r o l l i n g for the sex of the c h i l d in question, androgynous mothers were only s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than others to be permissive with male children 2 (X [1, N=48 ] = 9. 69, p_=< . 01 ) , while feminine mothers were only more l i k e l y than others to be rejecting/neglecting with female children (X. 2[1, N=36] = 3.48, p_=<.07).8 Frequencies for parenting categories by BSRI types are reported separately for mothers of g i r l s and mothers of boys in Tables 14 and 15. To summarize the results obtained using the BSRI, androgynous mothers d i f f e r e d from other mothers in their tendency to be permissive with boys. Feminine mothers d i f f e r e d from other mothers in their tendency to be rejecting/neglecting with g i r l s . The c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny and authoritative  parenting. A second set of analyses were done to determine whether these results would be replicated using the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny ( c a p a b i l i t i e s for dominance and warmth). A median-split scoring method was used to remain consistent with 52 the t r e a t m e n t of the BSRI i n the former a n a l y s e s . Because i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o a c h i e v e a t r u e median s p l i t on the s i n g l e i tem c a p a b i l i t y i n d e x e s f o r dominance and warmth, the c a p a b i l i t y f o r warmth was combined w i t h the c a p a b i l i t y f o r t r u s t and the c a p a b i l i t y f o r dominance was combined w i t h the c a p a b i l i t y f o r b e i n g a m b i t i o u s , and t h e i r j o i n t medians used t o d i s t i n g u i s h among mothers. T r u s t i n g and a m b i t i o u s were chosen because of t h e i r p r o x i m i t y t o warmth and dominance i n the s t r u c t u r e of c a p a b i l i t i e s . In T a b l e 16 the number of mothers i n each p a r e n t i n g type by each c a p a b i l i t i e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d . S i m i l a r t o the r e s u l t s a c h i e v e d u s i n g the BSRI c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , mothers p o s s e s s i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r both dominance and warmth were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than o t h e r s t o be a u t h o r i t a t i v e - d e m o c r a t i c ; nor were they s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s l i k e l y than o t h e r s t o be c l a s s i f i e d as a u t h o r i t a t i v e - d e m a n d i n g . In c o n t r a s t t o the f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d u s i n g the BSRI index of androgyny, these mothers were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y than o t h e r s t o be d e m o c r a t i c -p e r m i s s i v e . When compared o n l y w i t h mothers who s c o r e d h i g h on warmth and low on dominance ( f e m i n i n e m o t h e r s ) , n e i t h e r the androgynous mothers nor the f e m i n i n e mothers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more or l e s s 53 represented, than the other, in the t r a d i t i o n a l l y "good" categories (authoritative & demanding) or the t r a d i t i o n a l l y "bad" categories (permissive, rejecting/neglecting, nondirective, & authoritarian). When the sex of the c h i l d was controlled for, androgynous mothers were more l i k e l y than other 2 8 mothers to be permissive with boys (X [ 1 / N=49]=3.70, p_=<.06) but not with g i r l s . Feminine mothers, while not underrepresented in the combined "bad" categories, were not overrepresented in any single "bad" category. Frequencies for parenting categories by c a p a b i l i t i e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are reported separately for mothers of g i r l s and mothers of boys in Tables 17 and 18. To summarize the results obtained using the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny, androgynous mothers and feminine mothers were equally l i k e l y to be represented in both the "good" and the "bad" categories. However, whereas feminine mothers c l a s s i f i e d as "bad" parents were f a i r l y evenly represented across the categories of permissive, rejecting/neglecting, nondirective, and authoritarian, androgynous mothers c l a s s i f i e d as "bad" parents were la b e l l e d such because of their overrepresentation in the permissive category. Comparison of the three sets of re s u l t s . Androgynous mothers, whether c l a s s i f i e d as such using the BSRI or using the 54 c a p a b i l i t y indexes for dominance and warmth, were more l i k e l y than other mothers to be permissive with boys. While t h i s result i s p a r t i a l l y consistent with Baumrind's finding that androgynous couples were more l i k e l y than other couples to be democratic-permissive, i t l i k e l y occurred for a d i f f e r e n t reason. Baumrind's androgynous parents d i f f e r e d from her sex-typed parents on only one relevant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - - t h e androgynous fathers' comparative lack of firmness. The association between androgyny and permissive parenting in th i s sample of mothers l i k e l y arose from the lack of a positive association between masculinity or the c a p a b i l i t y for dominance and Demandingness. Had the index for Demandingness been weighted less in the dir e c t i o n of items pertaining to achievement and more in the di r e c t i o n of general directiveness, androgynous mothers might not have been more permissive than other mothers. The tendency for mothers c l a s s i f i e d as feminine on the BSRI to be more rejecting/neglecting of g i r l s than other mothers was a somewhat unexpected variation from Baumrind's r e s u l t s . Because demandingness (for mothers of g i r l s ) involves having masculine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i t is not surprising that feminine mothers lacked demandingness. However, why the feminine mothers of g i r l s were more l i k e l y than other mothers to be low on responsiveness is unclear. It may be that feminine mothers and female children 55 both have comparatively low a c t i v i t y l e v e l s and so i n t e r a c t l e s s than other m o t h e r / c h i l d combinations. The f a c t that t h i s p a t t e r n was not r e p l i c a t e d u sing the c a p a b i l i t i e s index (feminine mothers hi g h on the c a p a b i l i t y f o r warmth/trust and low on the c a p a b i l i t y f o r dominance/ambitiousness) suggests that t h i s tendency towards low responsiveness may somehow be r e l a t e d to the l e s s s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e dimensions of f e m i n i n i t y . Socioeconomic Status and A u t h o r i t a t i v e P a r e n t i n g Although the focus of t h i s research has been on p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to p a r e n t i n g , the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between a number of the demographic measures and a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g must be addressed and the h e u r i s t i c value of a more s o c i o l o g i c a l model needs to be c o n s i d e r e d . There were p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the socioeconomic v a r i a b l e s (mother's education, f a t h e r ' s education, income and socioeconomic s t a t u s ) and the mothers' scores on a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g (see Table 1). However, f u r t h e r analyses using the f a c t o r indexes d e r i v e d from the p a r e n t i n g Q-sort i n p l a c e of the c o r r e l a t i o n s with the p r o f i l e of a u t h o r i t a t i v e p a r e n t i n g r e v e a l e d that only the mothers' scores on the Demandingness index were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with these socioeconomic measures (see Table 19). Given the composition of the 56 Demandingness index, t h i s result l i k e l y r e f l e c t s the well-documented association between s o c i a l class and achievement expectations (Gecas, 1979). Although a number of studies (Hess & Shipman, 1968; McKinley, 1964; Rosen, 1964; Zunich, 1962) have reported a positive association between s o c i a l class and parental a f f e c t i o n and involvement, there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t association between the socioeconomic measures and the mothers' scores on the Responsiveness index. It may be that the sex of the parent i s an important factor in t h i s association (Gecas, 1979). Findings from a number of studies (Bowerman & Elder, 1964; Kohn, 1969; Rosen, 1964; Rosenberg, 1965; Thomas, Gecas, Weigert, & Rooney, 1974) indicate that there i s a greater class difference in fathers' support and involvement. In sum, the present data suggest that s o c i a l class i s a strong determinant of one aspect of authoritative parenting--achievement expectations. However, at least with respect to mothers, socioeconomic status does not appear to be a predictor of the broader grouping of behaviors labelled as authoritative parent ing. Conclusion In summary, the results of the multiple regression analysis 57 f a i l e d to support the prediction that androgyny i s p o s i t i v e l y associated with authoritative parenting. Neither the BSRI nor the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance in the authoritative parenting p r o f i l e . While t h i s may r e f l e c t a true lack of linear association between these variables, an examination of the parenting p r o f i l e revealed c e r t a i n problems with i t s use. The Block Q-sort proved to be a less than ideal measure of parental control because i t lacks items that assess firm enforcement. In addition, the p r o f i l e technique, although p o t e n t i a l l y viable, i s sensitive to biases caused by an imbalance in the items used as a basis for the c o r r e l a t i o n s . The results obtained with the second regression equation revealed a negative association between functional f l e x i b i l i t y and authoritative parenting. In contrast to the expected positive association, t h i s result indicates that mothers who were w i l l i n g to endorse both the s o c i a l l y desirable and the s o c i a l l y undesirable c a p a b i l i t i e s were less l i k e l y , than those who did not, to match the p r o f i l e of authoritative parenting. It was suggested that the mothers who were w i l l i n g to endorse the more negative c a p a b i l i t i e s may perceive them as less s o c i a l l y undesirable than do the other mothers. This may result in their perceiving more situations as e l i c i t i n g these responses, and 58 thus, their engaging in parenting behaviors that, by external standards, inappropriately deploy these c a p a b i l i t i e s . This problem might be overcome, in future research, by emphasizing to the subjects that the BIC questions concern s i t u a t i o n a l l y "appropriate" c a p a b i l i t i e s rather than t y p i c a l responses and by o b j e c t i f y i n g what i s considered appropriate. The results of the analyses, using the BSRI and Baumrind's parenting categories also f a i l e d to support Spence and Helmreich's (1978) claim that androgynous individuals are more l i k e l y than others to be authoritative parents. However, in contrast to the view of t r a d i t i o n a l gender identity theorists (e.g., Barry, Bacon, & Child, 1975; Benedek, 1956; Bios, 1962; Klein, 1948; Parsons, 1951; Rossi, 1977) there was also no indication that the development of cross-sex q u a l i t i e s in women (e.g., agency) interferes with the development of sex appropriate t r a i t s (e.g., communion). Androgynous mothers were not more l i k e l y than sex-typed mothers to be bad parents. In fact, i t could be argued that the androgynous mothers' tendency towards permissive parenting (where the fault l i e s only in low demandingness) i s more acceptable than the feminine mothers' tendency to be rejecting/neglecting (where the fault l i e s in the absence of both demandingness and responsiveness). The emergence of parenting differences associated with the 59 sex of the c h i l d suggests that mothers' responses vary according to the c h i l d ' s sex and, thus, that t h i s i s an important factor to be considered in future research. These variations may be attributable to gender-identity related differences in mothers' responses to general temperament and a c t i v i t y l e v e l differences between boys and g i r l s . There i s also some suggestion, s p e c i f i c a l l y in the findings concerning mothers' levels of Demandingness, that sex role attitudes and b e l i e f s may play an intermediary role by motivating d i f f e r e n t expectations and, thus, d i f f e r e n t responses to boys versus g i r l s . The results of the analyses using the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny and Baumrind's parenting categories were e s s e n t i a l l y the same as those based on the BSRI. The one s i g n i f i c a n t difference was the f a i l u r e to replicate the finding that feminine mothers were more l i k e l y than other mothers to be rejecting/neglecting with g i r l s . This result may r e f l e c t the fact that the BSRI femininity scale includes some less positive attributes in addition to warmth. It may also r e f l e c t the fact that the c a p a b i l i t y index assesses "appropriate" warmth. With regard to the argument that the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny i s a truer measure of functional f l e x i b i l i t y than the BSRI and thus should be a better predictor of the f l e x i b l e style of the authoritative parent, the results are inconclusive. If 60 b e l i e f s and values do play a larger role in parenting than do interpersonal a b i l i t i e s , then a simple association between androgyny and authoritative parenting may not e x i s t . If the association does exist, problems with the c a p a b i l i t i e s index may have attenuated the relationship. The use of a single item for assessing each c a p a b i l i t y was problematic in that i t allowed the tendency towards s o c i a l l y desirable responding to have a f a i r l y r e s t r i c t i v e effect on the variance of the individual c a p a b i l i t i e s , and, thus, on their predictive u t i l i t y . One way of overcoming th i s problem would be to use more items to assess each c a p a b i l i t y . The comparatively high rate of s o c i a l l y desirable responding was also a problem in that i t worked against the assessment of "functional" f l e x i b i l i t y . However, thi s is a measurement issue which could, in future research, be eliminated by stressing that the questions concern appropriate behavior and by obj e c t i f y i n g what this means. It does not undermine the concept of c a p a b i l i t i e s or the conceptualization of functional f l e x i b i l i t y in terms of c a p a b i l i t i e s . In sum, while the results of t h i s study did provide support for Baumrind's (1982) findings rather than those of Spence and Helmreich (1978), the conceptual strengths underlying the c a p a b i l i t i e s index of androgyny may not have been adequately tested. 61 Footnotes 1 These were Bern's (1974) difference score, the absolute value of femininity minus masculinity; and the interaction of masculinity and femininity scales indexed by their product (Lubinski, Tellegen, & Butcher, 1981, 1983). 2 A measure similar to the variance index used by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1981). 3 The comparison was made with Baumrind's parenting measure rather than with Spence and Helmreich's measure because they equate their "best" parents with her "authoritative" parents and draw conclusions concerning the att r i b u t e s of t h i s style from her research. 4 Yates correction was used when the expected frequency in any c e l l was less than 5. Although Spence and Helmreich (1978) claim that their "best" parents possess the high demandingness and high responsiveness c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Baumrind's "authoritative" parents, Baumrind argues that their best parents more resemble her "democratic" parents (medium demanding, high responsive). To give Spence and Helmreich the benefit of the doubt, Baumrind combined these two categories when testing the correspondence between BSRI and best parent types. 6 Baumrind's reasons for collapsing the democratic and permissive categories and the authoritative and demanding categories are not c l e a r . The l a t t e r combination is probably intended to represent the parenting styles that t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s would term "good". T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s term "good", parenting styles that combine a high l e v e l of demandingness with a medium or high l e v e l of responsiveness. 62 7 T r a d i t i o n a l i s t s term "bad", p a r e n t i n g s t y l e s that l a c k demandingness (p e r m i s s i v e , r e j e c t i n g / n e g l e c t i n g , and nond i r e c -t i v e ) or i n which h o s t i l i t y undermines demandingness ( a u t h o r i t a r i a n ) . 8 These r e s u l t s were i n c l u d e d because they were s i g n i f i c a n t at p_.<.05 when Yates c o r r e c t i o n was not used.' 63 References Barry, H., Bacon, M. K., & Child, I. L. (1957). A cr o s s - c u l t u r a l survey of some sex differences in s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Journal of  Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-332. Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on c h i l d behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907. Baumrind, D. (1967). Childcare practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 (1, pt. 2). Baumrind, D. (1982). Are androgynous individuals more e f f e c t i v e persons and parents? Child Development, 53, 44-75. Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 42, 155-162. Bern, S. L. (1975). Sex role a d a p t a b i l i t y : One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 31, 634-643. Bern, S. L. (1981). Bern Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a : Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. Bern, S. L., & Lenny, E. (1976). Sextyping and the avoidance of cross-sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 33, 48-54. Benedek, T. (1956). Psychobiological aspects of mothering. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 26, 272-278. Blishen, B. R., C a r r o l l , W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada. Canadian  Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 465-488. Block, J. H. (1965). The Childrearing Practices Report: A set of  Q-items for the description of parental s o c i a l i z a t i o n  attitudes and values. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a , Institute of Human Development. 64 Bios, P. (1962). On adolescence: A psychoanalytic interpretation. New York: Free Press. Bowerman, C. E. & Elder, G. H. (1964). Variations in adolescent perception of family power structure. American Sociological  Review, 29, 551-567. Broughton, R., & Paulhus, D. L. (1984, June). Maximal versus  t y p i c a l measures of interpersonal t r a i t s . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting  Psychology, 24, 349-354. Frable, D.E. (in press). Sex-typing and gender ideology: Two facets of the individual's gender psychology that go together Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of so c i a l class on s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In W. R. Burr, R. H i l l , F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 365-404). New York: The Free Press. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Unconfounding s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s from uncertain, neutral, and ambiguous ones: A psychometric analysis of descriptions of oneself and others. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 517-552. Hess, R. D. & Shipman, V. (1968). Maternal attitudes toward the school and the role of the pu p i l : Some s o c i a l class comparisons. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Developing programs for  the educationally disadvantaged. New York: Columbia University Press. Kaplan, A. G. (1979). C l a r i f y i n g the concept of androgyny: Implications for therapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 3, 223-230. Klein, M. (1948). Contributions to psychoanalysis, 1945. London: Hogarth. Kohn, M. L. (1969). Class conformity: A study in values. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press. 65 Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1981). The re l a t i o n s h i p between androgyny and subjective indicators of emotional well being. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 40, 722-730. Lubinski, D., Tellegen, A., & Butcher, J. N. (1983). Masculinity, femininity, and androgyny viewed and assessed as d i s t i n c t concepts. Journal of Personality and Social  Psychology, 44, 428-439. Martin, C. L., & Paulhus, D. L. (1984, August) A new approach to  assessing interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y : Functional f l e x i b i l i t y . Paper presented at the meeting of The American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario. Martin, C. L., & Van Oeveren, M. A. (1986) Reconceiving androgyny in terms of c a p a b i l i t i e s . Unpublished manuscript, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. McKinley, D. G. (1964). Social class and family l i f e . New York: Collier-Macmilian. Parsons, T. (1951), The s o c i a l system. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1-988). Functional f l e x i b i l i t y : A new conception of interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88-101. Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1987). The structure of personality c a p a b i l i t i e s . Journal of Personality and  Social Psychology, 52, 354-365. Rosen, B. C. (1964). Social class and the c h i l d ' s perception of the parent. Chi Id Development, 35, 1147-1154. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. Rossi, A. (1.977). A b i o s o c i a l perspective on parenting. Daedalus, 106, 1-31. 66 Rickel, A.U., & B i a s a t t i , L.L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report. Journal of C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 38, 120-134. Snyder, M. (1974). Self monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 526-537. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and  femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and  antecedants. Austin: University of Texas Press. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex-role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163. Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert, A., & Rooney, E. (1974). Family s o c i a l i z a t i o n and the adolescent. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. Wallace, J. (1966). An a b i l i t i e s conception of personality: Some implications for personality measurement. Amer ican  Psychologist, 21, 132-138. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psychological androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 46, 40-52. Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of t r a i t descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1981). Further evidence on androgyny and interpersonal f l e x i b i l i t y . Journal of Research  in Personality, 15, 67-80. Willerman, L., Turner, R. G., & Peterson, M. (1976). A comparison of the predictive v a l i d i t y of t y p i c a l and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in  Personality, J_0, 482-492. Zunich, M. (1962). Relationship between maternal behavior and attitudes toward children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 100, 155-165. 67 Table 1 Demographic Correlates of Authoritative Parenting. Demographic Mother's use of authoritative measures parenting style Mother's Age .03 ** Education .37 a Religious upbringing .21 Present r e l i g i o u s a a f f i l i a t i o n .03 a Ethnic background .24 a Marital status .12 Number of children .05 Father's ** Education .31 ** Income .26 Socioeconomic ** status .30 Child's Age -.11 Sex -.05 a Birthorder .14 a Note. An MCA multiple r_ i s being reported because of the l e v e l of measurement. Socioeconomic status was assessed using Blishen's socioeconomic index (1987). ** p_ <.01 68 Table 2 Regression Coe f f i c i e n t s for Model 1. Independent Beta T Significance of T var iables T r a i t s Masculinity .11 Femininity .03 Masc. x Fern. C a p a b i l i t i e s Dominance -.07 Warmth -.05 Dom. x Warm. .80 .42 .23 .82 -.52 .61 -.42 .67 Note. Betas are for independent e f f e c t s . The interaction variables were not entered into the equation because of tolerance l e v e l s less than .01. None of the above results were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 69 Table 3 Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for Model 2. Independent Beta T Significance of T variables T r a i t s Masculinity .09 Femininity .10 Masc. x Fern. C a p a b i l i t i e s Dominance -.09 Warmth -.08 Dom. x Warm. .63 .53 .84 .40 -.64 .52 -.70 .49 Note. Betas are for independent e f f e c t s . The interaction variables were not entered into the equation because of tolerance levels less than .01. None of the above results were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 70 Table 4 Regression Coe f f i c i e n t s for Model 3. Independent var iables Beta Significance of T T r a i t s Masculinity , 1 5 Femininity -.00. Masc. x Fern. C a p a b i l i t i e s Dominance -.21 Warmth .13 Dom. x Warm. .07 -.01 1 .43 1 .03 .28 .99 1 5 .31 Note. Betas are for independent e f f e c t s . The interaction variables were not entered into the equation because of tolerance lev e l s less than .01. None of the above results were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 71 Table 5 Regression Coef f i c i e n t s for Model 4. Independent var iables Beta T Significance of T C a p a b i l i t i e s Dominance .03 .24 .81 Warmth -.06 -.56 .58 * F l e x i b i l i t y -.22 - 1 .95 .05 Note. Betas are for independent e f f e c t s . * £ <.05 72 Table 6 Regression C o e f f i c i e n t s for Model 5. Independent variables Beta T Significance of T Capabi1i t ies Dominance .01 .12 .91 Warmth -.08 -.69 .49 F l e x i b i l i t y -.21 -1.80 .07 Note. Betas are for independent e f f e c t s . None of the above results were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 73 Table 7 Items for Factor ,1 With Factor Loadings. Responsiveness. Factor loadings Item Item l i s t .49 1 I respect my ch i l d ' s opinions and encourage him/her to express them. -.40 5 I often feel angry with my c h i l d . -.49 15 I believe that a c h i l d should be seen and not heard. .44 19 I find some of my greatest s a t i s f a c t i o n s in my c h i l d . .40 21 I encourage my c h i l d to wonder and think about l i f e . .74 26 I l e t my c h i l d make many decisions for himself/herself. -.41 32 I feel my c h i l d i s a b i t of a dissappointment to me. .64 34 I am easy going and relaxed with my c h i l d . .38 38 I talk i t over and reason with my c h i l d when he/she misbehaves. .55 40 I joke and play with my c h i l d . .42 41 I give my c h i l d a good many duties and family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . .50 42 My c h i l d and I have warm intimate • times together. 74 I encourage my c h i l d to be curious, to explore and question things. When I am angry with my c h i l d I le t him/her know i t . I enjoy having the house f u l l of children. There i s a good deal of c o n f l i c t between my c h i l d and me. I l e t my c h i l d know how ashamed and dissappointed I am when he/she misbehaves. T find i t interesting and educational to be with my c h i l d for long periods. I control my c h i l d by warning him/her about the bad things that can happen to him/her. 75 Table 8 Items for Factor 2 With Factor Loadings. Neurotic ism. Factor loadings Item Item l i s t -.52 5 I often feel angry with my c h i l d . -.51 7 I punish my c h i l d by putting him/her off somewhere by himself/ herself for awhile. -.45 24 I fe e l a c h i l d should have time to think, daydream, and even loaf sometimes. -.45 32 I feel my c h i l d i s a b i t of a dissappointment to me. .38 44 I think one has to l e t a c h i l d take many chances as he/she grows up and t r i e s new things. .57 54 I believe that children should not have secrets from their parents. -.52 60 I punish my c h i l d by taking away a pr i v i l e g e he/she otherwise would have had. .40 68 I worry about the health of my c h i l d . -.46 69 There i s a good deal of c o n f l i c t between my c h i l d and me. -.60 72 I l i k e to have some time for myself, away from my c h i l d . -.46 75 I encourage my c h i l d to be independent of me. 76 I think a c h i l d should be weaned from the breast or bottle as soon as possible. I don't go out i f I have to leave my c h i l d with a stranger. I don't think children should be given sexual information before they can understand everything. 77 Table 9 Items for Factor 3 With Factor Loadings. Demandingness. Factor loadings Item Item l i s t .55 2 1 encourage my c h i l d always to do his or her best. -.44 7 I punish my c h i l d by putting him/her off somewhere by himself/ herself for awhile. -.42 16 I sometimes forget the promises I have made to my c h i l d . -.37 25 I find i t d i f f i c u l t to punish my c h i l d . .55 33 I expect a great deal of my c h i l d . .48 47 I expect my c h i l d to be grateful and appreciate a l l the advantages he/she has. .51 55 I teach my c h i l d to keep control of of his/her feelings at a l l times. .40 59 I think a c h i l d should be encouraged to do things better than others. .41 74 I want my c h i l d to make a good impression on others. 78 Table 10 Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor  Indexes for the Total Sample (N = 85). Factor indexes Independent variables Responsiveness Neurot ic i sm Demandingness T r a i t s * Masculinity .09 ** -.20 ** .08 ** Femininity .27 .26 -.24 Ca p a b i l i t i e s Dominance .06 * -.07 ** -.01 * Warmth U Trust) . 1 9 .28 -.17 F l e x i b i l i t y (16 caps.) .02 .02 -.07 Note. * 2 <-05 ** £ <.01 79 Table 11 Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor  Indexes for Mothers of G i r l s (N = 36). Factor indexes Independent variables Responsiveness Neuroticism Demandingness Tr a i t s * Masculinity .16 * -.25 .29 * Femininity .33 . 1 5 -.32 Ca p a b i l i t i e s Dominance .13 .07 .25 Warmth (& Trust) .22 .23 -.21 F l e x i b i l i t y (1 6 caps.) .16 -.19 . 1 1 Note. * 2 <- 0 5 80 Table 12 Correlations Between the Independent Variables (Masculinity, Femininity, Dominance and Warmth) and the Parenting Factor  Indexes for Mothers of Boys (N = 48). Independent variables Factor indexes Responsiveness Neuroticism Demandingness Tr a i t s Masculinity Femininity C a p a b i l i t i e s Dominance Warmth (Sc Trust) F l e x i b i l i t y (16 caps.) .05 .23 .00 .18 -.08 -.16 ** 34 -.20 32 .15 -.07 -.18 i -.23 -.17 -.19 Note. * 2 < - 0 5 * * £ < - 0 1 81 Table 13 Frequencies for Parent ing Categories by BSRI Types for the Total Sample. BSRI types Parenting types Undi i f f . Fern. Masc. Andro. Row tot a l s Authoritative - 3 2 4 9 Undi f ferentiated - 5 1 3 9 Reject./neglect. 1 •6 1 - . 8 Demanding 4 3 1 2 10 Authoritarian 3 2 5 3 13 Democratic 2 5 1 5 13 Undif./nondir. 1 3 - 1 5 Permissive - 1 2 8 1 1 Nondi rect ive 2 2 1 2 7 Column t o t a l s 1 3 30 1 4 28 85 82 Table 14 Frequencies for Parenting Categories by BSRI Types for the Mothers of G i r l s . BSRI types Parenting types Undiff. Fern. Ma sc. Andro. Row to t a l s Authoritative - 1 2 2 5 Undi fferentiated - 1 - 1 2 Reject./neglect. 1 4 - - 5 Demanding 2 - - 1 3 Authoritarian 1 - 1 2 4 Democratic 1 2 - 4 7 Undif./nondir. 1 2 - - 3 Permissive - 1 1 2 4 Nondi rect ive 1 1 — 1 3 Column to t a l s 7 12 4 1 3 36 83 Table 15 Frequencies for Parenting Categories by BSRI Types for the Mothers of Boys. BSRI types Parenting types Undiff. Fern. Masc. Andro. Row t o t a l s Authoritative - 2 - 2 4 Undifferentiated - 4 1 1 6 Reject./neglect. - 2 1 - 3 Demanding 2 3 1 1 7 Authoritarian 2 2 4 1 9 Democrat ic 1 3 1 1 6 Undi f./nondi r. - 1 - 1 2 Permissive - - 1 6 7 Nondi rect ive 1 1 1 1 4 Column t o t a l s 6 18 10 1 4 48 84 Table 16 Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for the Total Sample. C a p a b i l i t i e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Parenting types Undiff. Fern. Masc. Andro. Row t o t a l s Authoritative 2 1 3 2 8 Undi fferent iated 1 3 2 2 8 Reject./neglect. 1 4 1 3 9 Demanding 1 4 2 3 10 Authoritarian 2 3 8 1 14 Democratic 3 5 1 4 1 3 Undif,/nondir. 2 2 - 1 5 Permissive 3 1 1 6 1 1 Nondirective 1 3 2 2 8 Column t o t a l s 1 6 26 20 24 86 85 Table 17 Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for the Mothers of G i r l s . C a p a b i l i t i e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Parenting types Undiff. Fem. Masc. Andro. Row t o t a l s Authoritative - 1 1 1 3 Undi ffe r e n t i a t e d 1 1 - - 2 Reject./neglect. 1 2 1 1 5 Demanding - 1 .1 1 3 Authoritarian 1 1 2 1 5 Democrat ic 1 3 1 • 2 7 Undif./nondir. 2 1 - - 3 Permissive 2 1 - 1 4 Nondirective — 1 2 1 4 Column t o t a l s 8 1 2 8 8 36 86 Table 18 Frequencies for Parenting Categories by C a p a b i l i t i e s C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for the Mothers of Boys. C a p a b i l i t i e s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s Parenting types Undiff. Fern. Masc. Andro. Row t o t a l s Authoritative 2 - 2 1 5 Undi f ferent iated - 1 2 2 5 Re ject./neglect. - 2 - 2 4 Demanding 1 3 1 2 7 Author i tar ian 1 2 6 - 9 Democrat ic 2 2 - 2 6 Undi f./nondi r. - 1 - 1 2 Permissive 1 - 1 5 7 Nondirective 1 2 - 1 4 Column to t a l s 8 1 3 1 2 1 6 49 87 Table 19 Correlations Between The Demographic Variables and the Parenting Indexes. Demographic var iables Factor indexes Responsiveness Neuroticism Demandingness Mother's education Father's education Father's income Father' s soc ioeconomic status . 1 3 .07 .06 .02 ** -.23 -.05 -.15 -.27 ** ** 36 ** .37 ** .30 ** 31 Note. Socioeconomic status was assessed using Blishen's socioeconomic index (1987). * * 2 < ' 0 1 88 Section One Mark an XX' next to the single best answer for each question. Please indicate only one answer per question. For some questions you are asked to write an answer. For these please p r i n t . 1. Age 2. How many years of schooling did you complete? (1) 10 years or less (2) 11 - 12 years (3) 13 years (4) 14 - 16 years (5) more than 16 years 3. What i s your present occupation? (Please be as s p e c i f i c as possible) 4. Which of the following categories i s closest to your t o t a l income per year?. (1) 0 - $5,000 • (2) $5,001 - $10,000 (3) $10,001 - $20,000 (4) $20,001 - $30,000 (5) $30,001 - $40,000 ___________ (6) $40,001 - $50,000 (7) more than $50,000 93 5. In which r e l i g i o u s group were you r a i s e d ? (1) none (2) Roman C a t h o l i c (3) Jewish (4) P r o t e s t a n t (5) other, please s p e c i f y 6. Do you p r e s e n t l y f e e l a pa r t of some r e l i g i o u s group? (1) no (2) yes 7. What i s your e t h n i c background? (Please be as s p e c i f i c as p o s s i b l e ) 8. What i s your present m a r i t a l s t a t u s ? ' (1) married (2) common law (3) s i n g l e (4) d i v o r c e d (5) widowed . (6) separated (7) c o h a b i t i n g 9. How many c h i l d r e n of your own do you have? (Include adopted c h i l d r e n ) .•  10. Are you a c t i v e l y r a i s i n g (a primary c a r e t a k e r f o r ) any step c h i l d r e n ? (1) no (2) yes 94 11. Are you a c t i v e l y r a i s i n g any foster children? (1) no (2) yes 12. Please l i s t the ages of a l l children you are a c t i v e l y r a i s i n g , specifying which, i f any, are step or foster children, and the sex of each c h i l d . 13. If you answered vno' to questions 10 and/or 11, but have, in the past, been a primary caretaker for any step or foster children, please l i s t the ages of these children when you las t cared for them on a permanent basis. 14. Two of the questionnaires you w i l l be answering concern parenting. You w i l l be asked to focus on one c h i l d (between the ages 7 and 12) while answering these questions. What i s the age of this child? ' . 15. What i s the sex of this child? (1) female (2) male 95 Important Note Please refer to your behavior with t h i s c h i l d only when answering a l l subsequent questions concerning your parenting practices. 16. Which of the following categories best r e f l e c t s you and your spouse/partner's d i v i s i o n of parenting r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? If you are separated or divorced from your c h i l d ' s father and presently cohabiting with or remarried to another man, please refer to which ever man spends more time interacting with the c h i l d , when answering this question. (1) mother is t o t a l l y responsible (2) mother i s mainly responsible but father is somewhat active (3) mother and father share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y equally (4) father is mainly responsible but mother is somewhat active (5) father is t o t a l l y responsible If you are currently residing with or receiving support from a spouse/partner please complete questions 17 through 19. 96 17. How many years of schooling did your spouse/partner complete? (1) 10 years or less (2) 11 - 12 years (3) 13 years (4) 14 - 16 years (5) more than 16 years 18. What is your spouse/partner's present, occupation? (Please be as s p e c i f i c as possible) 19. Which of the following categories i s closest to your spouse/partner's t o t a l income per year? (1) 0 - $5,000 (2) $5,001 - $10,000 (3) $10,001 - $20,000 (4) $20,001 - $30,000 (5) $30,001 - $40,000 (6) $40,001 - $50,000 ' (7) more than $50,000 97 FFI Inventory Complete a l l questions by writing the most appropriate number to the l e f t of the statement. Use the scale at the top of the page as a guide. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very GREGARIOUS (f r i e n d l y , neighbourly, approachable) How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be gregarious i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be gregarious i f the situ a t i o n requires i t ? How anxious would you feel being gregarious in a situa t i o n that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be gregar ious? Would you l i k e to be gregarious in situations that require i t ? UNASSUMING (humble, modest, not vain) How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be unassuming i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be unassuming i f the situ a t i o n requires i t ? How anxious would you feel being unassuming in a situ a t i o n that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be unassuming? Would you l i k e to be unassuming in situations that require i t ? 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 at a l l Very ALOOF (impersonal, unsociable, distant) How l i k e l y is i t that you could be aloof i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be aloof i f the situation requires i t ? How anxious would you feel being aloof in a situation that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be aloof? Would you l i k e to be aloof in situations that require i t ? ARROGANT (conceited, boastful, cocky) How l i k e l y is i t that you could be arrogant i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be arrogant i f the situation requires i t ? How anxious would you f e e l being arrogant in a situation that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be arrogant? Would you l i k e to be arrogant in situations that require i t ? 1 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very AMBITIOUS (success-oriented, industrious, persistent) How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be ambitious i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be ambitious i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? How anxious would you fee l being ambitious in a situation that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be ambitious? Would you l i k e to be ambitious in situations that require i t ? WARM (tender, kind, sympathetic) How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be warm i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be warm i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? How anxious would you f e e l being warm in a situ a t i o n that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be warm? Would you l i k e to be warm in situations that require i t ? 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very LAZY (unproductive, not industrious, laid-back) How l i k e l y is i t that you could be lazy i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be lazy i f the situation requires i t ? How anxious would you feel being lazy in a situation that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be lazy? Would you l i k e to be lazy in situations that require i t ? COLD (uncharitable, hardhearted, unsympathetic) How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be cold i f the situation requires i t ? How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be cold i f the situation requires i t ? How anxious would you f e e l being cold in a situation that requires i t ? How often do you avoid situations where you need to be cold? Would you l i k e to be cold in situations that require i t ? 1 02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very EXTRAVERTED (outgoing, vivacious, enthusiastic) 1. How l i k e l y is i t that you could be extraverted i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be extraverted i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you feel being extraverted in a situa t i o n that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be extraverted? 5. Would you l i k e to be extraverted in situations that require i t ? TRUSTING (naive, g u l l i b l e , not crafty) .1. How l i k e l y is i t that you could be trusting i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t is i t for you to be trusting i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you feel being trusting in a sit u a t i o n that requires i t ? 4. ___ How often do you avoid situations where you need to be trusting? 5. Would you l i k e to be trusting in situations that require i t ? 1 03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very INTROVERTED (withdrawn, shy, unsparkling) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be introverted i f the situation requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be introverted i f the situation requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you f e e l being introverted in a situation that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be introverted? 5. Would you l i k e to be introverted in situations that require i t ? CALCULATING (cunning, sly, crafty) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t .that you could be ca l c u l a t i n g i f the situation requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be ca l c u l a t i n g i f the situation requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you f e e l being c a l c u l a t i n g in a situation that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be calc u l a t ing? 5. Would you l i k e to be ca l c u l a t i n g in situations that require i t ? 1 04 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very DOMINANT (assertive, f o r c e f u l , firm) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be dominant i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be dominant i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you fe e l being dominant in a sit u a t i o n that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be dominant? 5. Would you l i k e to be dominant in situations that require i t ? AGREEABLE (forgiving, well-mannered, cooperative) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be agreeable i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be agreeable i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you fe e l being agreeable in a sit u a t i o n that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be agreeable? 5. Would you l i k e to be agreeable in situations that require i t ? 105 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 Not at a l l Very SUBMISSIVE (timid, meek, unaggressive) 1. How l i k e l y is i t that you could be submissive i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t is i t for you to be submissive i f the situa t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you fe e l being submissive in a situa t i o n that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be submissive? 5. Would you l i k e to be submissive in situations that require i t ? HOSTILE (quarrelsome, impolite, uncooperative) 1. How l i k e l y is i t that you could be h o s t i l e i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be h o s t i l e i f the sit u a t i o n requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you feel being h o s t i l e in a sit u a t i o n that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be hostile? 5. Would you l i k e to be h o s t i l e in situations that require i t ? 1 06 1 2 Not at a l l 3 4 5 6 7 Very ASSURED (confident, composed, self-confident) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be assured i f the situation requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be assured i f the situation requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you f e e l being assured in a situation that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be assured? 5. Would you l i k e to be assured in situations that require i t ? UNASSURED (insecure, unsure, u n s e l f - r e l i a n t ) 1. How l i k e l y i s i t that you could be unassured i f the situation requires i t ? 2. How d i f f i c u l t i s i t for you to be unassured i f the situation requires i t ? 3. How anxious would you fee l being unassured in a situation that requires i t ? 4. How often do you avoid situations where you need to be unassured? 5. Would you l i k e to be unassured in situations that require i t ? 1 07 Please indicate how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of you each of the following statements i s by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number. 1 = not at a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . 7 = very c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Some of the statements below refer to your b e l i e f s about parenting and some refer to your actual behavior with your c h i l d . Often times, circumstances cause people to act in ways that do not exactly r e f l e c t their b e l i e f s , so do not be concerned i f there is some discrepancy between the two. When rating statements concerning your parenting behavior please refer to your interaction with your c h i l d who i s between 7 and 12 years of age. (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 believe that parents should exercise a l o t of control over their children. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 exercise a lot of control over my c h i l d . 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 believe that parent-child communication is an important part of parent ing. 2 3 4 5 6 7 My c h i l d and I communicate well with one another. 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe that parents should always expect reasonably mature behavior from their children. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 always expect reasonably mature behavior from my c h i l d . 2 3 4 5 6 7 I believe that nurturance is an important part of parenting. 2 3 4 5 6 7 I am very nurturant toward my c h i l d . 108 Now indicate how c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of your spouse/partner each of these statements i s . 1 = not at a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . 7 = very c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . Again, i f you are separated or divorced from your c h i l d ' s father and presently cohabiting with or remarried to another man, please refer to which ever man spends the most time interacting with the c h i l d , when rating these statements. When rating statements concerning your spouse/partner's parenting behavior please refer to his interaction with your c h i l d who i s between 7 and 12 years of age. (1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner believes that parents should exercise a l o t of control over their children. (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner exercises a l o t of control over our c h i l d . (3) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner believes that parent-child communication is an important part of parenting. (4) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner and our c h i l d communicate well with one another. (5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner believes that parents should always expect reasonably mature behavior from their children. (6) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner always expects reasonably mature behavior from our c h i l d . (7) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner believes that nurturance is an important part of parenting. (8) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 My partner i s very nurturant toward our c h i l d . 109 B S R I On the following page, you w i l l be shown a large number of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I would l i k e you to use those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in order to describe yourself. That i s , I would l i k e you to indicate on a scale of 1 to 7 how true of you these various c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are. Please do not leave any ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s unmarked. EXAMPLE: SLY Mark a 1 i f i t is NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 2 i f i t i s USUALLY NOT TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 3 i f i t i s SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 4 i f i t i s OCCASIONALLY TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 5 i f i t i s OFTEN TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 6 i f i t i s USUALLY TRUE that you are s l y . Mark a 7 i f i t i s ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE that you are s l y . Thus, i f you fee l i t i s sometimes but infrequently true that you are " s l y " , never or almost never true that you are "malicious", always or almost always true that you are "irresponsible", and often true that you are "carefree", then you would rate these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as follows: SLY MALICIOUS IRRESPONSIBLE CAREFREE 1 10 1 NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE USUALLY NOT TRUE SOMETIMES BUT INFREQ-UENTLY TRUE OCCASION-ALLY TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE s e l f - r e l i a n t y i e l d i n g h elpful defends own b e l i e f s cheerful moody independent shy consc ient ious a t h l e t i c feminine t h e a t r i c a l a n a l y t i c a l sympathet ic jealous has leader-ship a b i l i t i e s sens i t ive to the needs of others t r u t h f u l w i l l i n g to take risks understanding secretive makes dec i sions eas i l y compassionate sincere warm solemn w i l l i n g to take a stand tender fri e n d l y aggressive insuf f i c -ient acts as a leader c h i l d l i ke adaptable i n d i v i d -u a l i s t i c does not use harsh language 1 1 1 1 NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE USUALLY NOT TRUE SOMETIMES BUT INFREQ-UENTLY TRUE OCCASION-ALLY TRUE OFTEN TRUE USUALLY TRUE ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE assertive s e l f - ______ unsystem-s u f f i c i e n t a t i c f l a t t e r a b l e eager to competitive soothe hurt feelings happy conceited loves children strong dominant t a c t f u l personality lo y a l soft-spoken ambitious unpredict- l i k a b l e gentle able forceful masculine convent-ional a f f e c t i o n - r e l i a b l e ate 1 1 2 Instructions for the Q-Sort Cards In trying to gain more understanding of parenting sty l e s , I would l i k e to know what is important to you as a parent and what kinds of methods you use in ra i s i n g your c h i l d - - i n p a r t i c u l a r , your c h i l d who i s now between 7 and 12 years of age. You are asked to indicate your opinions by sorting through a special set of cards that contain statements about bringing up children. The Cards and Envelopes The set contains 91 cards. Each card contains a sentence having to do with c h i l d r e a r i n g . Some of these statements w i l l be true or descriptive of your attitudes and behavior in re l a t i o n to your c h i l d . Some sentences w i l l be untrue or undescriptive of your feelings and behavior toward t h i s c h i l d . By sorting these cards according to the instructions below, you w i l l be able to show how descriptive or undescriptive each of these sentences i s for you. Together with the cards you have received 7 envelopes, with the following labels: 7. These cards are most descriptive 6. These cards are quite descriptive 5. These cards are f a i r l y descriptive 4. These cards are neither descriptive nor undescriptive 3. These cards are f a i r l y undescriptive 2. These cards are quite undescriptive 1. These cards are most undescriptive Your task i s to choose 13 cards that f i t into each of these categories and to put them into their proper envelopes. How to Sort the Cards (You may wish to check off each step as completed) 1. Shuffle the cards. 2. Spread out the envelopes in a row, going from 7 to 1 (Most descriptive to most undescriptive): 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 13 3. Now take the shuffled deck of cards, and read each sentence c a r e f u l l y . Then make three p i l e s of cards: one p i l e containing cards that are generally true or descriptive of you; one p i l e that you are not certain about, and one p i l e of cards that are generally not true or descriptive. It doesn't make any difference how many cards you put in each of the three p i l e s at thi s time, since you w i l l probably have to do some switching around l a t e r . But you may find i t helpful i f each p i l e contains about the same number of cards. Now your cards and envelopes look l i k e t h i s : 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 "Descriptive" "Not Sure" "Undescriptive" Cards Cards Cards 4. Now take the p i l e of "descriptive" cards and pick out the 13 cards that are the most descriptive of your behavior with your c h i l d . Put these cards on top of envelope #7. Don't put them inside yet, because you might want to s h i f t some of them l a t e r . 5. Next, from the cards that remain, pick out 13 cards that you think are quite descriptive of your behavior and put these on top of envelope #6. (If you run out of cards from your "descriptive" p i l e , y o u ' l l have to add some of the more descriptive cards from your "not sure" p i l e . ) 6. Now, begin at the other end. Take the p i l e of "undescriptive" cards and pick out the 13 cards that are the most undescriptive of you. Put these on top of envelope #1. 7. Then pick out the 13 cards which are quite undescriptive and put them on envelope #2. (Again, you may have to "borrow" from your "not sure" p i l e to make the necessary 13 cards for envelope #2.) 1 1 4 8. You should now have 39 cards l e f t over. These are now to be sorted into three new p i l e s with 13 cards in each: 13 cards that are f a i r l y descriptive of you (to be put on envelope #5); 13 cards that are neither descriptive nor  undescriptive (to be put on envelope #4); and 13 cards that are f a i r l y undescriptive (to be put on envelope #3). You may find i t hard, as others have, to put the same number of cards in each p i l e but I must ask you to follow these directions exactly, even i f you f e e l limited by them. 9. Now, as a l a s t step, look over your sort to see i f there are any changes you want to make. When the cards seem to belong where you have put them, double check to make sure you have 13 cards in each p i l e . Then put each p i l e in the proper envelope and tuck in the flaps. The small envelopes go into the large envelope for return. 1 1 5 Item L i s t for the CRPR Q-Sort 1. I respect my ch i l d ' s opinions and encourage him/her to express them. 2. I encourage my c h i l d always to do his/her best. 3. I put the wishes of my mate before the wishes of my c h i l d . 4. I help my c h i l d when he/she i s being teased by his/her friends. 5. I often feel angry with my c h i l d . 6. If my c h i l d gets into trouble, I expect him/her to handle the problem mostly by himself/herself. 7. I punish my c h i l d by putting him/her off somewhere by himself/herself for awhile. 8. I watch clo s e l y what my c h i l d eats and when he/she eats. 9. I don't think young children of di f f e r e n t sexes should be allowed to see each other naked. 10. I wish my spouse were more interested in our children. 11. I fe e l that a c h i l d should be given comfort and understanding when he/she i s scared or upset. 12. I try to keep my c h i l d away from children of families who have d i f f e r e n t ideas or values from our own. 13. I try to stop my c h i l d from playing rough games or doing things where he/she might get hurt. 14. I believe physical punishment to be the best way of d i s c i p l i n i n g . 15. I believe that a c h i l d should be seen and not heard. 16. I sometimes forget the promises I have made to my c h i l d . 17. I think i t i s good practice for a c h i l d to perform in front of others. 1 16 18. I express a f f e c t i o n by hugging, kissing, and holding my c h i l d . 19. I fi n d some of my greatest s a t i s f a c t i o n s in my c h i l d . 20. I prefer that my c h i l d not try things i f there i s a chance that he/she w i l l f a i l . 21. I encourage my c h i l d to wonder and think about l i f e . 22. I usually take into account my ch i l d ' s preferences in making plans for the family. 23. I wish my c h i l d did not have to grow up so fa s t . 24. I fe e l that a c h i l d should have time to think, daydream, and even loaf sometimes. 25. I find i t d i f f i c u l t to punish my c h i l d . 26. I l e t my c h i l d make many decisions for himself/herself. 27. I do not allow my c h i l d to say bad things about his/her teacher. 28. I worry about the bad and sad things that can happen to a c h i l d as he/she grows up. 29. I teach my c h i l d that in one way or another punishment w i l l find him/her when he/she is bad. 30. I do not blame my c h i l d for whatever happens i f others ask for trouble. 31.1 do not allow my c h i l d to get angry with me. 32. I fe e l my c h i l d i s a b i t of a dissappointment to me. 33. I expect a great deal of my c h i l d . 34. I am easy going and relaxed with my c h i l d . 35. I give up some of my own interests because of my c h i l d . 36. I tend to s p o i l my c h i l d . 117 37. I have never caught my c h i l d l y i n g . 38. I talk i t over and reason with my c h i l d when he/she misbehaves. 39. I trust my c h i l d to behave as he/she should, even when I am not with him/her. 40. I joke and play with my c h i l d . 41. I give my c h i l d a good many duties and family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 42. My c h i l d and I have warm, intimate times together. 43. I have s t r i c t , well-established rules for my c h i l d . 44. I think one has to l e t a c h i l d take many chances as he/she grows up and t r i e s new things. 45. I encourage my c h i l d to be curious, to explore, and question things. 46. I sometimes talk about supernatural forces and beings in explaining things to my c h i l d . 47. I expect my c h i l d to be grateful and appreciate a l l the advantages that he/she has. 48. I sometimes feel that I am too invloved with my c h i l d . 49. I believe in t o i l e t t r a i n i n g a c h i l d as soon as possible. 50. I threaten punishment more often than I actually give i t . 51. I believe in praising a c h i l d when he/she i s good and think i t gets better results than punishing him/her when he/she i s bad. 52. I make sure that my c h i l d knows that I appreciate what he/she t r i e s or accomplishes. 53. I encourage my c h i l d to talk about his/her troubles. 54. I believe that children should not have secrets from their parents. 118 55. I teach my c h i l d to keep control of his/her feelings at a l l times. 56. I try to keep my c h i l d from f i g h t i n g . 57. I dread answering my c h i l d ' s questions about sex. 58. When I am angry with my c h i l d , I l e t him/her know i t . 59. I think a c h i l d should be encouraged to do things better than others. 60. I punish my c h i l d by taking away a p r i v i l e g e he/she otherwise would have had. 61. I give my c h i l d extra p r i v i l e g e s when he/she behaves well. 62. I enjoy having the house f u l l of children. 63. I believe that too much af f e c t i o n and tenderness can harm or weaken a c h i l d . 64. I believe that scolding and c r i t i c i s m makes my c h i l d improve. 65. I believe that my c h i l d should be aware of how much I s a c r i f i c e for him/her. 66. I sometimes tease and make fun of my c h i l d . 67. I teach my c h i l d that he/she i s responsible for what happens to him/her. 68. I worry about the health of my c h i l d . 69. There i s a good deal of c o n f l i c t between my c h i l d and me. 70. I do not allow my c h i l d to question my decisions. 71. I feel that i t is good for a c h i l d to play competitive games 72. I l i k e to have some time for myself, away from my c h i l d . 73. I l e t my c h i l d know how ashamed and dissappointed I am when he/she misbehaves. 1 19 74. I want my c h i l d to make a good impression on others. 75. I encourage my c h i l d to be independent of me. 76. I make sure I know where my c h i l d i s and what he/she is doing. 77. I find i t interesting and educational to be with my c h i l d for long periods. 78. I think a c h i l d should be weaned from the breast or bottle as soon as possible. 79. I instruct my c h i l d not to get d i r t y while he/she i s playing 80. I don't go out i f I have to leave my c h i l d with a stranger. 81. I think jealousy and quarreling between brothers and s i s t e r s should be punished. 82. I think children must learn early not to cry. 83. I control my c h i l d by warning him/her about the bad things that can happen to him/her. 84. I think i t i s best i f the mother, rather than the father, i s the one with the most authority over the children. 85. I don't want my c h i l d to be looked upon as di f f e r e n t from others. 86. I don't think children should be given sexual information before they can understand everything. 87. I believe i t is very important for a c h i l d to play outside and get plenty of fresh a i r . 88. I get pleasure from seeing my c h i l d eating well and enjoying his/her food. 89. I don't allow my c h i l d to tease or play t r i c k s on others. 90. I think i t i s wrong to i n s i s t that young boys and g i r l s have di f f e r e n t kinds of toys and play d i f f e r e n t sorts of games. 1 20 91. I believe i t i s unwise to l e t children play alot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups. Fin a l Instructions When you have completed the questionnaire, please place i t and the small envelopes containing your Q-sort cards in the large envelope and return i t to your c h i l d ' s teacher/daycare dire c t o r . Once again, thank you for your assistance. 121 Appendix C Parenting P r o f i l e Adjustments Average value Number of items Assigned value 7 . 0 5 . 7 6 . 7 7 7 6 . 3 1 7 6 . 3 3 6 6 . 0 6 6 5 . 7 3 6 5 . 3 5 . 0 7 5 4.7 4 5 4.3 2 5 4.3 2 4 4.0 6 4 3.7 5 4 3 . 3 1 3 3 . 0 9 3 2 . 7 3 3 2 . 7 4 2 2 . 3 5 2 2 . 0 4 2 1.7 5 1 1 .3 3 1 1.0 5 1 1 22 Appendix D Table 1 Correlations Among the Demographic Variables. Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mother's 1 . Age ** 2. Education .33 -Father's ** 3. Education .17 ** .54 ** ** 4. Income .43 .44 .39 -5. Socioeconomic status * .25 ** .47 ** .55 ** .67 -6. Number of children ** .37 ** .16 * .23 ** .27 ** .32 ** 7. Child's age .48 --.01 .10 .10 .04 .30 * 8. Child's sex -.07 --.09 .00 - .07 - .07 .09 .22 Note. Socioeconomic status was assessed using Blishen's socioeconomic index (1987). *p_ <.05 **p_ <.01 1 23 Appendix D Table 2 Correlations Between the Demographic and the Independent Variables. Independent variables Mother's Demographic variables Masculinity Femininity Masc. x Fem. Mother's * * Age . 1 1 .19 .22 Education .11 -.11 .06 Father's Education • -.08 -.01 -.09 Income .01 .16 . 1 1 Socioeconomic status -.03 . 1 1 .04 Number of children .05 -.07 .01 Child's age -.07 .11 -.02 Child's sex .09 -.03 .02 Note. Socioeconomic status socioeconomic index (1987). was assessed using Blishen's * _ < « 0 5 1 24 Appendix D Table 2 Continued. Correlations Between the Demographic and the Independent Var iables. Independent variables Demographic variables Mother's Capability for dominance Capability for warmth Dom. x Warm, Mother's Age Education Father's Education Income Socioeconomic status Number of children Child's age Child's sex .1.7 -.01 -.23 -.08 -.08 -.01 . 1 3 .05 -.08 -.07 -.11 .02 i -.24 -.10 -.03 .05 . 1 1 -.05 -.28 -.07 -.19 -.06 .10 .05 ** Note. Socioeconomic status was assessed using Blishen's socioeconomic index (1987). * p_ <.05 ** p <.01 1 25 Appendix D Table 2 Continued. Correlations Between the Demographic and the Independent Variables. Independent variables Mother's Demographic F l e x i b i l i t y F l e x i b i l i t y var iables (14 caps.) (16 caps.) Mother's * Age .17 .18 Education -.12 -.12 Father's Education -.10 -.14 Income . 1 2 . 1 1 Soc ioeconomic * * status -.20 -.22 Number of children -.11 -.12 Child's age -.03 -.01 Child's sex -.01 .00 Note. Socioeconomic status was assessed using Blishen's socioeconomic index (1987). * p <.05 126 Appendix D Table 3 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among the Independent V a r i a b l e s . T r a i t s Caps. F l e x . V a r i a b l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 T r a i t s 1. M a s c u l i n i t y -2. F e m i n i n i t y -.02 ** ** 3. Masc. x Fern. .86 .48 -C a p a b i l i t i e s ** ** 4. Dominance .56 --.05 ** .47 — 5. Warmth -.01 ** .28 . 1 4 ** . 12 ** ** 6. Dom. x Warm. .49 .07 .47 .91 .52 -F l e x i b i l i t y * * 7. 14 caps. . 10 . 1 3 . 1 5 .21 ** .04 .20 * * * * 8. 16 caps. .16 . 1 3 .21 .33 . 1 1 . 3 3 .99 Note. * 2 < - 0 5 ** E < ' 0 1 127 Appendix D Table 4 Correlations Among the Factor Indexes Derived from the Parenting Q-Sort. Variables 1 2 3 Factor indexes 1. Responsiveness . - ' * 2. Neuroticism .21 * 3. Demandingness -.18 -.15 Note. * _ < » 0 5 1 28 

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.831.1-0097811/manifest

Comment

Related Items