UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Parents' reactions to children's behaviour problems Railton, Joan Mary 1940

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1940_A8 R2 P2.pdf [ 8.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105398.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105398-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105398-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105398-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105398-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105398-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105398-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105398-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105398.ris

Full Text

PARENTS 8 REACTIONS TO CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS. by " : Joan Mary R a i l t o n A T h e s i s s u b m i t t e d i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t of ;..the Requirements f o r the DEGREE OP MASTER OF ARTS i n the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1940 I CONTENTS Chapter Page I . I n t r o d u c t i o n ^ I I The S e l e c t i o n o f U n d e s i r a b l e Behaviour-T r a i t s . ... I H I I I P a r e n t a l R a t i n g s of the R e l a t i v e S e r i o u s -ness of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s , , ,.« £ 8 IV The R e l a t i v e Amounts of D i f f i c u l t y E n c o u n t e r e d by P a r e n t s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . .. V P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s o f the R e l a t i v e C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Home and S c h o o l i n the C o r r e c t i o n o f U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r * ..e j f VI An E v a l u a t i o n o f C e r t a i n S c h o o l I n f l u e n c e s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . . fe/f V I I Summary, C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations. ... 7 / B i b l i o g r a p h y . ... 76 Appendix: . '... g 3 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I Q u e s t i o n n a i r e IV Q u e s t i o n n a i r e V Q u e s t i o n n a i r e VI X. LIST OF TABLES Table Pages I Summary of R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by R e s e a r c h Workers i n the I n v e s t i g a t i o n of P a r e n t i s ' A t t i t u d e s t o C h i l d r e n ' s B e h a v i o u r Problems.... //, 1%. I I C l a s s i f i e d L i s t of B e h a v i o u r Problems Sub m i t t e d by P a r e n t s . .... / 6>. 17» ' & I I I . P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of the Frequency of ' B e h a v i o u r Problems. .... %0,$.l. IV / P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s , Shown i n Group Form o f the Frequency of B e h a v i o u r Problems. * ' .... JL^L. .2.3. V Summary o f P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s o f the Frequency of Be h a v i o u r Problems. ..*« DJj VI P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s as to the I n c i d e n c e o f ' A g g r e s s i v e ' and 1 Withdrawing*' P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s . .... V I I I n c i d e n c e of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s as L i s t e d by Twenty-seven Teachers i n Wickman's Study. • .... V I I I s P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of t h e Frequency of Occurrence o f U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . . . . 3 0 : IX \ P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s o f the Adjustment D i f -f i c u l t y of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s £\ X P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s , Shown i n Group Form, of the Frequency of Occurrence and Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . . . . X I Summary o f A t t i t u d e s o f P a r e n t s , Teachers and C l i n i c i a n s t o B e h a v i o u r Problems. .... X I I P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of the 'Frequency' and 'Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y ' of 'Withdrawing' and ' A g g r e s s i v e ' T r a i t s . ..., X I I I Amount of D i f f i c u l t y E n c o u n t e r e d by P a r e n t s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . .... y$ XIV P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s , Shown i n Group Form > of the Amount o f D i f f i c u l t y E n c o u n t e r e d i n the C o r r e c t i o n o f U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . , . . l+U^Uf] 3H~*7 14.O L i s t of Tab l e s ( c o n t i n u e d ) Table XV Amount of D i f f i c u l t y E n c o u n t e r e d by P a r e n t s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of ' A g g r e s s i v e ' and 'Withdrawing' T r a i t s . XVI I n f l u e n c e of Home and S c h o o l on R e s i d e n t P u p i l s . X V I I I n f l u e n c e of Home and S c h o o l on Day P u p i l s . X V I I I I n f l u e n c e of Home and S c h o o l on Day and on R e s i d e n t P u p i l s , Shown i n Group Form. XIX The R e l a t i v e I n f l u e n c e s o f Home and S c h o o l on ' A g g r e s s i v e ' and 'Withdrawing' P e r s o n -a l i t y T r a i t s . XX E v a l u a t i o n of C e r t a i n S c h o o l I n f l u e n c e s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r . XXI A Summary o f P a r e n t s ' A t t i t u d e s t o Home and S c h o o l I n f l u e n c e s I n the Cases of Day and R e s i d e n t P u p i l s . Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION As one sur v e y s the f i e l d of e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e , one f i n d s a growing emphasis on the need f o r c o - o p e r a t i o n be-tween s c h o o l and home. The ' o l d ' s c h o o l taught the 3 R's and l e f t such t h i n g s as c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n t o home or c h u r c h . As -the i n f l u e n c e o f these two appeared to decreas e , t h a t o f the s c h o o l r e c e i v e d g r e a t e r emphasis and we f i n d a number o f books w r i t t e n by pedagogues to whom the i n f l u e n c e of the s c h o o l i s more p o w e r f u l than t h a t o f the home. On the o t h e r hand, w i t h the growing i n f l u e n c e o f mental h y g i e n i s t s i n e d u c a t i o n , the p a r t p l a y e d by the home i n the development o f the 'whole c h i l d 1 i s r e c e i v i n g i n c r e a s e d emphasis. We f i n d such statements as " c l i n i c a l case r e c o r d s i n d i c a t e t h a t the home i s s t i l l the major f o r c e i n f o r m i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y o f c h i l d r e n and "The m a j o r i t y o f s u c c e s s f u l adjustments could, be accounted f o r on the b a s i s o f a achange i n p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e s , w h i c h appeared to be a t the b a s i s o f the problem - - - - - - The S c h o o l was found t o p l a y a c o n s t r u c t i v e r o l e i n treatment but, w i t h o u t the co-o p e r a t i o n o f the p a r e n t s , the chances f o r adjustment t h e r e were s l i g h t . " ^ 2 ) . 1. W.C. Ryan, M e n t a l H e a l t h through E d u c a t i o n <c New Yo r k : The Commonwealth Eund, 1938. p. 2 4 2 ^ 2. Harry N. R l v l i n , E d u c a t i n g f o r Adjustment -p io\ New York: D. A p p l e t o n Century, 1936. r There i s a l a r g e and r a p i d l y growing body of l i t -e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h the work; o f mental h y g i e n i s t s and be-h a v i o u r c l i n i c s . I n t h i s the p a r t p l a y e d by the home i s emphasized and p a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s and a t t i t u d e s are c a r e f u l l y c o l l e c t e d and d i s c u s s e d . - P a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s g a t h e r e d by means o f cases r e f e r r e d to behaviour c l i n i c s are not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f those o f the average parent o f the average c h i l d . The importance a t t a c h e d t o the home has l e d to a r e a l i z a t i o n o f the n e c e s s i t y o f Pa r e n t E d u c a t i o n Programmes. I n h e r study (1) of 'Parent E d u c a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s ' E l l e n C. Lombard s t a t e s t h a t the purposes^ of parent e d u c a t i o n work are " t o f u r n i s h p a r e n t s w i t h sound p r i n c i p l e s f o r a p p l i -c a t i o n to t h e i r home and f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n s , to change the a t t i t u d e s , methods and p r a c t i c e s o f p a r e n t s i n d e a l i n g w i t h the problems o f c h i l d t r a i n i n g ; and to i n s u r e to p a r e n t s , through b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g , more e f f e c t i v e ^ p r a c t i c e s and g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h e i r t a s k s " v . In the same a r t i c l e M i s s Lombard l i s t s the agenc i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g to paren t e d u c a t i o n i n the U.S.A. from 1930 to 1935. S i m i l a r summaries are g i v e n i n the Twe n t y - e i g h t h Y e a r -(3) book o f the N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study o f E d u c a t i o n 1. E l l e n C. Lombard, "Parent E d u c a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s " U.S. Dept. of the I n t e r i o r . Bureau o f E d u c a t i o n B u l l e t i n 1935 "3. P p v m 4- S 3 — ™ ° — — ~~ ' 2. I b i d p . i . 3. N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r the Study o f E d u c a t i o n . XIV Twenty-e i g h t Yearbook Ohs. XIV & XV pp. 789-833, and i n the Tenth Yearbook of the Department o f Superintendence (1) I n r e a d i n g these a r t i c l e s one f e e l s t h a t l i t t l e e f f o r t has been made to determine what c o n t r i b u t i o n s i n the f i e l d o f c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n the pa r e n t might be ab l e t o make, but th a t a g r e a t e f f o r t Is b e i n g made to educate the p a r e n t s t o a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e i r c h i l d r e n s 1 problems. The agency about which the average p a r e n t knows most i s the Parent - T e a c h e r A s s o c i a t i o n . T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n has had a v e r y r a p i d growth and has e n r o l l e d l a r g e numbers of I n t e r e s t e d p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s . A l t h o u g h the o r g a n i z a -t i o n i s not p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n , g r e a t b e n e f i t s i n t h i s work have r e s u l t e d from the i n t e r -change o f i d e a s between p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s i n a s s o c i a t i o n m e e t i n g s . No r e s e a r c h about p a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s on c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n has been c a r r i e d out by the o r g a n i z a t i o n * When one comes to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the i n f o r m -a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by r e s e a r c h workers on the be h a v i o u r problems of average c h i l d r e n , the data are found to be not e x t e n s i v e . Opinions of t e a c h e r s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d more f u l l y than \ those of p a r e n t s . I n the study of t e a c h e r s 1 o p i n i o n s o f c h i l d r e n s behavl6u3? problems, p i o n e e r work was done by N. T r i p l i f t ^ ) l n 1903. F a u l t s and d e f e c t s o f c h i l d r e n were 1. Tenth Yearbook of the Department o f Superintendence,1932 pp 535. " "~ 2. Norman T r i p l e t , "A Study o f the F a u l t s o f C h i l d r e n . " P e d a g o g i c a l Seminary X 1903. pp 22 - 238. 7. l i s t e d by 402 t e a c h e r s . I n the o p i n i o n o f these t e a c h e r s 1 i n a t t e n t i o n and l a c k o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n 1 were the most f r e q u e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s . T h i s s t u d y , was f o l l o w e d (1) by one by M.E. Haggarty i n 1925. T h i s was c a r r i e d out by means of a tec h n i q u e evolved by E.K. Wickman and was a f o r e -(2) runner o f h i s study o f 1928 Before t h i s was p u b l i s h e d two o t h e r p i e c e s o f s i m i l a r r e s e a r c h were done,* one by W.E. (3) (4) B l a t z and,E.A. B o t t and the o t h e r by George H. B e t t s S i n c e the p u b l i c a t i o n of E.K. Wickman's book on C h i l d r e n ' s , (5) B e h a v i o u r and Teachers' A t t i t u d e s , two o t h e r s t u d i e s have appeared, both based on h i s work. I n 1936 D.B. E l l i s and (6) L.W. M i l l e r i n v e s t i g a t e d t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e s and c h i l d -(7) ren's b e h a v i o u r problems, and i n 1940/Charles E. Thompson c a r r i e d out an I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the a t t i t u d e o f v a r i o u s groups to c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r d i f f i c u l t i e s . I n both the l a t t e r s t u d i e s t e a c h e r s were found to p l a c e more emphasis on w i t h -1. M.E. Haggarty., "The I n c i d e n c e of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r i n P u b l i c S c h o o l C h i l d r e n . " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n Research, v o l . 12, 1925:2 pp 102-122 " j 2. E.K. Wickmans C h i l d r e n ' s Behaviour°£ Teachers' A t t i t u d e s . New Y o r k ; The Commonwealth Eund, 1928, pp 245. " 3. W.B. B l a t z - E.A. B o t t , "Behaviour o f P u b l i c S c h o o l C h i l d -r e n - A D e s c r i p t i o n o f Method." The P e d a g o g i c a l Seminary-J o u r n a l of G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y v o l 54, 1927 pp 552-582. 4. George H. B e t t s , "Teachers' Diagnoses o f Classroom D i f f -i c u l t i e s " E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , v o l X X V I I , No.8 A p r i l 1928, pp 600-608 5. E.K. Wickman, ©p e f t . 6. D.B. E l l i s and, L.W. M i l l e r , "Teachers' A t t i t u d e s ^ C h i l d -.. . r ens B e h a v i o u r Problems " J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l P s y c h o l o g y 27 Oct. 1936 pp 501-511. : ~ ' 7. See next page. a drawing, r e c e s s i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than they d i d i n the study by Wickman . In. the f i e l d o u t l i n e d above the work o f E.K. Wickman i s pre-eminent. H i s study both c o v e r s a l a r g e r f i e l d and i n v e s t i g a t e s i t more i n t e n s i v e l y than do those o f the o t h e r w r i t e r s . Wickman's book c o n t a i n s a s h o r t d i s c u s s i o n o f p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to c h i l d r e n ' s b ehaviour problems. The p a r e n t s concerned are those who had r e f e r r e d cases to the C h i l d Guidance C l i n i c s o f M i n n e a p o l i s and C l e v e l a n d d u r i n g 1924-5-6. These p a r e n t s were d e a l i n g w i t h problem c h i l d r e n and t h e r e f o r e t h e i r o p i n i o n s cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as t y p i c a l o f those o f the average p a r e n t o f the normal c h i l d . A d i s c u s s i o n o f the r e s e a r c h c a r r i e d out by educat-i o n i s t s i n the f i e l d of c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n i s not complete . '" (2) w i t h o u t a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the work o f H a r t s h o r n e and May One o f the major c o n c l u s i o n s a r r i v e d at by these a u t h o r s i s t h a t conduct i s s p e c i f i c to the s i t u a t i o n . I t i s w e l l to keep t h i s i n mind i n the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to c h i l d r e n s ' b e h a v i o u r problems which c o n s t i t u t e s t h i s study,, 7. C h a r l e s E. Thompson, "The A t t i t u d e s o f V a r i o u s Groups toward B e h a v i o u r Problems o f C h i l d r e n " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal aAfftSocial P s y c h o l o g y v o l 35. N o . l pp 120-125 1. E.K. Wickman. ®p c<jt. 2. Hugh Hartshorne and Mark A. May. S t u d i e s i n the Mature of C h a r a c t e r . V o l . 1. New York: M a c M i l l a n Co., 1928 pp XXI I 3 0 6 Very few s t u d i e s have been undertaken t o secure data on p a r e n t s ' r e a c t i o n s to c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r problems, . (1) N. T r i p l f t t , i n the stu d y p r e v i o u s l y mentioned, i n v e s t i -gated the o p i n i o n s o f p a r e n t s as w e l l as t e a c h e r s . P a r e n t s were asked to l i s t the f a u l t s and d e f e c t s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . L e a d i n g the l i s t i n f r e q u e n c y of oc c u r r e n c e were " w i l f u l n e s s , o b s t i n a c y , d i s o b e d i e n c e and slow to mind'' - a l l r e v o l t s a g a i n s t a u t h o r i t y . A s i m i l a r study was made by C.E. Germane (2) and E.G. Germane i n 1929. A l i s t o f the t w e n t y - f i v e most common f a u l t s was s u p p l i e d by 5,463 p a r e n t s . Heading the l i s t i n orde r a r e " s t u b b o r n e s s , argues, slow i n d r e s s i n g , t h o u g h t l e s s n e s s about d u t i e s , and slow t o obey' 1. Nervous-ness, the f i r s t mention o f a r e c e s s i v e , w i t h d r a w i n g t r a i t , i s t e n t h on the l i s t . - I n the two s t u d i e s mentioned above, no e f f o r t was made to determine the degree o f adjustment d i f f i c u l t y caused by p o s s e s s i o n o f these t r a i t s ; they are s i m p l y t e s t e d i n o r d e r o f f r e q u e n c y . I n 1933 A.A. S t e i n b a c h (3) r e c e i v e d 211 r e p l i e s from q u e s t i o n a i r e s sent to p a r e n t s * m 1. N. T r i p l f t t op c$t» 2. C.E. Germane and E.G. Germane, C h a r a c t e r E d u c a t i o n . New York; S i l v e r , B u r d e t t Co., 1929, pp XVI & 224 3. A.A. I t e i n b a c h "A Survey o f Adjustment D i f f i c u l t i e s i n C h i l d r e n ^ Y o u t h Drawn from the Normal Population"-. E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l , 34 Oct. 1933. pp 122-129. ID r e g a r d i n g the f r e q u e n c y of o c c u r r e n c e of u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n . The t r a i t s to be i n v e s t i g a t e d were grouped under f o u r headings; (1) p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s s u g g e s t i n g c o n f l i c t s , (2) food f a d s and a n t i p a t h i e s , (3) problems a f f e c t -i n g s l e e p , (4) f e a r s . No attempt was made to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t -i o n s h i p s between these groups. • I n the group e n t i t l e d 'person-a l i t y t r a i t s s u g g e s t i n g c o n f l i c t s ' , d i s o b e d i e n c e , s t u b b o r n e s s , nervousness and s e n s i t i v e n e s s l e d the way i n f r e q u e n c y o f o c c u r r e n c e . The c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by t h i s author as the r e s u l t o f h i s study was t h a t much g r e a t e r p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y . (1) C h a r l e s E. Thompson i n v e s t i g a t e d the a t t i t u d e s o f a group of p a r e n t s to c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r d i f f i c u l t i e s . He c o n c l u d e d t h a t the o p i n i o n s o f p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s were i n f a i r l y c l o s e agreement, but t h a t both d i f f e r e d w i d e l y from the o p i n i o n s h e l d by c h i l d p s y c h o l o g i s t s . The l a t t e r c o n s i d e r e d most s e r i o u s those t r a i t s which a f f e c t e d the i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n -a l i t y ; p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s emphasized t r a i t s whose p o s s e s s i o n v i o l a t e d s o c i a l customs. I n cases where the o p i n i o n s of p a r e n t s and t e a c h e r s d i f f e r e d , the t e a c h e r s d i s a g r e e d w i t h the p a r e n t s i n the d i r e c t i o n o f the c h i l d p s y c h o l o g i s t s * A summary of -the f i n d i n g s o f those a u t h o r s who have i n v e s t i g a t e d the a t t i t u d e s o f p a r e n t s to c h i l d r e n ' s behaviour problems i s g i v e n i n T a b l e I . 1. C h a r l e s E. Thompson op. c i t . Table I. Summary of Results obtained by Research Workers i n the Investigation of Parents' Attitudes to Childrens' Behaviour Problems. Author Most Frequent Problems. Least Frequent Problems. Most Serious Problems. Least Serious Problems. T r i p l i t t (1903) Germane & Germane (1929) Steinbach (1933) Stealing, no sense of the property rig h t s of others Emphasis on 'S e l f i s h ' t r a i t s , such as: w i l -fulness, stubbornness, disobedience,/rebell-iousness, wanting to take own time. Stubborn, argues, slow i n dressing, thoughtlessness about duties. (a) Personality t r a i t s . Disobedience, stubborn- Playing poorly with ness, nervousness. children; lack of i interest i n childhood! a c t i v i t i e s . (b) Problems af f e c t i n g sleep. Timidity, f a u l t -f i n d i n g , quarrel-someness, bossi-ness. Talking or crying out. Sleep walking No d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h i s study drawn between 'seriousness* and 'frequency'. No information given. No information given. (Continued). Table I. Continued. Author Most Frequent Problems. Least Frequent Problems. ! Most Serious j Problems. Least Serious Problems. • Steiribach (1933) (c) Fears. . Animals and dark places. Teachers. I I \ i 1 l i Thompson Not investigated * I Stealing, Puppy love, (1940) untruthfulness, cheating. dreaminess, shyness. 13. The s t u d i e s summarized i n Table I i n v e s t i g a t e d the p a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s as to the r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c y o f occurrence and the r e l a t i v e s e r i o u s n e s s of c h i l d r e n ' s u n d e s i r a b l e be-h a v i o u r t r a i t s . L i t t l e or n o t h i n g has been determined about the p a r e n t s o p i n i o n s ons (1) the r e l a t i v e degrees of d i f f i c u l t y encountered by p a r e n t s i n the c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s ; (2) 'the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f home and s c h o o l In the c o r r e c t i o n of b e h a v i o u r problems; ( 3 ) the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f v a r i o u s s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e s on the c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r . The p r e s e n t study was undertaken to o b t a i n more i n f o r m a t i o n about the a t t i t u d e s o f the average pare n t towards the b e h a v i o u r problem o f the normal c h i l d . I t was d e c i d e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e p a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s about the t h r e e p o i n t s l i s t e d above as w e l l as about the r e l a t i v e i n c i d e n c e and s e r i o u s n e s s o f c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r problems. I t was f e l t i n f o r m a t i o n about these p o i n t s would l e a d to a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the problems of c h a r a c t e r e d u c a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y a d j u s t -ments of s c h o o l c h i l d r e n , , Chapter I I THE SELECTION OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR TRAITS The f i r s t stfcp i n the s t u d y o f p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to c h i l d r e n ' s behaviour problems was t o . s e c u r e a l i s t o f problems.; T o . t h i s end Q u e s t i o n a i r e I was d i s t r i b u t e d . A t t a c h e d to i t was a l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g to the p a r e n t s the purpose of the study and a s k i n g f o r t h e i r c o - o p e r a t i o n . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s "were sent to f o r t y - s i x p a r e n t s . Of the t h i r t y - ; t h r e e who answered e i g h t e e n sent problems and seven o t h e r s , a l t h o u g h l i s t i n g no u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s , s i g n i f i e d t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to c o - o p e r a t e . E i g h t o f the t h i r t y - t h r e e e x p r e s s e d u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o take p a r t ; / i v e s a i d t h a t they had met w i t h no.problems i n b r i n g i n g up t h e i r d a u g h t e r s . One s t a t e d t h a t she had no time and two were opposed to the i d e a because they were out of sympathy w i t h any work connected w i t h p s y c h o l o g y . T h e i r poor o p i n i o n of the s u b j e c t was based on c e r t a i n r a d i o t a l k s t h a t they had heard o&*4 magazine a r t i c l e s t h a t they had. r e a d . T h i r t e e n p a r e n t s d i d not r e p l y . The e i g h t e e n p a r e n t s who sent l i s t s o f u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s c o n t r i b u t e d a t o t a l o f 110 such t r a i t s ; these are g i v e n below i n a c l a s s i f i e d l i s t In-.Table I I . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t no s u g g e s t i o n o f any c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was g i v e n i n the e n q u i r i e s sent out to the p a r e n t s . The number f o l l o w i n g each c a p t i o n i n d i c a t e s the number of problems that, were r e p o r t e d i n t h a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ; the number f o l l o w i n g each problem i n d i c a t e s the number o f times t h a t problem was r e p o r t e d . T r a i t s marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k (#) are not c o n t a i n e d i n the f i f t y most un-d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s t h a t were l i s t e d by Wickman as a (1) ' r e s u l t o f h i s stu d y , t r a i t s marked w i t h a / were r e c e i v e d too l a t e to be i n c l u d e d i n the second q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I n most cases t r a i t s are l i s t e d i n the words i n which they were r e -p o r t e d , w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t c e r t a i n forms o f b e h a v i o u r are d e s c r i b e d i n s e v e r a l ways. B r a c k e t s are used to i n d i c a t e c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t r a i t s . 1. E.K. Wickman. op c i t . p 236. lb. Table I I C l a s s i f i e d L i s t ; of Beha v i o u r Problems Submitted by P a r e n t s . I V i o l a t i o n s of G e n e r a l Standards of M o r a l i t y ou«A I n t e g r i t y (15) U n t r u t h f u l n e s s ^ F a b r i c a t i o n of S t o r i e s 7 ^Cheating 1 D e c e i t 1 D i s h o n e s t y 1 ( P r o f a n i t y 1 \ I r r e v e r e n e e 1 / D i r t y S t o r i e s 1 fEaves__dropping 1 D i s r e g a r d f o r ownership of p r o p e r t y 1 I I A t t i t u d e s towards P a r e n t s awslHome. (19) # D l s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e t o p a r e n t s W e l d e r s 5 ^ T a k i n g p a r e n t s f o r g r a n t e d 2 #Unthankfulness - I n g r a t i t u d e 1 #Argulng be f o r e obeying 1 # C o n t r a d I c t I o n of p a r e n t s 1 #Toadying to v i s i t o r s «=*lrelatlons • 1 i Impertinence i m p o l i t e n e s s 3 I n s o l e n c e 1 Cheeky manner o f s p e a k i n g 1 I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n 1 Temper tantrums 1 #Desire to p l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s 1 I I I A t t i t u d e s towards Work owe! S m a l l D u t i e s (10) 1 I r r e s p o n s i b l e , e v a s i o n o f s m a l l d u t i e s 2 Lack o f enthusiasm i n the performance of s m a l l d u t i e s 1 # P r o c a s t i n a t l o n 2 #Lack of c o n c e n t r a t i o n 2 T a r d i n e s s 1 C a r e l e s s n e s s 1 L a z i n e s s 1 '7-Table I I Co n t i n u e d . IV D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h o t h e r C h i l d r e n (15) (Unkindness to o t h e r c h i l d r e n 3 #]Lack o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s I f e e l i n g s 2 ( A t t i t u d e o f s u p e r i o r i t y t o young s i s t e r s ( • f r i e n d s 1 ( B u l l y i n g 1 (Tyranny 1 # F a v o u r i t i s m 1 ' #Jea l o u s y 1 #Snobbishness 2 D i f f i c u l t y I n making f r i e n d s 1 #Lack o f sport s m a n s h i p i n games 1 # U n w i l l i n g n e s s t o share 1 V . Aggressive P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s (20) ( S e l f i s h n e s s 6 | D i s r e g a r d i n g c o m f o r t s o f o t h e r s 1 fStub b o r n e s s - o b s t i n a c y 1 ( I n s i s t e n c e on own wishes f 1 * A c t i n g f o r e f f e c t or showing o f f 1 {Roughness o f speech - u n l a d y l i k e e x p r e s s i o n s 2 »|Loudness 1 I Boldness 1 / E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n 1 (Rowdyism 1 #Stupfd v a n i t y 1 #Love o f excitement 1 /#Love o f d i s p l a y ( d r e s s ) 1 /#Boy c r a z y - 1 VI W i t h d r a w i n g P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s (9) #SeIf c o n s c i o u s n e s s 3 #Lack o f I n i t i a t i v e 2 #Lack o f i m i t a t i o n 1 Day dreaming 1 -^Unnecessary w o r r y i n g 1 # I n f e r l o r l t y complex 1 Table I I C o n t i n u e d . V I I M i s c e l l a n e o u s Behaviour T r a i t s (22) #Unt i d i n e s s 3 # P r e c o c i o u s n e s s § ^Assumed i n d i f f e r e n c e 'to p r a i s e o r blame • 1 #Lack o f r e s p e c t f o r o t h e r p e o p l e ' s f u r n i t u r e 1 #Borr owing w i t h o u t r e t u r n i n g 1 # g e s t r u e t i o n o f growing t h i n g s 1 #Boredom on a c o u n t r y walk 1 #Lack o f c u r i o s i t y 1 P r i g g i s h n e s s 1 f U n n a t u r a l p i e t y 1 #Lack o f c o u r t e s y 1 I n t o l e r a n c e 1 #Lack o f c o - o p e r a t i o n 1 # T r l f l i n g 1 #Subt^8lty 1 ^ R e s t l e s s n e s s 1 S u l k y s p e l l s 1 /#Bad t a b l e manners 1 /^Unbalanced I n t e r e s t s 1 Dne p o i n t o f i n t e r e s t In the above l i s t i s the l a c k o f sex problems. Only one paren t mentioned sex and she s a i d t h a t she had not l i s t e d sex i n t e r e s t as i t was not a problem I f p r o p e r l y t r e a t e d . The t e a c h e r s i n Wickman's study s u b m i t t e d a l i s t of 418 problems: o f these twelve CI) were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to sex 1. E.K. Wickman op. c i t y - . |>. 15. Pi-As has been s t a t e d above, seven p a r e n t s d i d not r e t u r n l i s t s o f u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s but expressed w i l l i n g n e s s to co-operate i n the st u d y . I t was thought p r o -bable t h a t a number o f o t h e r s who had not r e p l i e d shared t h i s view. In o r d e r to a s c e r t a i n t h i s , Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I , c o n s i s t -i n g o f a l i s t o f s i x t y nine b e h a v i o u r problems was sent o u t . P a r e n t s were asked to put a check (S) b e s i d e those t r a i t s that" they had observed In t h e i r own c h i l d r e n or i n those o f o t h e r s . The l i s t o f t r a i t s was compiled p a r t l y from i n f o r m -a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n the r e p l i e s to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and p a r t l y from t r a i t s i n c l u d e d by Wickman among the f i f t y most common. A few o f the u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s l i s t e d by Wickman were not i n c l u d e d i n the l i s t sent to the p a r e n t s as I t was f e l t t h a t v e r y l i t t l e f r a n k I n f o r m a t i o n would be f o r t h c o m i n g . T w e n t y - s i x p a r e n t s answered the second q u e s t i o n n a i r e and checked a t o t a l of 571 problems. R e s u l t s are shown In Table I I I . Table I I I P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of the Frequency o f B e h a v i o u r Problems. T r a i t Frequency Shyness - b a s h f u l n e s s 18 S e n s i t i v e n e s s 18 S e l f i s h n e s s . 17 I n t e r r u p t i n g 16 U n t i d i n e s s 16 Daydreaming 16 T a k i n g p a r e n t s f o r g r a n t e d 15 Extreme nervousness 14 D i s o b e d i e n c e 13 C a r e l e s s n e s s In work 13 I m p e r t i n e n c e , i m p o l i t e n e s s , rudeness 13 A r g u i n g almost h a b i t u a l l y 13 P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 13 T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s 12 Lack o f I n t e r e s t i n work, 11 ^ t u b b o r n e s s , c o n t r a r i n e s s 11 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of a t t e n t i o n 11 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e to e l d e r s 11 Lack o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n 11 I m a g i n a t i v e l y i n g 11 S u l k i n e s s , s u l l e n n e s s / 10 Lack o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s 10 Rudeness or roughness o f speech 10 Lack o f i n i t i a t i v e 10 E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d 10 I n a t t e n t i v e 10 U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g 9 Domineering, o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l 9 U n t r u t h f u l n e s s , l y i n g 9 L a z i n e s s 9 U n t h a n k f u l n e s s , i n g r a t i t u d e 9 P r e c o c i o u s n e s s 9 Temper tantrums 9 C h e a t i n g 8 R e s t l e s s n e s s 8 Lack o f sportsmanship i n games 8 E a v e s d r o p p i n g 8 D e s i r e to p l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s 8 Unnecessary w o r r y i n g 8 S t e a l i n g 7 Over c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , f a u l t f i n d i n g 7 Very c a r e l e s s In p e r s o n a l appearance 7 I n q u l s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness 6 Table I I I C o n t i n u e d . T r a i t Frequency C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g 6 U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , evasiowpof d u t i e s 6 I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , d e f i a n c e 6 E x a g g e r a t i o n t o o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n 6 D i s r e g a r d f o r ownership of p r o p e r t y 6 I r r e v e r e n c e I n r e l i g i o u s m atters 6 T a r d i n e s s 6 R e s e n t f u l n e s s 5 P h y s i c a l cowardice 5 F e a r f u l n e s s , e a s i l y f r i g h t e n e d 5 S u g g e s t i b l e , a c c e p t s s u g g e s t i o n o f anyone 5 Snobbishness 5 • D e s t r u c t i o n of growing t h i n g s 4 A t t i t u d e o f s u p e r i o r i t y to young c h i l d r e n 4 I n t o l e r a n c e of the o p i n i o n s of o t h e r s 4 P r o f a n i t y 3 Assumed i n d i f f e r e n c e to p r a i s e o r blame 3 F a v o u r i t i s m o f a k i n d t h a t when used w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n makes enemies • 3 Truancy 2 Unhappiness, d e p r e s s i o n , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n 2 Toadying to v i s i t o r s or r e l a t i o n s 2 Lack of c u r i o s i t y 2 Lack o f i m i t a t i o n 2 P r i g g i s h n e s s , primness, a f f e c t a t i o n o f v i r t u e 1 S u s p i c i o u s n e s s , m i s t r u s t f u l n e s s , d i s t r u s t f u l n e s s 1 U n n a t u r a l p i e t y 0 The f i r s t f i f t y problems In order of frequency were s e l e c t e d f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n l a t e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . T h i s was a p u r e l y a r b i t r a r y s e l e c t i o n i n orde r to o b t a i n a co n v e n i e n t number w i t h which t o work. For purposes o f the study the f i f t y problems have been d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e major groups. Some t r a i t s b elong to more than one group. In such cases the t r a i t has been put i n the group w i t h which i t i s most c l o s e l y connected and has been f o l l o w e d by the Roman numerals of o t h e r r e l a t e d groups. The A r a b i c number f o l l o w -i n g the name of each group i n d i c a t e s the t o t a l number o f times the t r a i t s i n the group were checked. The A r a b i c number f o l l o w i n g each t r a i t shows the number of times the t r a i t was checked. The f i v e groups, c o n t a i n i n g a t o t a l o f 513 items, are shown i n Table IV. Table IV P a r e n t ' s E s t i m a t e s ; Shown i n Group Form,of the Frequency o f Behaviour Problems. T r a i t s ' Frequency I V i o l a t i o n s o f Ge n e r a l Standards o f M o r a l i t y (55) I n t e g r i t y I m a g i n a t i v e l y i n g 11 L y i n g 9 C h e a t i n g 8 E a v e s d r o p p i n g 8 S t e a l i n g 7 I r r e v e r e n c e 6 D i s r e g a r d f o r ownership o f p r o p e r t y 6 I I A t t i t u d e s to P a r e n t s o ^ l Home (124) I n t e r r u p t i n g 16 T a k i n g ^ p a r e n t s f o r granted 15 I m p e r t i n e n c e , I m p o l i t e n e s s , rudeness 13 Di s o b e d i e n c e 13 A r g u i n g almost h a b i t u a l l y 13 Stubborness, c o n t r a r i n e s s 11 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e to e l d e r s 11 iemper tantrums 9 U n t h a n k f u l n e s s , i n g r a t i t u d e 9 D e s i r e to p l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s 8 I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , d e f i a n c e 6 I I I A t t i t u d e s t o W o r k S m a l l D u t i e s (107) C a r e l e s s n e s s i n work 13 P r o c a s t i n a t i o n 13 Lack o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n 11 Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work 11 Lack o f i n i t i a t i v e 10 E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d (\f) - 10 a s . Table IV Co n t i n u e d . T r a i t s . Frequency I I I . A t t i t u d e s to Work S m a l l D u t i e s , C o n t i n u e d . I n a t t e n t i v e 10 L a z i n e s s 9 R e s t l e s s n e s s 8 T a r d i n e s s 6 U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , e v a s i o n o f d u t i e s 6 IV D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Other C h i l d r e n (61) T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s 12 Lack of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s 10 Domineering, o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l (lib) 9 U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g (Va) 9 Lack o f sportsmanship i n games (11) 8 Over c r i t i c a l o f o t h e r s , f a u l t f i n d i n g (1) 7 C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g (¥) 6 V M i s c e l l a n e o u s U n d e s i r a b l e P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s (166) (a) Wi t h d r a w i n g T r a i t s ' (74) S e n s i t i v e n e s s 18 Shyness, b a s h f u l n e s s 18 Day dreaming 16 Extreme nervousness 14 Unnecessary w o r r y i n g 8 (b) A g g r e s s i v e T r a i t s (59) " S e l f i s h n e s s T i l - IV) S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n o f 17 a t t e n t i o n 11 Rudeness or roughness o f speech 10 P r e c o c i o u s n e s s 9 E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n 6 I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness 6 ( c ) S u l k i n e s s , s u l l e j e s s ( I I ) (33) 10 C a r e l e s s n e s s i n o e r s o n a l appearance 7 U n t i d i n e s s ( I I I ) 16 ' A much more e x t e n s i v e l i s t o f u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s was o b t a i n e d from the second q u e s t i o n n a i r e than from the f i r s t . I n the f i r s t case e i g h t e e n p a r e n t s sent a t o t a l o f 110 problems, an average o f 6.1 each. I n the second case, twenty s i x p a r e n t s check-marked 571 problems, an average of 21.9 each. I t i s much more d i f f i c u l t to suggest a l i s t o f problems than I t i s to r e c o g n i z e c e r t a i n b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s as problems a f t e r they are suggested. The r e l a t i v e c o m p o s i t i o n of the groups i s shown In Table V. Table V. Summary of P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of the Frequency of Behaviour Problems R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d R e s u l t s ob-from Q u e s t i o n n a i r e from Q u e s t i o n n a i r e t a i n e d I (110 Items) " I I (571 items) from 50 s e l e c t e d problems i n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I (513 items Group headings % j£ I V i o l a t i o n s of g e n e r a l standards of m o r a l i t y , . ^ i n t e g r i t y . 17° 10.1 | 10.2 10.7 I I A t t i t u d e s to parents,] f j ev-oi home 122.9 \ 22.6 24.1 V Miscellaneous P e r -I I I A t t i t u d e s to work, o ^ s m a l l d u t i e s 1 18.7 | 19.1 | 20.9 I IV D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h | I >j ot h e r c h i l d r e n 1 13.6 13.5 I 11.9 s o n a l l t y T r a i t s f 34.7 j 34.6 j 32.4 The h i g h degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the r e s u l t s i n columns I I I o f Table V i s noteworthy. In a l l three columns the o r d e r o f freq u e n c y o f the groups i s the same; ' miscellaneous u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ' o c c u r most o f t e n w h i l e ' a t t i t u d e s to p a r e n t s o&^home' ra n k second. I f the f i r s t X6. o f these groups i s d i v i d e d i n t o ' aggress i v e ' ( ^ ' w i t h d r a w i n g ' t r a i t s the i n c i d e n c e o f these compared to the t o t a l number Is shown i n Table V I . Table V I P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s as to. the I n c i d e n c e o f ' A g g r e s s i v e ' &*tk 'Withdrawing' P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s i R e s u l t s o b t a i n e d JResults o b t a i n e d I R e s u l t s ob-from Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ffrom Questionnaire) t a l n e d from I (110 items) | I I (571 Items) I 50 s e l e c t e d | | problems In . f i Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1 | I I (513 items) Type of T r a i t A g g r e s s i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . 19.1 Withdrawing " t r a i t s . 8.2 # # 11. 14.4 # 14.4 # The apparent d i s c r e p a n c y between these percentages and those l i s t e d under ' m i s c e l l a n e o u s p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ' In Table IV i s due to the f a c t t h a t the l a r g e r group c o n t a i n e d t r a i t s which cannot be c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r ' a g g r e s s i v e ' or ' w i t h d r a w i n g ' . For these s u b d i v i s i o n s see page {S3). These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t c o m p a r a t i v e l y few p a r e n t s ^ thought o f ' w i t h d r a w i n g p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ' as problem be-h a v i o u r , but t h a t when t h i s type was suggested as problem b e h a v i o u r i n the second q u e s t i o n n a i r e , p a r e n t s r a t e d the i n c i d e n c e o f 'withdrawing' t r a i t s h i g h e r than t h a t o f / ' a g g r e s s i v e ' t r a i t s . The 418 items of u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour l i s t e d by twenty seven te a c h e r s In Wickman's I n v e s t i g a t i o n were grouped by him as shown i n Table V I I $ Table V I I In c i d e n c e of U n d e s i r a b l e Behaviour T r a i t s as l i s ted by 27 Teachers i n Wickman's Study. Type of T r a i t P e r c e n t I n c i d e n c e I V i o l a t i o n s o f G e n e r a l Standards o f M o r a l i t y ouwu?! I n t e g r i t y 18.1 I I T r a n s g r e s s i o n s a g a i n s t A u t h o r i t y 6.4 I I I V i o l a t i o n s o f S c h o o l R e g u l a t i o n s 7.2 IV V i o l a t i o n s of c l a s s r o o m ^ u l e s 16.8 V V i o l a t i o n s o f S c h o o l Work Requirements 9.8 VI D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Other C h i l d r e n 9 © X V I I U n d e s i r a b l e P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s 32.6 # T h i s t a b l e was compiled from the data g i v e n i n pages 15, 16 & 17 o f E.R. Wickman op. c i t . • In c o n n e c t i o n w i t h these r e s u l t s Wickman w r i t e s : 'The g e n e r a l p e r v a d i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p r o -blems enumerated -- i s that — w i t h v e r y few e x c e p t i o n s they r e p r e s e n t d i s t u r b a n c e s - — even the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s enum-e r a t e d are l i m i t e d almost e n t i r e l y to those which are d i s a g r -eeable and annoying. — There i s a conspicuous s c a r c i t y o f items d e s c r i b i n g c h i l d problems which are i n d i c a t i v e o f s o c i a l a^Wemotional maladjustments but which are not d i r e c t l y d i s -( 1 ) . t u r b i n g to s c h o o l r o u t i n e » The c o n t r a s t between the groupings n e c e s s i t a t e d by the r e t u r n s from the t e a c h e r s and p a r e n t s i s i n t e r e s t i n g . The emphasis i n the t e a c h e r s ' l i s t s i s on ' d i s t u r b a n c e s ' , t h a t of 1. E.K. Wickman op e i t , pp 24-25. a?. the p a r e n t s Is on ' s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ' . Wickman compared types of behaviour f o r which parent r e f e r r e d t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o behaviour c l i n i c s w i t h the types l i s t e d by t e a c h e r s as undesirable,, He reached the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . 'Both p a r e n t s and teachers r e c o g n i z e problems i n v o l v i n g v i o l a t i o n s of standards o f m o r a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y , d i s o b e d i e n c e and d i s r e s p e c t f o r a u t h o r i t y , over a c t i v i t y and l a c k of c o n c e n t r a t e d i n t e r e s t s , quarrelsomeness and d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n , as w e l l as c e r t a i n un-d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s , more e s p e c i a l l y c o n t r a r i n e and o b s t i n a c y . P a r e n t s , however seem to be much more concerned than t e a c h e r s w i t h n e u r o t i c h a b i t s o f c h i l d r e n such as e n u r e s i s , n a i l b i t i n g , thumb sue k i n g , f e a r s , , . , •nervousness, l i e s , problems o f e a t i n g and s l e e p i n g . ^ ' 'Withdrawing' p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s c o n s t i t u t e o n l y 3.3$ of the 428 items s u b m i t t e d by twenty seven t e a c h e r s . When t h i s i s compared w i t h the percentage o b t a i n e d from r e t u r n s s u b m i t t e d by p a r e n t s i n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s I a ^ I I j Wickman's s u g g e s t i o n t h a t 'parents may be more concerned than t e a c h e r s (2) w i t h the o v e r s e n s i t i v e and unhappy c h i l d appears to be s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The emphasis p l a c e d by p a r e n t s , compared to t h a t by t e a c h e r s , on the s o c i a l l y m a l - a d j u s t e d and withdraw-i n g c h i l d , r a i s e s important q u e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t -i o n . 1. E.K. Wickman op c i t p.20. 2. I b i d . " p.20. Chapter I I I P a r e n t a l R a t i n g s o f R e l a t i v e S e r i o u s n e s s o f U n d e s i r a b l e Behaviour T r a i t s . Having s e l e c t e d f i f t y u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s f o r f u r t h e r study i n the manner o u t l i n e d i n the l a s t c h a p t e r , the next problem was to determine the r e l a t i v e s e r i o u s n e s s of these examples o f problem b e h a v i o u r . I t was d e c i d e d to judge the s e r i o u s n e s s o f a t r a i t by s e c u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on (a) the fr e q u e n c y of occurrence o f the t r a i t and (b) the amount of ^ d i f f i c u l t y which p o s s e s s i o n o f the t r a i t would make In the s o c i a l adjustment o f the c h i l d . A rough guide to the f r e -quency o f occurrence of the v a r i o u s t r a i t s was found In the r e s u l t s of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s I and I I ; a more r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t i o n o f f r e q u e n c y was hoped f o r i n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I . The f i f t y u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s t h a t were chosen from the r e s u l t s of the p r e v i o u s e n q u i r i e s were tabu-l a t e d down the c e n t r e of the page of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I , (See P.-?/ ). On e i t h e r s i d e was a g r a p h i c r a t i n g s c a l e , the one to the l e f t f o r fr e q u e n c y , the o t h e r f o r d i f f i c u l t y o f adjustment. P a r e n t s were asked to r a t e a l l problems 5 I f they had never encountered a p a r t i c u l a r problem i n t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h c h i l d r e n , they were asked to g i v e t h e i r o p i n i o n of the degree o f adjustment d i f f i c u l t y the problem would cause i f i t o c c u r r e d . I n o t h e r words, the p a r e n t s were asked to e v a l u a t e the serious-) ness o f the f i f t y b ehaviour problems when they were c o n s i d e r e d ] a b s t r a c t l y as o c c u r r i n g i n any c h i l d . There were two reasons f o r a s k i n g p a r e n t s to l i s t the adjustment d i f f i c u l t y of a l l the t r a i t s s t o have r e s t r i c t e d the answers to t r a i t s which the p a r e n t s had encountered i n t h e i r own c h i l d r e n might have n o t - o n l y g r e a t l y l e s s e n e d the number o f r e p l i e s but a l s o a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d the f r a n k n e s s o f the r a t i n g s . The r e s u l t s were scored by means o f a c a l i b r a t e d r u l e w i t h twenty e q u a l diis&ftsions. The s c o r e s were then t a b u l a t e d , and averages and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s computed. The r e s u l t s of the 'frequency' s c a l e are g i v e n i n Table V I I I , those of the 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' s c a l e In Table IX. A score of 20 would mean t h a t a l l twenty-one p a r e n t s who an- \ "* swered the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i d e r e d the problem o c c u r r e d ' o f t e n ' ; a score of 13i-, that i t o c c u r r e d ' f r e q u e n t l y ' , o f 6-|, t h a t i t o c c u r r e d 'seldom', and of 0, t h a t i t never o c c u r -r e d . The be h a v i o u r problems are l i s t e d i n d e c r e a s i n g o r d e r o f average frequency of o c c u r r e n c e . 2>o Table T i l l . Barents' Estimates of Frequency of Occurrence of Undesirable Behaviour T r a i t s Frequency of Occurrence. Type of Problem Average standard Frequency Deviation Nevsr Score ; 0 Seldom Frequently M : -M-Often. 30 , Disobedience 14.1 3.05, Untidiness 12.7 4.84 Arguing almost h a b i t u a l l y 11.5 5.72 Shyness - bashfulness 10.9 5.15 Sensitiveness 10.8 4.92 Carelessness i n work 10.6 5.5 P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 10.4 5.8 Inattentiveness 10.3 5.31 Taking parents for granted 10.2 4.74 Restlessness 10.2 6.68 S e l f i s h n e s s 10. 4.89 lack of consideration f o r other children's f e e l i n g s 9.8 6.44 I n t e r r u p t i n g 9.8 5.76 Unthankfulness, i n g r a t i t u d e E a s i l y discouraged 9.5 5*9 9.4 5; 62 Unnecessary worrying 9.2 5.94 Laziness 9.2 5.68 Day dreaming 9.1 5.43 Rudeness or roughness of speech 9.1 5.83 Lack of concentration 9. 5.74 Stubbornness, contrariness 8.8 4.77 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c -t i o n of a t t e n t i o n 8.8 6.08 Imaginative l y i n g 8.5 5.5 Extreme nervousness 8.3 4.72 Impertinence, impoliteness rudeness 8.3 4.67 T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s 8.2 5.47 Over c r i t i c a l of others, f a u l t f i n d i n g 8.1 5.61 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e to elders 8.1 5.78 U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e evasion of duties 8. 5.14 Disregard f o r ownership of property 8. 6.28 lack of i n i t i a t i v e 7.9 5.46 Tardiness 7.7 5.42 Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work 7.5 4.29 I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness 7.3 4.63 Temper tantrums 7.3 4.67 Lack of sportsmanship i n games 6.9 5.04 Untruthfulness, l y i n g 6.9 4.87 Sulkiness, sullenness Desire to please at a l l costs 6.8 6.1 6.6 5.04 Domineering, overbearing, d i c t a t o r i a l 6.5 5.49 Precociousness 6.5 5.82 Cheating 6.3 4.25 Very careless i n personal appeErance 6.1 5.26 Insubordination, defiance 5.8 4.34 Exaggeration to obtain atte n t i o n 5.7 4.81 Eavesdropping 5.7 4.4-Irreverence i n religous matters 5.6 5.7 Unsocial, withdrawing 5.3 4.4< S t e a l i n g 4.9 4.3i Cruelty, b u l l y i n g 4.7 4.8S One notices that the scores i n t h i s table cover a considerable range and would form a rather smooth curve i f graphed. The same may be noted i n Table IX. 31 Table IX. Parents' Estimates of Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y of Undesirable Behaviour T r a i t s Type of Problem. Average Score S.D. Of no con-sequence Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y S l i g h t con-sequence Makes consid- Grave erable d i f f i c u l t y . O f f e n s e }3 ,20 -+-S t e a l i n g 17.7 4.18 Lying 16.6 4.64 Cheating 16.5 5.17 Cruelty, b u l l y i n g 16. 5.06 Irreverence 15. 4.24 Impertinence, impolite-ness, rudeness 14. S 3.96 U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , evasion of duties 13.9 4.46 Insubordination,defiance 13.8 5.55 Disregard f o r ownership-of property 13.7 4.67 Lack of consideration f o r other children's f e e l i n g s 12.8 4.86 Laziness 12.6 3.84 Se l f i s h n e s s 12.6 4.05 Temper -tantrums 12.5 4.88 Extreme nervousness 12.4 4.63 Disobedience 12.4 4.05 Eavesdropping 12.4 5.39 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e to elders 12.4 4.07 Lack of sportsmanship i n games .12.3 Rudeness or roughness of speech 12.3 4.85 Arguing almost h a b i t u a l l y 12.3 3.46 Carelessness i n work 12. 3.55 Lack of concentration 11.9 4.33 Lack of i n i t i a t i v e 11.8 4.8 Unthankfulhess,ingratitude 11.8 4.04 Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work 11.6 4.67 Taking parents f o r granted 11.3 4.93 Sullnnness, sulkiness T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s 11.2 4.04 11.1 4.48 P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 11.1 3.85 Inattentiveness 10.8 3.97 Stubbornness, contrariness 10.6 4.06 Untidiness 10.6 4.37 Very c a r e l e s s i n personal appearance 10.5 4.41 Unnecessary worrying 10.3 4.53 Precociousness 10.3 4.81 Over c r i t i c a l of others, f a u l t f i n d i n g 10. 5.85 E a s i l y discouraged 9.7 4.7S Sensitiveness 9.1 4.69 Desire to please at a l l costs 9.1 5.31 Interrupting 9. 5.03 Imaginative l y i n g 8.8 6.3 Exaggeration to obtain attention 8.H 5.2 Inqu i s i t i v a n e s s , meddle-someness- 8.3 4.64 Unsocial, withdrawing 8.3 4.62 Tardiness 8. 5.03 Domineering, d i c t a t o r i a l 7.8 5.44 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of attention 7.3 5.35 Day dreaming 6.9 4.25 Shyness, bashfulness 6.7 4.78 Restlessness 6.6 3.9 3X. I n i n t e r p r e t i n g these t a b l e s i t i s necessary to keep i n mind t h a t many d i f f e r e n c e s occur 'which are apparent, r a t h e r than r e a l or s t a t i s t i c a l . Two f a c t o r s must be rem-embered i n an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the observed d i f f e r e n c e s (a) the s m a l l number of p a r e n t s r a t i n g the problems, and (b) the r a t h e r wide d i v e r g e n c i e s of o p i n i o n among the p a r e n t s . The l a t t e r i s shown by the standard d e v i a t i o n s which range from 3.05 to 6.68 i n Table V I I I and from 3.46 to 6.3 i n T able IX. A s t a t i s t i c a l check was made to determine the i n f l u e n c e o f these f a c t o r s by u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g f o r m u l a s : (Tnn - ^ - j ^ J cU^i = l f v ^ * " a n d CT\.= "vy>'" ^ . x t was found t h a t f o r b oth t a b l e s a d i f f e r e n c e between average scores o f f o u r raw s c a l e u n i t s was s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s means th a t i f any two items are s e p a r a t e d by f o u r or more s c a l e u n i t s , there i s every chance t h a t the same r e l a t i o n s h i p would hold i f another group of p a r e n t s r a t e d these behaviour problems. For example, i n T a ble V I I I we f i n d ' d i s o b e d i e n c e ' r a t e d as 14.1, and u n t i d i -ness' r a t e d as 12.7. T h i s i s o n l y a d i f f e r e n c e o f 1.4 p o i n t s and t h e r e f o r e i s not s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h a t i s , i n a r a t i n g by another group of p a r e n t s ' u n t i d i n e s s ' might r a t e h i g h e r than ' d i s o b e d i e n c e ' . On the o t h e r hand ' d i s o b e d i e n c e ' i s r a t e d at 14.1 and ' s e l f i s h n e s s ' at 10. T h i s i s a d i f f e r e n c e o f 4.1 and i s s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h a t i s , i f a n o ther group o f p a r e n t s r a t e d these t r a i t s t h e r e i s every chance t h a t the r e l a t i v e r a t i n g s would be the same. The f i f t y t r a i t s were next grouped, both f o r ' f r e -quency' and 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' under the f i v e group 3 3 -headings given i n Chapter II pages Z\t*c\ a a . Results are shown i n Table X, with the scores given i n decreasing order of 'frequency' and of 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' . Table X. Parents' Estimates, shown i n Group Form, of the Frequency of Occurrence and Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y of Undesirable Behaviour T r a i t s . Average Group Average Group -Frequency Rating Score Average Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y Score Average. Rating 1. Violations of General Standards of Morality and Integrity. Imaginative lying 8.5 j Lying 17.7 Disregard f o r ownership 1 of property 8. Stealing 17.7 Lying 6.9 { Cheating 16.5 Cheating 6.3 Irreverence 15. Eavesdropping 5.7 i • Disregard for owner-i ship of property 13.7 Irreverence 5.6 : Eavesdropping 12.4 Stealing 4.9 - 1 Imaginative lying j • 8.8 6.56 l I 14.54 II. Attitudes to Parents and Home. 1 1 [ • • ' •• Disobedience 14.1 [ Impertinence, impol-l 1 iteness, rudeness 14.2 Arguing almost hab i i u a l l y 11.5 | Defiance, insuborden-: - \ | ation 13.8 Taking parents for granted 10.2 f Temper tantrums 12.5 Interrupting 9.8 Disrespectful attitude 1 to elders 12.4 Unthankfulness,ingratitude 9.5 j Disobedience 12.4 Stubbornness,contrariness 8,8 Arguing almost habit-i u a l l y 12 • 3 Table X Continued, Frequency Rating Average Group Score Average I I . Attitudes to Parents and Home (Continued). Impertinence, impoliteness, rudeness 8.3 Disrespectful, attitude to elders 8.1 Temper tantrums 7.3 Desire to please at a l l costs 6.6 Defiance, insubordination 5.8 9.9 I I I . Attitudes to Work and Small Duties. Average Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y Score Rating Unthankfulness, ingrat itude 11.8 Taking parent s for granted 11.5 Stubbornness, contrar-iness 10.6 Desire to please at a l l costs 9.1 Interrupting 9. Group Average, Carelessness i n work 10. 6 Unreliable, irrespons- I Procrastination 10. 4 i i b l e , evasion of duties 13.9 j Inattentiveness 10. 3 Laziness 12.6 I Restlessness 10. •2 | Carelessness 12. j E a s i l y discouraged 9. 4 I Lack of concentration 11.9 Laziness 9. 2 • . i I Lack of I n i t i a t i v e 11.8 { Lack of concentration 9. Lack of interest 11.6 I Unreliable, irresponsible, > l Procrastination 11.1 10.8 evasion of duties 8. 11 Inattentiveness Lack of i n i t i a t i v e 7. 9 |i E a s i l y discouraged I ' 7 Lack of interest 7. 5 || Tardiness 8-Tardiness 7. 7 i Restlessness 6.6 11.76 9.11 10.91 Table X Continued. Frequency Rating Average! Score j Group Average IV. D i f f i c u l t i e s with Other Children.; ' • I Lack of consideration f o r j other children's feelings 9.8 f T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales 8.2 i O v e r c r i t i c a l , f a u l t f i n d i n g 8.1 j Lack of sportsmanship i n games 6.9 f Domineering, overbearing, I d i c t a t o r i a l 6.5 ? Unsocial, withdrawing 5.3 j Cruelty, bullying 4.9 I Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y Rating Average Score ! 7.07 I V. Miscellaneous Undesirable Personality Traits: Cruelty, bullying Lack of consideration for other children's feelings Lack of sportsmanship i n games T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales O v e r c r i t i c a l , f a u l t -finding Unso c i a l , withdrawing Domineering, over-bearing d i c t a t o r i a l 16. 12.8 12.3 \ 11.1 | 10. 8.3 7.8 Untidiness 12.7 ! Selfishness 12.6 Shyness, bashfulness 10.9 1 Extreme nervousness 12.4 Sensitiveness 10.8 ! j Rudeness or rough-Selfishness i o . y i ness of speech 12.3 Unnecessary worrying 9.2 I Sullenness, sulkiness 11.2 Day dreaming 9.1 | Untidiness 10.6 Rudeness or roughness of speech 9.1 | Very careless i n • S i l l i n e s s , smartness, 8.8 j i personal appearance 10.5 attraction of attention I Unnecessary worrying 1 Precociousness 10.3 i Extreme nervousness 8.3 | 7.3 10.3 Inquisitiveness, meddlesomeness j Sensitiveness 9.1 ; Table X Continued. Frequency Rating Average Score Group Average Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y Rating Average Score Group Average, V. Miscellaneous Undesirable Personality Traits. j j (Continued) Sulkiness, sullenness Precociousness Very careless i n personal appearance Exaggeration to obtain attention 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.7/ Attitudes to work oa small duties Attitudes to parents and iiome Miscellaneous undesirable person-a l i t y t r a i t s D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children Violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y lj Exaggeration to obtain I] attention 8.3-\\ Inquisitiveness, meddle-jj someness 8.3 if S i l l i n e s s , smartness, 11 attraction of attention 7.3 6.9 8.66 ]! Daydreaming \I Shyne s s, bashfulnes s 6.7 Summary of Group Scores, 9.11 {{ Violations of general i| standards of morality if and in t e g r i t y . 9.09 || Attitudes to parents Is and home. jj D i f f i c u l t i e s with other 8.66 j children 7.07 j| Attitudes to work, small U duties II I Miscellaneous undesirable 6.56 If personality t r a i t s 9.77 14.54 11.76 11.18 10.91 9.77 Prom an e x a m i n a t i o n of the p r e c e d i n g data one notes t h a t there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between the s c o r e s o f the t r a i t s i n each group. s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e Is found bet-ween some of the t r a i t s i n each group, except i n Group I I I , under 'frequency' r a t i n g . I t would appear that p a r e n t s tr-ted to t h i n k o f an u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t as a u n i t by i t s e l f . The o u t s t a n d i n g p o i n t i n the summary of Table X i s the d i f f -erence i n the p o s i t i o n s of the group e n t i t l e d ' v i o l a t i o n s o f g e n e r a l standards o f m o r a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y . 5 T h i s group i s lowest i n 'Frequency' r a t i n g and h i g h e s t i n 'Adjustment D i f f i -c u l t y ' s c o r e s . I t i s e v i d e n t t h a t p a r e n t s c o n s i d e r such v i o l -a t i o n s occur seldom but when they do occur they are the most s e r i o u s of a l l u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s . The p a r e n t s ' r a t i n g s of the r e l a t i v e degree of s e r i o u s n e s s of v a r i o u s b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s are i n s u b s t a n t i a l agreement w i t h the r a t i n g s of the t e a c h e r s who c o n t r i b u t e d t o (1) Wickman's study . The s e l e c t i o n o f problems by the two groups i s d i f f e r e n t ; t e a c h e r s are concerned w i t h c l a s s r o o m d i s t u r b a n c e s ^ p a r e n t s , w i t h those of the home. However, the g e n e r a l t r e n d i s the same. A summary of the a t t i t u d e s of the t e a c h e r s and the f i f t y mental h y g i e n l s t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to Wickman's study, and o f the p a r e n t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h i s study, i s g i v e n i n Table X I . Problems are l i s t e d i n d e c r e a s i n g o r d e r o f i mportance. 1. E.K. Wickman op c i t Ch V I . 39-Table XI. Summary of Attitudes of Parents, Teachers, Clinicians to Behaviour Problems. Parents Teachers Clinicians Violations of general JImmoralities, dis-standards of morality,jhonesties and in t e g r i t y . Attitudes to parents .and home. D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children. Attitudes to work and small duties. Miscellaneous undes-irable personality t r a i t s . |transgressions \against authority. I I • |Violations of order-l i n e s s i n class-froom i n application |to school work. \Extravagant, Iaggressive personal-i t y and behaviour I t r a i t s Withdrawing, re-cessive personality and behaviour t r a i t s . Withdrawing re-cessive personal-i t y , and behaviour t r a i t s . j Dishonesties, ]cruelty, temper, itantrums, truancy. \Immoralities, vio-flations of school j work requirements, iextravagant be-j haviour t r a i t s . ! I Transgressions j against authority, [violations of }orderliness i n I class. It i s evident that both parents and teachers placed the emphasis on violations of s o c i a l custom; mental hygienists, on the other hand, stress the seriousness of unsocial and with-drawing forms of behaviour. In Chapter II i t was noted that parents checkmarked the 'withdrawing' character t r a i t s more often than the *aggres-sive' t r a i t s . Table XII shows the parents' position on th i s point as given i n the res u l t s of Questionnaire I II. Table XII. Parents' Estimates of the 'Frequency' and 'Adjustment D i f f i -culty of 'Withdrawing' and'Aggressive' T r a i t s . Frequency Score Group Score Adjustment Group 1 Score Score. 'Withdrawing' t r a i t s . 1 I i | j Shyness, bashfulness 10. 9 18. 4 I Sensitiveness 10. 8 1 9 ' 1 1 Ea s i l y discouraged 9. 4 y 9. 7 Unnecessary worrying 9. 2 jl 10. 3 1 Day dreaming 9. 1 '•If 6. 9 Extreme nervousness 8. a if 12. 4 • 1 Unsocial, withdrawing 5. 3 1 8. 3 9. . fl 1 9.9 'Aggressive' t r a i t s . 1 • 11 i% § Selfishness 10. • 11 f| 12. 6 Rudeness or roughness i of speech 9. l If 12. 3 S i l l i n e s s , smartness attraction of || attention 8. 8 • i t ; 7. 5 1 i ' Inquisitiveness, I me ddle some ne s s 7. a | '• 8. 3 Precociousness 6. 5 i o . 3 1 Domineering, 1 d i c t a t o r i a l 6. 5 1 • *• 8 Exaggeration to ! II 1 ' u " 1 obtain attention 5. 7 1 I 8. 5 1 \ V.7 I - j 9.5 f If S Between no two of these averages i s there a s i g n i f i c -ant difference. It would appear, therefore, that the apparent emphasis on 'withdrawing' t r a i t s , as judged from Questionnaire II was misleading. The apparent discrepancy i n results may be explained as follows; Suppose for example, that i n Questionnaire II, twelve parents che'ckmarked 'withdrawing' t r a i t s while only seven marked 'aggressive' t r a i t s . The emphasis would apparently he on 'withdrawing' t r a i t s . In Questionnaire III the same twelve parents might rate the frequency of each 'withdrawing' t r a i t at 3, a t o t a l of t h i r t y - s i x points; the seven parents HI might r a t e the frequency o f each a g g r e s s i v e t r a i t at 6, a t o t a l of f o r t y - t w o p o i n t s . By t h i s more c a r e f u l r a t i n g , the emphasis might be r e v e r s e d . I t would appear then, as a r e s u l t o f "the two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t p a r e n t s p l a c e a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same emphasis on 'aggre.ssive 1 or 'withdrawing' t r a i t s when they are c o n s i d e r e d as groupsx, a l t h o u g h w i t h i n each group t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y between s p e c i f i c t r a i t s . R e s u l t s o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I may be summarized as f o l l o w s . (1) P a r e n t s c o n s i d e r t h a t v i o l a t i o n s o f standards o f m o r a l i t y «*bA i n t e g r i t y occur seldom, but are ext r e m e l y important when they do o c c u r . (2) N e i t h e r the r a t i n g s o f the pa r e n t s c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h i s s tudy, nor-: those-' of the t e a c h e r s con-t r i b u t i n g to Wickman's, agree w i t h the r a t i n g s of (1) the mental h y g i e n l s t s c o n s u l t e d by Wickman (3) P a r e n t s do not p l a c e much emphasis on the adjustment d i f f i c u l t y caused by the p o s s e s s i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . A l s o they do not make a d i s t -i n c t i o n between the e x t e n t o f adjustment d i f f i c u l t y o f 'withdrawing' and ' a g g r e s s i v e ' p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . 1, E.K. Wickman ep c i t p. 130 HZ-Chapter IV. The R e l a t i v e Amounts of D i f f i c u l t y E ncountered by P a r e n t s i n the Cor-r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r T r a i t s . P a r e n t s ' e s t i m a t e s of the 'frequency of o c c u r r e n c e ' and the 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' o f u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s were o b t a i n e d f r o m Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I I . The next s t e p was to d i s c o u v e r the degree of d i f f i c u l t y e ncountered by p a r e n t s i n the c o r r e c t i o n of these i n s t a n c e s of u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r . To t h i s end Q u e s t i o n n a i r e IV was d i s t r i b u t e d . To the l e f t of the page were l i s t e d the f i f t y s e l e c t e d u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s . To the r i g h t of each t r a i t was a r a t i n g s c a l e . P a r e n t s were asked t o r a t e o n l y those problems w h i c h they had a c t u a l l y encountered and t r i e d to c o r r e c t . F o r t h i s r e a s o n the number of problems r a t e d was s m a l l , but the sco r e s are the r e s u l t of f i r s t - h a n d e x p e r i e n c e . Twenty p a r e n t s answered t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; each problem was r a t e d an average of 10.1 t i m e s . The r e s u l t s were s c o r e d w i t h a c a l i b r a t e d r u l e w i t h twenty e q u a l d i v i s i o n s . The s c o r e s were th e n t a b u l a t e d and the a v e r -ages and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s computed. The r e s u l t s are g i v e n i n T a b l e X I I I . A s c o r e of 20 would, i n d i c a t e v e r y g r e a t d i f -f i c u l t y i n c o r r e c t i o n ; t h a t of 13^, moderate d i f f i c u l t y ; of 6-|, s l i g h t d i f f i c u l t y ; and of 0, no d i f f i c u l t y a t a l l . 43* TABLE XIII AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED BY PARENTS IK THE CORRECTION OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR TRAITS. Type of Problem Average S.D. D i f f i c u l t y of Correction Score ~No S l i g h t ' Moderate D i f f i c u l t y D i f f i c u l t y D i f f i c u l t y Very great D i f f i c u l t y Sensitiveness Arguing almost h a b i t u a l l y Extreme nervousness Disobedience Interrupting Domineering - overbearing d i c t a t o r i a l Shyness, bashfulness Stubbornness-contrariness Untidiness P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n I n q u i s i t i v e h e s s , meddlesomeness Temper tantrums Lack of Concentration Taking parents f o r granted Lying Selfi s h n e s s . Laziness U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , evasion of duties Lack of consideration f o r other c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s Restlessness E a s i l y discourage^ S t e a l i n g Ingratitude, unthahkfulness Impertinence, impoliteness, rudeness Disregard f o r ovmership of property O v e r c r i t i c a l f a u l t f i n d i n g , • 13.1 13. 12.4 11.7 11.4 l i s 4 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.5 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.1 10.1 10. 9.9 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.3 9. ' Unsocial^withdrawing Sulkiness, sullenness Unnecessary worrying T e l l i n g t a l e s , tatnfcing Rudeness or roughness of speecbB.8 Lack of sportsmanship i n games 18.1 4.71 5.08 5.65 2.67 3.42 4.21 5.25 4.26 4.42 5.06 3.97 3.99 5.45 6.06 4.98 3.15 5.84 5.14 4.14 5.21 4.07 7.1 4.47 6.11 5.45 4.47 4.9d; 8.9 17.22 j 8.9|4.68 5.08 4.38 3.74 Carelessness i n personal appearance 8.7|3.98 Insubordination, defiance 8.6|4'.81" Di s r e s p e c t f u l attitude to I parents 8.5|4. Lack of i n i t i a t i v e 8.4J6.13 Carelessness i n work 8.4J4.1 \ Inattentiveness 8.3(4.48 I ! Precooioushess 18.3 S4.03 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of a t t e n t i o n IB.3J4.88 Desire to please at a l l costs 7.2 4.19 Exaggeration to obtain attention 7.1 4.85 Tardiness 6.9 5.45 Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work 6.9 6.12 Day dreaming 6.8 5.47 Irreverence i n r e l i g i o u s matters 6.7 5.97 Cruelty, b u l l y i n g 6.6 5.87 Imaginative l y i n g 5.3 3.69 Eavesdropping 4.9 3.15 Cheating 4.9 3.92 HH-. (As. was p o i n t e d out oh page• of t h i s c h a p t e r , a score o f 13-| r e p r e s e n t s moderate d i f f i c u l t y i n c o r r e c t i o n , and one of 6^ -, s l i g h t d i f f i c u l t y . The average s c o r e of the f i f t y items l i s t e d i n Table X I I I i s 9.2. T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p a r e n t s c o n s i d e r they encounter o n l y a v e r y moderate degree of d i f f i c -u l t y i n the c o r r e c t i o n .of u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r . .^./^ I n examining Table X I I I , one notes the f a i r l y h i g h : "standard d e v i a t i o n s which range from,2.67 t o 7.1. These de-v i a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t p a r e n t s are f a r from b e i n g i n agreement as to the' amount of d i f f i c u l t y they encounter i n the c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r t r a i t s . They agree, most c l o s e l y on ' d i s o b e d i e n c e ' , S.D. 2,67; and d i s a g r e e most w i d e l y on ' s t e a l i n g ' , S.D. 7.1. By the use of the f o r m u l a s g i v e n i n Chapter I I I , page 33^, i t was d e c i d e d t h a t a d i f f e r e n c e o f 5.5 between any two raw sccr es i n Table X I I I , c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h a t i s , i f two s c o r e s d i f f e r by 5.5 or more, th e r e i s every chance t h a t a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p .would r e s u l t i f the same q u e s t i o n n a i r e were g i v e n t o another group of p a r e n t s . I f two s c o r e s i n Table X I I I do. not d i f f e r by 5.5, we can n o t c o n s i d e r the d i f f e r e n c e between the s c o r e s as s i g n i f -i c a n t ; i n o t h e r w o r d s , I f the same q u e s t i o n n a i r e were g i v e n t o another group of p a r e n t s , the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s o f two t r a i t s whose s c o r e s d i f f e r by l e s s than 5.5 might be r e v e r s e d . The more n e a r l y the d i f f e r e n c e approximates 5.5,: the g r e a t e r I s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s r e q u i r e d d i f f e r e n c e i s l a r g e and so causes one t o draw v e r y c a u t i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s from Table X I I I . The s i z e o f the yd . s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i s the r e s u l t of the s m a l l number of p a r e n t s t h a t r a t e d each i t e m , and the l a r g e v a r i a t i o n s i n the sco r e s of each i t e m , as shown by the S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s . The f i f t y b ehaviour t r a i t s were next grouped under the'headings g i v e n i n Chapter I I , pages^5^^3 . Averages were computed f o r e.a-ch group. R e s u l t s are g i v e n I n Table XIV. *4b TABLE .XIV PARENT'S* ESTIMATES; SHOWN IN GROUP FORM, OF THE AMOUNT OF DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED IN THE CORRECTION OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR. Vio l a t i o n s - ^ o f - ' G e n e r a l Standards oi' M o r a l -i t y and I n t e g r i t y Average Score Group J Averages L y i n g •. •« .«.« S t e a l i n g «« •« . ». » D i s r e g a r d f o r ownership of p r o p e r t y • I r r e v e r e n c e .... .... I m a g i n a t i v e l y i n g .... C h e a t i n g Eavesdropping 10.3 9.6 9.4 6.7. 5.3' , 4.9 4.9 i ! I \ j 7.3 ! 8 • I ' • ! A t t i t u d e s t o P a r e n t s and Home : I ' i I A r g u i n g almost h a b i t u a l l y D i s o b e d i e n c e I n t e r r u p t i n g f Stubbornness, c o n t r a r i n e s s Temper tantrums Taking, p a r e n t s f o r g r a n t e d I m p e r t i n e n c e , i m p o l i t e n e s s , rudeness Ingra.titude oratb^arftKfulness D e f i a n c e , i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e t o e l d e r s D e s i r e t o p l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s 13. 11.7 11.4 11.1 10.5 10.3 9.5 9.5 8.6 8.5 7.2 10.1 I I I A t t i t u d e s t o Work and S m a l l D u t i e s P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 1 10.7 Lack of c o n c e n t r a t i o n 1 10.5 L a z i n e s s | 10.1 U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , e v a s i o n of { 10.1 d u t i e s R e s t l e s s n e s s \ 9.9 \ 9.8 I 8.4 E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d C a r e l e s s n e s s i n work Lack of i n i t i a t i v e | 8.4 l 8.3 I n a t t e n t i v e Lack of i n t e r e s t j 6.9 T a r d i n e s s 1 6.9 9.1 TABLE XIV IV D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n Average Score Group Score Domineering, d i c t a t o r i a l Lack of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r oth e r c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s O v e r - c r i t i c a l of o t h e r s - f a u l t f i n d i n g U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s Lack of sportsmanship i n games C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g H © 4 10. 9 & 5 9« 8.8 8.7 6.6 9.1 M i s c e l l a n e o u s U n d e s i r a b l e P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s S e n s i t i v e n e s s Nervousness, extreme Shyness, b a s h f u l n e s s U n t i d i n e s s I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness S e l f i s h n e s s Unnecessary w o r r y i n g S u l k i n e s s , s u l l e n n e s s Rudeness o r roughness o f speech Very c a r e l e s s i n p e r s o n a l appearance P r e c o c i o u s n e s s S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of a t t e n t i o n E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n Day dreaming 13.1 12.4 11.2 10.7 10.6 10.2 8.9 . 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.3 •8.3 7 .rl 6.8 9.6 Summary of Group Averages 1 A t t i t u d e s t o p a r e n t s and home . j 10.1 2 M i s c e l l a n e o u s U n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s j 9.6 3 D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n j 9.1 4 A t t i t u d e s t o work and s m a l l d u t i e s I 9.1 5 V i o l a t i o n s of g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d s of m o r a l i t y and j i n t e g r i t y | 7.3 One notes, f i r s t , the c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y between the average scores of the f i r s t f o u r groups. ' V i o l a t i o n s of g e n e r a l standards o f m o r a l i t y and i n t e g r i t y ' do not cause as much d i f f i c u l t y i n c o r r e c t i o n as do o t h e r u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t s i t was concluded i n Chapter I I I . t h a t p a r e n t s . d i d not f i n d the above group t r a i t s to occur o f t e n but thought them v e r y s e r i o u s when they d i d . I t i s a q u e s t i o n whether p a r e n t s , when r a t i n g Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I V j confused the d i f f i c u l t y of c o r r e c t i o n o f these t r a i t s when they o c c u r r e d w i t h the t o t a l amount o f d i f f i c u l t y of c o r r e c t i o n of the t r a i t s which they d i d not c o n s i d e r occured o f t e n . On the o t h e r hand the r a t i n g f o r 'amount of d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n c o r r e c t i o n 1 of t h i s group may be low because par e n t s c o n s i d e r e d these examples o f u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour to be more t a n g i b l e to d e a l w i t h than a t r a i t such as ' s e n s i t i v e n e s s ' . I t should be noted that there i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n of score w i t h i n each group. T h i s would suggest t h a t p a r e n t s t h i n k o f u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s as u n i t s o f b e h a v i o u r . The group showing the g r e a t e s t s i m i l a r i t y i n s c o r e s i s that e n t i t l e d ' a t t i t u d e s to work and s m a l l d u t i e s ' . When 'withdrawing and ' a g g r e s s i v e ' p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s are grouped the r e s u l t s are as shown i n T a b l e XV. Table XV Amount o f D i f f i c u l t y Encountered by Par e n t s i n the C o r r e c t i o n of'Aggress ive and Withdrawing' T r a i t s j i 'Withdrawing' T r a i t s fAverage ScorejGroup Score \ S e n s i t i v e n e s s \ 13.1 Nervousness f 12.4 Shyness, b a s h f u l n e s s • | 11.2 E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d j 9.8 U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g I 9 Unnecessary w o r r y i n g 1 8.9 Day dreaming f 6.8 10.17 ' A g g r e s s i v e ' T r a i t s . I f Domineering, o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l I 11.4 I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness I 10.6 S e l f i s h n e s s | 10.2 Rudeness or roughness of speech | 8.8 Precoc iousness ' 8.3 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n 8.3 E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n J 7.1 1 9.2 There i s c l o s e s i m i l a r i t y between both the range of s c o r e s , and the average scores i n these groups. I t would seem t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y the.same amount of d i f f i c u l t y i s encountered by p a r e n t s i n the c o r r e c t i o n o f ' a g g r e s s i v e ' and 'withdrawing' t r a i t s . The o n l y scores between which there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e are those o f ' s e n s i t i v e n e s s ' and 'nervousness', and 'day dreaming'. The f i r s t two o f these are much more n o t i c e -a b l e and annoying to p a r e n t s than 'day dreaming': one wonders i f t h a t Is why they are c o n s i d e r e d so much harder to c o r r e c t . We can draw the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s from the work i n t h i s c h a pters (1) P a r e n t s ' e s t i m a t e s o f the amount of d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n the c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e be-h a v i o u r i s ' very moderate. (3) When t r a i t s are grouped there i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the average sc o r e s of the groups, but there i s g r e a t v a r i a t i o n between the scores of t r a i t s w i t h i n the groups. Chapter V. P a r e n t s ' E s t i m a t e s of the R e l a t i v e Con-t r i b u t i o n s of Home and S c h o o l i n the C o r r e c t i o n of U n d e s i r a b l e B e h a v i o u r . The n e x t - s t e p i n the study of p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to children's behaviour, problems was to o b t a i n the p a r e n t s ' o p i n i o n s as to the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by home and s c h o o l i n the c o r r e c t i o n o f u n d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r . To o b t a i n t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e V was sent o u t . The f i f t y un-d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s t h a t were s e l e c t e d as a r e s u l t of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s I e&^II were t a b u l a t e d down the c e n t r e of the page, ^o the l e f t was a r a t i n g s c a l e f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s , to the r i g h t , one f o r day p u p i l s . A f i v e - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e w i t h s u i t a b l e c a p t i o n s was used. P a r e n t s were asked to score f o r r e s i d e n t or day p u p i l s , or b o t h , a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r ex-p e r i e n c e . F o u r t e e n p a r e n t s scored f o r day p u p i l s , three f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s and three f o r b o t h . I n two ca s e s , mothers o f r e s i d e n t p u p i l s r a t e d day p u p i l s as they c o n s i d e r e d t h e i r knowledge of the l a t t e r to be wi d e r . The r a t i n g s on Que s t i o n n a i r e V were sc o r e d w i t h a r u l e as b e f o r e , averages and stand ard d e v i a t i o n s were computed. T h e r e s u l t s are g i v e n In T a b l e XVI and X V I I . A score of 20 would mean 'home I n f l u e n c e n e g l i g i b l e , s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e v e r y great',- of 15, 'home i n f l u e n c e s m a l l , s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e v e r y g r e a t ; o f 10, 'home and s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e s equal'; o f 5, 'home i n f l u e n c e g r e a t , s c h o o l i n -f l u e n c e n e g l i g i b l e ' . In the g r a p h i c a l I l l u s t r a t i o n o f scor e s i n Tables XVI tff X V I I , the c e n t r e v e r t i c a l l i n e r e p r e s e n t s 6$ • e q u a l i t y of home and s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e s ; the lo n g e r the h o r i -z o n t a l l i n e to the r i g h t , the g r e a t e r the i n f l u e n c e of the s c h o o l , the l o n g e r the h o r i z o n t a l l i n e to the l e f t , the g r e a t e r the i n f l u e n c e of the home. Table 171. Influence of -Home and School on Resident P u p i l s Type of Problem Average Score S.D. Lack of concentration 16.2 1.83 Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work 16.1 1.98 Inattentiveness 16. 2.02 Day dreaming . 16. 1.76 Tardiness 14.9 .02 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of a t t e n t i o n 14.8 3.19 Lack of consideration f o r other c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s 14.8 3.96 I n q u i s i t i v a n e s s , meddle-someness 14.7 3.36 Desire to please at a l l costs 14.6 3.37 Lack of sportsmanship i n games 14.2 2.98 Carelessness i n work 15.8 1.56 E a s i l y discouraged 13.5 3.63 P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n 13.5 3.76 Unnecessary worrying 13.2 4.17 Laok of i n i t i a t i v e 12.7 2.42 U n s o c i a l , withdrawing 12.5 3.09 Rudeness or roughness of speech 12.4 3.17 Imaginative l y i n g 12.4 2.38 Shyness, bashfulness 12.3 •4.20 Sensitiveness 12.2 4.47 Insubordination, defiance _ 12.2 2.51 Interrupting ! 12.2 2.5l Exaggeration to obtain atten t i o n 12.2 3.91 Equal Influence 10 School Influence ao--o, S u l k i n e s s , s u l l e n n e s s 12. Over c r i t i c a l , f a u l t -f i n d i n g 11.6 Disregard f o r others' property 11.5 Domineering, overbearing d i c t a t o r i a l 11.5 Selfishness 11.3 Cheating 11.3 T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s 11.3 Restlessness 11'. 3 Arguing almost h a b i t u a l l y 11.2 Cruelty, b u l l y i n g 11.1 Stubbornness, contrariness 11.1 Impoliteness, impertinence rudeness 11.1 Precociousness 11.1 Disobedience 10.9 Eavesdropping 10.5 Untidiness 9.9 Temper tantrums 9.9 Very careless i n personal appearance 9.8 Laziness 9.8 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e to parents 9.3 Extreme nervousness 8.8 Unthankfulness, Ingrat-itude 8.4 Irreverence i n r e l i g i o u s matters 8.1 Lying 7.6 St e a l i n g 7.5 Taking parents f o r granted 7.5 Irresponsible, u n r e l i a b l e evasion of duties 6.5 2.26 2.48 2.12 3.62 2.59 2.24 2.59 3.19 5.24 2.34 2.34 2.26 2.04 1.45 3.52 .02 3.56 .02 .06 1.7 8.53 1.88 4.11 8. 5.7 4.6 In an examination of Table XVI one must keep i n mind the small number of parents scoring. The items i n Table XVI were scored an average of 4.1:times each, those i n Table XVII, which follows, an average of 12.1 times each. HI H > X T a b l e X V I I I n f l u e n c e o f Home a n d . S c h o o l on Day P u p i l Type o f P r o b l e m Average S.D. S c o r e L a c k o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n 13.2 La c k o f i n t e r e s t i n work 13.2 C a r e l e s s n e s s i n - w o r k 13.1 L a c k o f s p o r t s m a n s h i p i n games 12.7 Shy n e s s , b a s h f u i n e s s 12.5 Day d r e a m i n g 11.9 L a c k o f i n i t i a t i v e 11.7 I n a t t e n t i v e n e s s 11.5 S e n s i t i v e n e s s 11.5 U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g 11.3 D o m i n e e r i n g , o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l .10.9 L a z i n e s s 10.3 S u l l e r i ^ s s , s m a r t n e s s , a t t r a c t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n 10.3 E x a g g e r a t i o n t o o b t a i n a t t e n -t i o n 10.2 C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g 10.2 D i s r e g a r d f o r p r o p e r t y o f o t h e r s l O Extreme n e r v o u s n e s s 9.8 E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d 9.7 L y i n g 9.6 I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , d e f i a n c e 9.6 T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s ' 9.5 U n t i d i n e s s - - 9.3 P r e c o c i o u s n e s s 9.3 C h e a t i n g L a c k o f r e s p e c t f o r e l d e r s Inquis i t Ivene 33 , meddlesomene eg Rudeness or roug h n e s s o f speech I n t e r r u p t i n g D i s o b e d i e n c e P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n R e s t l e s s n e s s E a v e s d r o p p i n g D e s i r e t o p l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s A r g u i n g a l m o s t h a b i t u a l l y T a r d i n e s s I m a g i n a t i v e l y i n g S e l f i s h n e s s S u l k i n e s s , s u l l e n e s s I r r e v e r e n c e i n r e " l i g i o u s m a t t e r s U n n e c e s s a r y w o r r y i n g I m p e r t i n e n c e , i m p o l i t e n e s s , r u d e n e s s S t u b b o r n e s s , c o n t r a r i n e s s L a c k o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s I r r e s p o n s i b l e , u n r e l i a b l e , e v a s i p u o f d u t i e s . U n t h a n k f u l n e s s , i n g r a t i t u d e Over c r i t i c a l , f a u l t f i n d i n g V e r y c a r e l e s s I n p e r s o n a l appearance T a k i n g p a r e n t s f o r g r a n t e d S t e a l i n g Temper tantrums 3.03 2.99 3.32 3.68 2.77 3.36 3/89 4.71 3.53 4.26 4.72 1.01 3.84 3.14 4.94 1.37 4.65 2.86 3.46 4.63 4.85 3.6 2.82 9.2 6.11 8.9 3.62 e-iS - — 3 rS4 8.7 4.4 8^7 3.4 8.7 2.48 8.6 3.81 8.6 4.61 8.5 4.50 8.3 3.47 7.9 5.17 7.8 4.74 7.7 4.78 7.4 3.46 7.2 3.89 7.2 3.18 7.1 6.23 7.1 4.29 7 4.49 7 3.91 •6.9 4.99 6.9 3.83 6.8 3.06 6.5 4.82 6.1 3.99 6.1 3.38 5,3 4.26 The standard d e v i a t i o n s i n Tab l e s XVI and XVII are lower than i n any p r e c e d i n g t a b l e . T h i s would i n d i c a t e t h a t p a r e n t s are more i n agreement as to the r e l a t i v e i n f l u e n c e s o f home and s c h o o l , than they are on i n c i d e n c e , s e r i o u s n e s s , and d i f f i c u l t y o f c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s . ? S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were determined f o r both s e t s of data by means of the fo r m u l a s g i v e n i n Chapter I I I page C32). I n the case of day p u p i l s (Table X V I I ) a d i f f e r e n c e of f o u r raw u n i t s was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . 'No very s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s c o u l d be found or expected i n the case of the scores f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s . . The s m a l l number o f scores and the d i f f e r e n c e s between the stand a r d d e v i a t i o n s r e s u l t i n v a r i a b l e u n i t s f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e when t e s t e d i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f the s c a l e . The s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e appears to be around f i v e raw u n i t s . W i t h these r e s e r v a t i o n s i n mind we can compare the r e s u l t s o f the two t a b l e s . As would be ex-pected, s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e i s r a t e d as more important i n the case of r e s i d e n t p u p i l s than i n the case of day p u p i l s . We ! f i n d the same item occupying r e l a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i n the two t a b l e s , but when the two scor e s f o r each item are compared, some i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s are found. With the except-i o n of f o u r items, ' l y i n g ' , ' l a z i n e s s ' , 'shyness' and 'nervous-ness', the score f o r each Item f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s i s h i g h e r than the score f o r the c o r r e s p o n d i n g item f o r day p u p i l s . The d i f f e r e n c e s are not s t a t i s t i c a l but suggest t h a t p a r e n t s r a t e the i n f l u e n c e of the r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l h i g h e r than t h a t o f the day s c h o o l . When one c o n s i d e r s the s m a l l number o f parents r a t i n g ' r e s i d e n t p u p i l s ' the r e s u l t s are v e r y c o n s i s t e n t , , The average score f o r the f i f t y items f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s ( Table XVI) was found to be 11.7, th a t f o r day p u p i l s (Table X V I I ) was 7.1. ^ score of 10 r e p r e s e n t s e q u a l home and s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e , t h a t of 5,- grea t home i n f l u e n c e and s m a l l s c h o o l I n f l u e n c e , ^ t i s suggested from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f these sco r e s t h a t parents do not r a t e the I n f l u e n c e of the s c h o o l ' on the c o r r e c t i o n of u n d e s i r a b l e b ehaviour t r a i t s as v e r y ; gre a t even i n the case o f r e s i d e n t p u p i l s , and t h a t i n the ; case of day p u p i l s p a r e n t s c o n s i d e r the I n f l u e n c e o f the \ home as more Important* The data which are g i v e n i n Tab l e s XVI & X V I I , are shown i n grouped form i n Table X V I I I Table X V I I I I n f l u e n c e of Home and S c h o o l on Day and on R e s i d e n t P u p i l s , Shown i n Group Form, I V i o l a t i o n s of. G e n e r a l Standards j R e s i d e n t P u p i l s o f M o r a l i t y y ^ I n t e g r i t y . j leverage "GrFup Score Average _Day P u p i l s _ _ _ _ Average""* Group' Score Average I m a g i n a t i v e l y i n g 1 1 2 , 4 D i s r e g a r d o f ownership of p r o p e r t y 1 11 . 5 C h e a t i n g f 11 . 3 Eavesdropping 1 1 0 . 5 I r r e v e n e n c e j 8 . 1 L y i n g j 7 . 6 S t e a l i n g 1 7 . 5 1 9 . 8 7 . 7 10 9 . 2 8 . 5 V © s 9 . 6 6 . 1 8 . 3 I I . A t t i t u d e s to P a r e n t s H o m e f " I - -D e s i r e to P l e a s e a t a l l c o s t s f 1 4 . 6 I n t e r r u p t i n g 1 1 2 . 2 I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , d e f i a n c e | 1 2 . 2 A r g u i n g almost h a b i t u a l l y 1 1 1 . 2 Impertinence, i m p o l i t e n e s s , rudeness 11.1 Stubborness, c o n t r a r i n e s s j 1 1 . 7 Disobedience jj . 1 0 . 9 Temper tantrums | 9 . 9 D i s r e s p e c t f u l a t t i t u d e t o e l d e r s | 9 . 3 I n g r a t i t u d e , u n t h a n k f u l n e s s | 8 . 4 T a k i n g parents f o r granted § 7 . 5 | 1 0 . 8 1 8 . 3 8 . 7 9 . 6 7 . 9 7.1 7 8 ®*7 5«3 8 . 9 6 . 9 6 . 1 7 . 7 .> I I I A t t i t u d e s to Work <STSmall D u t i e s Lack o f c o n c e n t r a t i o n Lack of i n t e r e s t i n work Inattentive-nts.3 T a r d i n e s s C a r e l e s s n e s s In work E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d P r o c r a s t i n a t i o n Lack o f i n i t i a t i v e R e s t l e s s n e s s L a z i n e s s U n r e l i a b l e , i r r e s p o n s i b l e , e v a s i o n of d u t i e s Res i d e n t ""Average ~ Score P u p i l s Group Average Day P u p i l s Average Group Score Average 16.2 13.2 16.1 13»2 16 11 ® 5 14.9 V ® 8 13 o 8 13 a 1 13.5 9.7 13.5 8.6 12 © 11.7 11 & 3 8.6 9.8 10.3 6.5 6.9 13 a 1 10.4 IV D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Other C h i l d r e n Lack of c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r oth e r 1 1 : , : ! I c h i l d r e n ' s f e e l i n g s j 14.8 1 (i 7 Lack o f sportsmanship i n games 14.2 1 12.7 U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g 12 a 5 I i I 11 a 3 | Over c r i t i c a l , f a u l t f i n d i n g j 11.6 6.8 i Domineering, o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l 11.5 a 10.9 s T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s | 11.3 1 9.5 i C r u e l t y , b u l l y i n g j 11.1 12 a 4 ! I 10,2 . 9.8 1 V M i s c e l l a n e o u s u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . Day dreaming J S f t l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n <S<S\ a t t e n t i o n 16 14. £ 1 1 9 9 10.3 Table X V I I I Continued V. M i s c e l l a n e o u s u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y R e s i d e n t P u p i l s t r a i t s i Average ^Group** 1 Score Average "ATerage wroup Score Average I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness Unnecessary w o r r y i n g Rudeness or roughness of speech Shyness, b a s h f u l n e s s Sens i t i v e n e s s E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n S u l k i n e s 3 , s u t ' l ^ i e s s S e l f i s h n e s s P r e c o c l o u s n e s s U n t i d i n e s s Very c a r e l e s s i n p e r s o n a l appearance Extreme nervousness 14.7 13 § 2 12.4 12.3 12 a 2 12 0 2 12 11.3 11.1 9.9 9.8 12 © 2 A t t i t u d e s to workg^small d u t i e s D i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h other c h i l d r e n M i s c e l l a n e o u s u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s A t t i t u d e s to parents home V i o l a t i o n s o f g e n e r a l standards o f m o r a l i t y , a*JL I n t e g r i t y Summary of Group Averages 13.1 12.4 12 • 2 10.8 9.8 Day P u p i l s 9.3 10.4 9.8 9,3 7.7 8.3 An e x a m i n a t i o n of the group scores i n Table X V I I I r e v e a l s t h a t the group scores are a p p a r e n t l y h i g h e r f o r r e s i -dent p u p i l s than f o r day p u p i l s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e s u l t s shown i n Tables XVI and X V I I . W i t h i n each group there i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e range of s c o r e s . T h i s l a t t e r , as i n p r e v i o u s such c a s e S j s u g g e s t s that p a r e n t s c o n s i d e r i n s t a n c e s o f un-d e s i r a b l e behaviour as u n i t s . I n comparing the order o f average sc o r e s of the groups, we note a c l o s e s i m i l a r ! t y . I n • the cases of both day and r e s i d e n t p u p i l s the s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e , In l e s s e n i n g degree a f f e c t s ' a t t i t u d e s to work and s m a l l d u t i e s ' d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n ' , and m i s c e l l a n e o u s un-d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ' , ' A t t i t u d e s to pare n t s and home' and ' v i o l a t i o n s o f g e n e r a l standards o f m o r a l i t y ( ^ i n t e g r i t y 1 appear to be I n f l u e n c e d l e s s by the s c h o o l than are the former three groups. I t i s reasonable to suppose that parents see a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these two l a t t e r groups and c o n s i d e r the c o r r e c t i o n o f the beha v i o u r t r a i t s i n them as a matter that concerns the home more than the s c h o o l . The r e s u l t s o f g r o u p i n g ' a g g r e s s i v e ' and 'withdrawing p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s are shown i n Table XIX. Table XIX The R e l a t i v e I n f l u e n c e s of Home n£r S c h o o l on Aggress i v e &M. Withdrawing P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s W i thdrawing T r a i t s Day dreaming E a s i l y d i s c o u r a g e d Unnecessary w o r r y i n g U n s o c i a l , w i t h d r a w i n g Shyness, b a s h f u l n e s s S e n s I t i v e n e s s Extreme nervousness A g g r e s s i v e T r a i t s S i l l i n e s s ~ ICverage Score 16 13 © 5 13 * 2 12 & S 12 & 3 12 9 2 8.8 S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n o i at I n q u i s i t i v e n e s s , meddlesomeness Roughness or rudeness o f speech E x a g g e r a t i o n to o b t a i n a t t e n t i o n Domineering, o v e r b e a r i n g , d i c t a t o r i a l S e I f i s h n e s s P r e c o c i o u s n e s s Res_iden t _Pu£ils "TJroup Average 14.8 14.7 12.4 12 & 2 11.5 11.3 11.1 12.6 P u p i l s e Cxri Averag G oup Score Average 11 a 9 9.7 7.1 11 o 3 12 © 5 11.5 9.8 10.3 8,8 8.7 10.2 10.9 7.4 9,3 10.5 12.6 9.3 One notes In Table XIX the s i m i l a r i t y i n the group averages of 'withdrawing' and ' a g g r e s s i v e ' t r a i t s . P a rents a p p a r e n t l y c o n s i d e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between home and s c h o o l i n f l u e n c e to be about the same i n the c o r r e c t i o n of both types of u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . There i s s l i g h t l y more i n f l u e n c e p l a c e d on the p a r t p l a y e d by the s c h o o l i n the c o r -r e c t i o n o f 'withdrawing' than on ' a g g r e s s i v e ' t r a i t s . Extremes o f the sco r e s i n the cases o f 'day dreaming' (16) and 'nervous-ness' (8) are to be noted, '^he i n f l u e n c e of the s c h o o l i s con-s i d e r e d more important i n the f i r s t case, t h a t of the home, i n the second. The.other s c o r e s do not show any v e r y g r e a t d i f f -e r e n c e s . In summarizing t h i s c h a p t e r we must keep i n mind the s m a l l number o f p a r e n t s s c o r i n g the s c a l e f o r r e s i d e n t p u p i l s . However, we can l i s t the f o l l o w i n g s u g g e s t i v e f i n d i n g s : (1) P a r e n t s c o n s i d e r the r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l more i n -f l u e n t i a l than the day s c h o o l i n the c o r r e c t i o n o f u n d e s i r a b l e behaviour t r a i t s . T h i s Is shown by a comparrison o f : (a) the averages o f the t o t a l s cores o f the f i f t y items i n each s c a l e , (b) the two scores f o r each item on the s c a l e s ; (c) the two scores f o r each group. (2) The i n f l u e n c e of the r e s i d e n t i a l s c h o o l appears to be s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t of the home; the i n -f l u e n c e o f the day s c h o o l appears to be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than t h a t o f the home. (3) P a r e n t s appear to c o n s i d e r t h a t the s c h o o l i n -f l u e n c e Is l e a s t i n problems c o n c e r n i n g moral standards and a t t i t u d e s to the p a r e n t s and home® Chapter VI. An Evaluation of School Influences in the Correction of Undesirable Behaviour t r a i t s . The parents' estimate of the r e l a t i v e contributions made by home and school in the correction of undesirable behaviour t r a i t s was obtained by Questionnaire V. The next step in the study was to get the parents' evaluation of cert-ain school influences in the development of character. To this end Questionnaire VI was prepared. On the l e f t of the page were ti s t e d the six group headings that have been used throughout this study. It should be noted that this was tte f i r s t time that the parents had seen these headings. One characteristic behaviour t r a i t was selected from each group; these t r a i t s were also t i s t e d to the l e f t . This made a t o t a l of twelve items to be rated. Ten school influences in the development of character were printed across the top of the page. (&S) Across from each item on the l e f t , and under each caption at the top, was a graphie rating scale. Parents were asked to rate each item for each influence, a t o t a l of one hundred and twenty ratings. Twenty parents replied to t h i s { questionnaire. The rating scales were scored as i n other cases and averages and standard deviations were computed. Results are given i n Table XX, i n which the school influences / ' V (8-8) Research B u l l e t i n of the National Education Association, vol., v i i . no. 2, pp.51-77 was found of great help in t&ie compilati&n of these ten influences. are l i s t e d from l e f t to right with the composite averages in descending order; the twelve items of undesirable behaviour are also l i s t e d with composite averages in descending order. A score of SO indicates "very great influence";, of 13-§, "moderate influence"; of " s l i g h t influence"; and of 0, "no influence at a l l . " Table XX. EVALUATION OF CERTAIN SCHOOL IMFLUEMCES IN THE CORRECTION OF UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOUR > > CD U -P H CD CD - H ft O .Pi H d Pi O 03 CO CD CO Pi M ^ (D O H H EH 03 <H ' h iCt H O P H S tQ 03 CD id P) O H O Pi CD ~H CD -H S d h CO H P H Qi <h id a a <M s o M O CO O <5H W •a CD i - l Pi O i—1 o 03 Pi O • H -P ca N Pi CO < H rd tt> a o pj h M CO CO O 1 <H i O > t t I J ) « id O CO id CD Pi -H pj N j CD j> CO -H 1 3 fH . Pi 03 i H a) }>> co CD CH P i CO 6D g d S H h cp H to P4 o o O tt) H PJ CD CO -H O pi H Pi id H CD -H CD d S> to H -H S U id d P! a o H H O < 03 O O rd -H +3 CH o co <D •O ' -H-d • f-i a -CD CD CO o ft « o Ci -H -H CD H d O -P CO H O R g <H .Cj CD CO ri o PH h H cn co a i •H <M -P O Pi Pi '. . CO -I") CO Pq : O Pi fi'-P o CD c i -H H g d <D -P O F-t H >d CO O CD o-i d > a -p .H o --p Pi CD 8 O <t-l I o CD 03 1 O «H. 03 CO „ PI o fl a * <D O <D= j d PViH.rH J H - d - t n . ^ i I <y O 03 © j a % d h I H !3 O CU O to Pi CD d O O O -H Pi «H -P © tt) CO d -H O H H d CH <D d Pi K W J d CD O P< -d • to g (D to id CD H <d CO d o o o H O «a! >{ • H f l h _ U a o o Pi o HCQ .pn-H IS O CD e Pi •# JA.S. S.D. j A.S. • S.D. | A.S. S.D. j A.S. S.D. [ A.S. S.D. A.S. S.D. A.S. S.D. 1 A.S. • S.D. A.S. S.D. A.S. S.D. 1 Violations of general standards of morality and integrity 15 Lying 14.9 Diff icult ies with other children 12.9 'Withdrawing*' personality Traits 13.4 Si l l iness, Smartness, Attraction of Attention 13.7 Attitudes to work and small duties Tattling, Celling Tales j15 Aggressive personality frai ts j l3.7 114.3 4.72 4.98 15.1 4.92 14.9 4.53 4.22 | 14.1 4.35 S 13.6 4.53 Procrastination Sensitiveness Attitudes to parents - home Taking parents for granted Average of Influences 313.8 'i i l4.2 b l i i . i 5.01 4.44 2.77 3.72 5.69 4.64 4.64 4.03 4.92 11,2 5.21 15.2 3.49 14.8 3.23 13.3 . 3.11 10.8 4.88" 15.. 8 3.85 I 14.5 4.04 14.9 12.9 15.9 13.1 11,1 13.3 14.5 10.9 13.3 4.31 i 12 4.65 3.05 4.42 6.2 3.49 3.81 5.37 12.4 11.1 12.9 12.9 14.4 10.6 8,5 3.36 5.19 3.66 4.05 3.78 3.27 4.96 10 4.85 4.4 11.9 4.7.9 f 14.2/ 4,97 | 10.7 4.66 | 12.7 4.1 | 9.6 4.97 1 6 4.18 •11.8 4.65 13.6 5.04 10.4 5.79 9.4 6.03 10.8 4.21 9.3 5.66 12.9 4.73 9.8 6.13 9.8 5.42 8,3 5.59 11.4 4.48 10.9 5.08 14 13.7 12.4 .11.8 10.7 9". 9 5 .41 7.3 .5.33 11.3 5.95 14.3 4.91 11.4 5.37 10.9 4.44 6.5 4.83 10.8 6.13 9.8 5.45 13.1 3.8 8.8 5.17 6.4 4.23 9.9 5.10 9.8 6.19 11.4 10.3 5.64 5,57 13.7 4.53 J 12 3.95 j 14.7 4.91 I 5.26 \ 7.3 5.22 f- 10.8 4.54 I 9.6 5.32 j. 9.9 5.67 | 9.8 5.45 j 9,7 6.07 [ 11.4 6.22 I 9.7 4.37 I 1 8.6 4.93 I 5.1 3.5 11,3 5.51 9.4 4.39 8.9 4.15 7.8 4.38 3.5 4.68 6.2 5.1 8 5,89 7.9 9.7 8.1 5.38 4.66 5.27 10.4 6.24 9.3 4,57 8.5 4.43 7.9 4,7 5.6 .4.74 5.1 4.87 12.6 5.16 9.4 5.91 8.1 4.41 7.1 4.75* 6.6 4.65 | 11.4 7.4 4.91 7.8 6.63 10.1 5.35 6.5 3.64 6.3 4.42 11.2 4.66: 7.1 4.12 6.6 3.79 5.7 4.29 9.S 9.7 9.4 8.6 7.5 ir A.S. Average Score -S.D, Standard Deviation (?7-By'means of the formulas given i n Chapter I I I , page •.&£)', the s i g n i f i c e n t difference for the scores i n Table XX, was found to be 4.5. This means that i f the scores of two items d i f f e r by 4.5 or more, there is every chance that the items would hold the same relat i v e positions i f the questionnaire were answered by another group of parents. As the scores in Table XX* range from 3.5 to 16.5, there are many scores d i f f e r i n g i f by 4.5 or more, and consequently many items are in positions which are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . There is a relationship i n scores between the group heading and the t r a i t taken from the group in two eases only. The group headings are "violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y " and "attitudes to parents and home"; the t r a i t s are " l y i n g " and "talcing parents f o r granted." i n Table XVIII these t r a i t s are not given scores which are close to the group averages. These facts strengthen a conclusion reached i n each o f the l a s t three chapters, namely, that parents think of behavious d i f f i c u l t i e s as individual items. A comparison of the data of Tables XVIII, XIX and XX i s givea in Table XXI. Brackets are used to show relationship between the "group heading" and the t r a i t taken from the group. TABLE TK1. A Summary of Parents' Attitudes to Home,and School Influences i n the 6ases of Day and Resident Pupils. ; Table XVIII Resident Pupils. v/ \s w k_> • Table XIX Day Pupils, Table XX Attitudes to work small duties Procrastination 13.1 13.5 10.4 8.6 10.8 10.6 Withdrawing personality t r a i t s Sensitiveness 12.6 12.2 10.5 11.5 11.3 10.6 D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children T a t t l i n g - t e l l i n g tales 12.4* 11.3 9.8 9.5 11.4 10.7 "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s S i l l i n e s s , smartness, attraction of attention. 12.6 14.8 9.3 10.3 10.6 10.9 Attitudes to parents and home Taking parents for granted 10.8 7.5 7.7 6.1 10.5 8.1 Violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y Lying 9.8 7.6 8.3 9.6 12. 11.4 6<? . When one examines Table XXI the d i s s i m i l a r i t y between the scores of "general v i o l a t i o n s of morality and integrity* in Tables XVIII and XIX, and XX i s noticeable. The school influence on this group i s rated low i n the f i r s t two tables and high in the t h i r d . When one compares the scores of the six individual items, there is close s i m i l a r i t y in fiv e cases; the scores for school influence on " l y i n g " are very d i s s i m i l a r . One wonders i f the seriousness which parents attach to this and other a l l i e d t r a i t s influenced their judgment i n scoring Questionnaire VI. In Questionnaire V, they were rating the r e l a t i v e influences of school amd home; in Questionnaire VI they were scoring the influence of school only. The seriousness of the t r a i t would be more l i k e l y to influence the Judgment of the degree of school influence i n the l a t t e r case than i n the former. The range is scores of the ratings given to the school influences in character education i s from 7.5 to 14. It should be noted that "teacher personality and example" and j "influence of friends and companions" are f i r s t and second respectively, and that their scores d i f f e r very l i t t l e . Next in order come the Influences of school clubs and organ-! izations, and of organized play and games. These re s u l t s x suggest that parents consider that the influences of the personality of the teacher and o f companionship with well chosen friends, are of primary importance in the formation of character. Direct character education, such as is given 10-ln group counselling and in religious education, is ranked comparatively low. One would expect the influence of religious education in the correction of "violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y " to be ranked high, but such i s not the case. Parents appear to consider that the influence o f example i s greater than that of precept. In summarizing the results of t h i s chapter one; notes the following po int s:-(1) Parents consider the personality and example of teachers and companions the strongest force i n character education in the school; they consider school periods spent i n academic work the weakest force i n character education>, (2) Parents consider that indirect character education i s a stronger influence than direct character education. (5) Parents think of' instances of undesirable behaviour in terms of units of behaviour. Chapter VII _ Summary Conclusions and Recommendations. This study was undertaken i n order to obtain more inform-ation about the attitudes of parents towards the behaviour problems of normal children. It was carried out with the co-operation of twenty-five parents who had daughters attending a private r e s i d e n t i a l and day school for g i r l s . The ages of the pupils attending the school ranged from six to eighteen. The parents answered s i x questionnaires which were sent in order to obtain information on the following points:-(a) the incidence of behaviour problems i n children; (b) the r e l a t i v e seriousness of the f i f t y most common behaviour problems; (c) the r e l a t i v e degrees of d i f f i c u l t y encountered by parents i n the correction of undesirable t r a i t s ; (d) the r e l a t i v e contributions of home and school i n the correction of behaviour problems; (e) the r e l a t i v e contributions of certain school influences i n the correction of undesirable behaviour. In interpretating the returns from the questionnaires the following conclusions were drawn. It must be emphasized that owing to the small number o f parents taking part in the study, the results are suggestive, rather than conclusive. The conclusions are l i s t e d not i n order of Importance but in order of development. 73. (1) Parents rank "violations of general standards of morality . . and integrity'-' l a s t in order of frequency but f i r s t i n order of adjustment d i f f i c u l t y . (2) Parents rate "miscellaneous undesirable personality t r a i t s " l a s t i n order of adjustment d i f f i c u l t y . (3) Parents consider that withdrawing and recessive person-a l i t y t r a i t s occur s l i g h t l y more frequently than aggressive t r a i t s , but that both groups cause an equal amount of adjustment d i f f i c u l t y . (4) Parents contributing to this study and teachers con-tributing to that of Wickman, are in substantial agree-ment as to the r e l a t i v e degree of seriousness of various behaviour t r a i t s . Both groups disagree with the- ratings of the mental hygienists who were consulted by Wickman. (5) Parents' estimates of the amount of d i f f i c u l t y encoun-tered i n the correction of undesirable behaviour d i f f e r widely. (6) Parents meet, on the average, only a moderate amount of d i f f i c u l t y i n the correction of undesirable behaviour. (7) Parents consider that "undesirable attitudes to parents and home" i s the group.of t r a i t s that i s most d i f f i c u l t to correct, and that "violations of general standards of morality and inte g r i t y " is the group that is least d i f f i c u l t . (8) Parents encounter s l i g h t l y more d i f f i c u l t y in the correction of withdrawing t r a i t s than in the correction of aggressive t r a i t s . (9) The data suggest that parents consider the r e s i d e n t i a l school more i n f l u e n t i a l than the day school i n the correction of undesirable personality t r a i t s . (10) Parents appear to consider that the influence of the r e s i d e n t i a l i s s l i g h t l y more, and of the day school is les s , than the influence of the home in the correction of undesirable personality t r a i t s . (11) Parents consider that the school influence i s greatest i n the correction of problems concerning attitudes to work and small duties, and least in the correction of problems concerning moral values and attitudes to parents and home. 73 • Cl2) Parents consider that the re l a t i v e influence of home and school i s the same on withdrawing t r a i t s as on aggressive t r a i t s . (13) Parents consider that the personality of teachers and companions i s the strongest force in the school for character education. (14) Parents consider that indi r e c t character education i s a stronger influence than direct character education. (15) Parents think of undesirable behaviour t r a i t s as individual units and not as part of a group. This con-clusion i s similar to that of Hartshore and May that behaviour is s p e c i f i c . The following questions are raised by the above con-clusions to this study: -(1) Why do parents consider that undesirable personality t r a i t s cause the least amount of adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ? This conclusion of the parents d i f f e r s so widely from the conclusions of mental hygienlsts that an investig-ation of the reason for the parents* statement would be interesting and Instructive. (2) Why do parents consider that v i o l a t i o n s of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y cause l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y in correction? Is i t because the parents consider such vi o l a t i o n s oecur infrequently, or because they consider that the problem of correcting "stealing" for example, i s more tangible and therefore easier, than that of correcting an undesirable personality t r a i t , such as extreme nervousness? ' (3) Why do parents consider the influence of the home more important than that of the school i n character education? (4) What implications f o r the selection and preparation of teachers, has the emphasis placed by parents on the influence of teacher personality in character education? (5) In contrast to the l i s t of undesirable behaviour t r a i t s compiled in this study, what would parents consider as desirable behaviour t r a i t s ? (6) In what ways could home and school co-operate best to develop desirable behaviour t r a i t s ? 1H • Parents do not draw, in any part of this study, con-clusive distinctions between withdrawing and aggressive personality t r a i t s . In view of the emphasis given to these groups of t r a i t s by mental hygienists, a further investigation of parental opinion would be interesting. If withdrawing and aggressive t r a i t s were studied independently of a l l other behaviour t r a i t s , would the concentration of parental opinion on these personality t r a i t s result in a more si g n i f i c e n t conclusion? 70 ' Bibliography. Acker s on, Lut o n, Adler, Alfred. A l l e r s , Rudolf. Children's Behaviour Problems, Chicago; University of Chicago press, 1931. pp. x x i s 268. Understanding Human Nature. New York; Garden City Publishing Co., 1937. pp. x i i i + 238. The Psychology of Character. London; Sheed-Ward, 1931. pp.xv + 383. Bassett, Clara Betts, George H. The School - Mental Health. New York; The Commonwealth Fund, 1931. pp. 66. "Teachers' Diagnosis of Classroom D i f f i c u l t i e s " - Elementary School Journal, v o l . x x v i i , no. 8. A p r i l , 1928. pp. 600-608. Blatz, W.E. & Bott, E.A. "Behaviour of Public School Children" A Description of Method. -, The Pedagogical Seminary eg^Journal of Genetio Psychology, v o l . 34. 1927. pp. 552-582. Bower, William;Clayton Character through Creative Experience. Chisago; University of Chicago press, 1930. pp. x i i i t 216. Burnham, W.H. Burnham, W.H. The Wholesome Personality. New York; D. Appleton-Century Co., 1932 - pp. xxvi + 713. "Personality Differences - Mental Health." The Pedagogical Seminary &®1 Xw^m^X of Genetic Psychology, v o l . 36, 1929. •> pp. 361+389. 'tis? . Butterworth, J u l i a n E, The Parent-Teacher Association and Its Work. " " New York; Macmillan G O . , 1928. pp. ix + 149. C a t t e l l , Raymond B. "Character Education" "Character Education" "Character Education" "Character Education" Charters,. W.W. A Guide to Mental Testing. London; University of London Press, Ltd., 1936. pp. 19G-267. Fourth Yearbook, Department of Superintendence, 1926. pp. 379-450. Tenth Yearbook, Department of Superintendence, 1932. pp. 535. Research B u l l e t i n of the National Education Association. v o l . v i i , no. 2, 1929. pp. 75-82. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Education. B u l l e t i n 1926, no. 7. pp.vl f 89. The Teaching of_Ideals. New York; Macmillan Co-., 1927. pp. x i i i 4 372. "Education for Character" Research B u l l e t i n of the National Education Association, v o l . x i i , nos. 2 & 3, 1934. pp. 42-141. E l l i s , D.B. & Muler, L.W. "Teachers' Attitudes s S ^ h i l d f e ^ s Behaviour Problems." Journal of Educational Psychology. 27 Oct. 1936. pp. 501-511. r/. Fishback, E l v i n H. Character Education in the junior High School. ~ New York; D.C. Heath & Co., 192 8. p p . x i i i -» 190. Germane, Charles E. and Character Education. Germane, Edith Gayton, New York; S i l v e r , Burdett & Company, 1929. pp. xvi •+ 224. Haggarty, M.E. Hartshorne, Hugh and May, Mark A. Hartshorne, Hugh and May, Mark A. "The Incidence of Undesirable Behaviour in Public School Children." Journal of Educational Research, v o l . 12, 1925: 2 pp. 102-122. "Objective Methods of Measuring Character." The Pedagogical Seminary adjournal of Genetic Psychology, v o l . 52, 1925^ pp. 45-67. Studies in the Nature of Character, vo1. I, New York; Macmillan Co., 1928. pp. xxi + 306. Heaton, Kenneth L. The Character Emphasis i n Education, Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1935. pp. ix + 415. "I n t e l l i g e n t Parenthood" Chicago Association for Child Study and Parent Education. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1927. pp. ix i 326. Jones, Harold E. "Emotional & S o c i a l Development amd the Educative Process." National Society f o r the study of Education. Yearbook XXXVIII. 1. 1939. pp. 361-386. yy -Jones, Vernon. Character ^ C i t i z e i i i s h i p Training In the Puhlio School. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1936. pp. x i * 404. Langlie, T.A. "Personality Ratings; R e l i a b i l i t y o f Teachers' Ratings" Pedagogical Seminary & Journal of Genetio Psychology. vol.. 50, 1937. pp. 339-359. Lee, Porter R. & Kenworthy, Marion E.Mental Hygiene & S o o i a l Work. New York; The Commonwealth Fund, 1931. pp. x i + 380. Lombard, E l l e n C. Lombard, E l l e n C. Lombard,, E l l e n 0. Lombard, E l l e n C. "Parent-Tiacher Associations at Work." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education B u l l e t i n . 19ZWI 30 pp. 15. "Parent Education Opportunities" U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education B u l l e t i n , 1935. 5. ~ pp. v i i i t 53. "Recent Development of Parent-Teacher Associations." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education B u l l e t i n . 1923, 5. pp. 14. "Si g n i f i c a n t Programs of High school Parent-Teacher Associations." United States Department of the Interior, Office of Education. 64. 1935. pp. 42. Ma crae , Angus. icCunn, John. McCloy, C.H. Talents & Temperaments. New York; D. Appleton & Company, 1933. pp. x i i + 211. The Making of Character. Cambridge; University Press, 1931. pp. v i i i t 262. "A Factor Analysis of Personality Traits to underlie Character Education". Journal of Educational Psychology, 27, May 1936. pp. 375-387. McDougall, William. McFie , Bernice Stewart. McKown, Harry C. Character & the Conduct of L i f e . London; Methpen & Co.Ltd., 1927. pp. x i i i -. 288. "Behaviour & personality D i f f i c u l t i e s in School Children." B r i t i s h •Journal of Educational Psychology, v o l . i v s 1. Feb. 1934. pp. 30-46. Character Education, New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935. pp. xlv -. 472. "Mental Hygiene & Adjustment" Review of Educational Research. VI. Dec. 1936. No. 5. pp. _o9-ob_.. "Methods & Materials for the Education of-Parents." "Practical ways of Educating Teachers & Paremts to the Value of Mental Hygiene." National Society for the study of Education. XIV. Twenty-eighth ; Yearbook, chs. XIV & XV pp.789-835. Moore, M.E. Myerson, Abraham. Parent, Teacher and School. pp. 61-84 New York; Macmillan Company, 1933. The Foundation of Personality. Boston; L i t t l e , Brown & Company, 1923. pp. 406. Nash, Jay B. (Editor) Neumann, Henry Character Education Through Physical Education. New York; Barnes & Company, 1932. pp. X + 315. Education for Moral Growth. New York; D« Apple ton & Co., 1928. pp. XII i 383. Olsen, Willard C. "The .Diagnosis & Treatment BehaviQU^ Disorders pf Children." National So oiety for the 'Study \>f Eduoat ion. Yearbook XXXIV. 1935. pp. 363-397. 80 -"Parent Education" U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Education B u l l e t i n . 1939. no. 15. pp. 27. "Parent-Teacher Associations" U.S. Department of the Interior; Bureau of Education B u l l e t i n . 192T: No. 11. pp. 28. Peck, Lugh. "Teachers' Reports of the Problems of Unadjusted School Children." Journal of Educational Psychology. Feb. 1935. pp. 123-138. Pla g i t , Jean. The Moral Judgment of the Child. London, KeganV Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1932. pp. LX f 418. Ravenhill, A l i c e . Moral Instruction & Training in G i r l s ' Elementary schools in England. Synopsis of a report made on behalf of the Executive Committee of the Inquiry in 19Q8. pp. 39. Revlin, Harry N. Educating for Adjustment. New York; D=i Apple ton-Century company. 1936. pp. x i v i 419. Roback, A.A. The Psychology of Character. New York; Harcourt, Brice & Co., 1928. pp. xxiv -f 605. Ryan, W.C. Mental Health Through Education. New York; The Commonwealth Fund, 1938. pp. VIII -i 315. Sadler, M.E. (Editor) Moral Instruction & Training in schools. London; Longmans, Green & Co., 19081 Vol. I. pp. l v i i i -t 538. Vol. I I . pp. x x v i i f 378. Sayles, Mary Buell The Problem Child at Home. New York; The Commonwealth Fund, 1932. pp. x 342. Shand, Alexander F. The Foundations of Character. London, Maomillan Co.Ltd., 1920. pp. xxxvi -t 578. 97-Sharp, Frank Chapman. Shaffer, Lauranoe F. Sherman, Mandil Steinbacfr, Alexander A. S t a g d i l l , R.M. Symonds, Percival M. Symonds, Perci v a l M. Education for Character. Indianapolisj Bobbs-Merrill Compsmy. 1917 pp. 453. The Psychology of Adjustment. Boston, Houghton, M i f f l i n Co., 1936. pp. xix -f 6Q0. Mental Hygiene & Education. London; Longmans, Green & Co pp. x i + 2 95. 1934. "A Survey of Adjustment D i f f i c u l t i e s in Children & Youth drawn from the Normal Population." Elementary School Journal. 34 Get, 1935. pp. 122-129. "Survey of Experiments of Children's Attitudes towards Parents" 1894-1936 Pedagogical Seminary & Journal of Genetic Psychology. Vol. -51, 1957. pp. 293-303. Diagnosing Personality & Conduct. New York; D. Appleton-Century co., 1931. pp. x v i 4 602. Mental Hygiene of the school Child. New York: The Macmlllan Co., iy34. pp. x i -f 321. Taylor, H.R. and Powers F.F. Thompson, Charles E. T r s p l i t t , Norman. "Bible s t u d y & Character" The Pedagogical Seminary & Journal of Genetio Psychology. Vol. 35 1928. pp. 294-501. "The Attitudes of various Groups toward Behaviour Problems of Childre Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, Vol. 55. no. 1. January 1940. pp. 120-125. "A Study of the Faults of Children" Pedagogioal Seminary X. 1903. pp. 200-238. Wallln, J.E. Wallace. Wallin, J.E. Wallaoe. Welton, James and Blandford, E.G. Wexberg, Erwin. Wheatley, William A. and Mailory, Royoe R. Wickman, E.K. Personality Maladjustments & Mental Hygiene. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1935. pp. x i i $r 511. The Mental Health of the Schoo 1 Child. ~ New Haven; Yale University press, 1914. pp. x i i i 463. Principles & Methods of Moral Tra ining. London; W.B. Clive, 1924. pp. xv -4* 262. Your Nervous Child. New York; Albert & Charles Bonl. 1927. pp. xiv 4- 178. Building Character and Personali1_r Boston; Ginn * Co., 1936. " pp. X 362. Children's Behaviour & Teachers* Attitudes. ~ ' " New York; The commonwealth Fund, 1928. pp, 245. • , I. A P P E N D I X . Taunton House School, Vancouver, B. G., Oct. 14, 1939. Dear Mrs. We believe, as you no doubt know both from the statements made i n the Taunton House prospectus and from the emphasis placed on character training i n our school, that the development of a well-rounded and well-adjusted personality i s of v i t a l importance i n education. A great deal of work has been done and much l i t e r a t u r e has been published by mental hygienists and educationists on behaviour problems and person-a l i t y adjustments of school children. In order to obtain a better understanding of the problem I f e e l that i t i s neoes-sary to obtain more information regarding parents' attitudes to these questions. To t h i s end I am asking the support of the parents of the Taunton House g i r l s . Would you be w i l l i n g to take the time and thought necessary to answer Questionnaires and to f i l l out forms which I w i l l mail to you this winter? I do not expect them to exceed twelve i n number. If you w i l l undertake thi s work w i l l you please answer the enclosed Questionnaire and return i t to me? I would appreciate i t i f you could l e t me have your returns within a week from the date on which you receive the papers. By the end of the winter I hope to have material 'that i s very valuable to us; i f you are interested i n my f i n a l report I s h a l l be delighted to show i t to you or to discuss i t with you. I sincerely hope that a l l the parents of .our g i r l s w i l l co-operate i n thi s , as I am convinced that a better mutual understanding of our attitudes to the subject of character development i s fundamental to a l l our work, i n schools. Yours very sincerely, This questionnaire i s the f i r s t step i n a study of parents' attitudes to children's behaviour problems. The ultimate purpose of the study i s to enable the school and the home to co-operate more f u l l y i n the development of character. This added degree of co-operation w i l l r e s u l t from a better understanding of the parents' attitudes. It i s necessary f i r s t of a l l to secure a selection of behaviour problems. The parents' judgments w i l l be used to make this choice. W i l l you l i s t below a l l s p e c i f i c prob-lems i n g i r l s ' behaviour with which you have come i n contact. Do not r e s t r i c t your l i s t to problems which you have seen i n your own children, but do net put into your l i s t problems which you have met i n reading only. L i s t a l l s p e c i f i c types of undesirable behaviour that you have observed i n any school age g i r l s (6-18) of your acquaintance. Please make brief, concise statements, such as 'truancy'. You may use both sides of t h i s page, i f necessary, and sign your name or not as you l i k e . Please ask no questions regarding th i s Questionnaire and do not confer with anyone except another adult i n your family, u n t i l you have sent back this paper. Taunton House School, Vancouver, B. C., lov. 9, 1939. Dear Mrs. A number of parents have Indicated an interest i n our study of children's behaviour problems, but thought they could be of more assistance i f we prepared a check l i s t of commonly observed problems. In case you were of t h i s opinion, I am enclos-ing a second questionnaire. I f you are not interested, or your time i s otherwise occupied, please disregard this l e t t e r . On the other hand, i f you would l i k e to share i n the i n v e s t i -gation, please s i g n i f y your willingness by answering and returning the enclosed form. Later questionnaires w i l l be as d e f i n i t e as the one attached. Yours sincerely, This i s the second questionnaire i n our study of character education. Below i s a l i s t of behaviour problems which has been compiled partly from information contained i n the f i r s t questionnaire returned by the parents of Taunton House g i r l s and partly from l i s t s drawn up by experts i n the f i e l d of character t r a i n i n g and personality development. Please read the l i s t c a r e f u l l y and then put a check mark (^) i n front of a l l the problems which you have observed either i n your own children or i n those of other parents. Do not indicate problems about which you have read but never encountered. In cases where more than one word i s used to name the problem the intention i s to qualify or describe more f u l l y the behaviour t r a i t i n question. Truancy Stealing Profanity Disobedience T a t t l i n g - T e l l i n g tales O v e r - c r i t i c a l of others - f a u l t f i n d i n g Resentfulness Nervousness (extreme) Suspiciousness - mistrustfulness - distrustfulness Physical-cowardice E a s i l y discouraged Sulkiness - sullenness Domineering - overbearing - d i c t a t o r i a l Shyness - bashfulness Sensitiveness Unsocial - withdrawing Inquisitiv.eness - meddlessomeness Unhappiness - depression - d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ' Fearfulness - easily frightened Yery careless i n personal appearance Suggestible - accepts suggestion of anyone Inattentive Untruthfulness - l y i n g Imaginative l y i n g Interrupting Lack of interest i n work Carelessness i n work Laziness Cruelty - bullying Stubbornness - contrariness Temper tantrums Selfishness Tardiness Cheating Restlessness, Unreliableness - irresponsible - evasion of duties Impertinence - impoliteness - rudeness Insubordination - defiance S i l l i n e s s - smartness - attraction of attention Lack of sportsmanship i n games Exaggeration to obtain attention Eavesdropping Desire to please at a l l costs Arguing almost habitually Disrespectful attitude to elders Taking parents for granted Unthankfulness - ingratitude Assumed indifference to praise or blame Attitude of superiority to young children Favouritism of a kind that when used with other children makes enemies Toadying to v i s i t o r s or relations Procrastination -Lack of concentration Untidiness Lack of consideration for other children's feelings. Disregard for ownership of property Rudeness or roughness of speech Lack of i n i t i a t i v e Lack of c u r i o s i t y Lack of imitation Day-dreaming Unnecessary worrying Destruction of growing things Irreverence i n r e l i g i o u s matters Priggishness - primness - affectation of virtue Unnatural piety Intolerance of the opinions of others Snobbishness Precoeiousness b9. This i s the t h i r d questionnaire i n our study of children's behaviour problems. The t r a i t s l i s t e d on the attached sheet are those which were check-marked most often by parents who returned the second questionnaire. We would nolw l i k e to have you evaluate these t r a i t s by determining their r e l a t i v e seriousness on the following basis: (1) The frequency of the occurrence of the t r a i t , and (2) The degree of d i f f i c u l t y which possession of the t r a i t makes i n the s o c i a l adjustment of the ch i l d . On the attached form 50 t r a i t s are tabulated i n the centre of the page. To the l e f t of the column i s a rating scale for 'frequency 1; to the r i g h t i s a scale for 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' . The two scales are independent of each other. Be sure that you understand c l e a r l y the difference between them. Complete the rating scale on the l e f t before you attempt that on the r i g h t . Each problem has a l i n e on either side of i t . These l i n e s have 4 d i v i s i o n a l points that corres-pond with headings at the head of the page. Indicate your judgment by placing a mark thus / across the l i n e beside the problem and according to the heading at the top. You may place your mark anywhere on the l i n e . For example, i f you consider a problem rates hal f way between two headings, place your mark to indicate t h i s opinion. Please rate a l l problems on the l i s t . Even i f you designate on the frequency scale, by drawing your l i n e at the 'never' point, that i n your experience a problem has never occurred, rate i t on the scale to the right for 'adjustment d i f f i c u l t y ' . For example, you may never have encountered 'truancy' i n your experience with children, but yet you may consider that i t would be a very grave problem i f i t did occur. Therefore you would mark i t a s . i t i s scored below. The following i s an example of how to score: Frequency of Occurrence Problem Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y — 1/ CD -p CD O CP H ri o O ,0 !>  S CD ri • H ri CO -P H <fH H CD fH H H _L w ri CD ri S o +3 a 1 C d o CD ri CD t>» CD CM - H «H SH CD n CD ca H W W CM +3 >.• u o ri ri " 9 ri ri ri CQ ri «rH M C0 CD 0) ri o o o CD O -H CD U t> © +3 o o ^ | o d <D <H <M CO q CO O i o o / Truancy Intolerance Profanity t 1 ! 1 / I 1 / /1 1 / I » 7/ T J I " "V •"" \ Be sure that you rate each item on both r a t i n g scales and that you f i n i s h one scale before you start the second. 77 Frequency of Occurrence Problem Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y CD o H CD H -§ CD CD PR Pi CD -P <i-l O u CD o <D g. CD CO Pi u o o o o Pi •H CD H O ra Pi <p >» 3 i—I cr1 Pi 0 O 03 Pi <M O o o I u CD Ki • H \>i m -p Pi H O 3 o o • H O <M <R«H CO © CD ^ H 0 >5 O H Pi 0> CD S <H CD <H U O •P W <D CD t> CO Pi h Stealing Disobedience T a t t l i n g - t e l l i n g tales O v e r - c r i t i c a l of others-f a u l t f i n d i n g Nervousness - extreme E a s i l y discouraged Sulkiness or sullenness Domineering-overbearing d i c t a t o r i a l Shyness-bashfulness Sensitiveness Unsocial-withdrawing Inquisitiveness-me ddle s omene s s Very careless i n per-sonal appearance Inattentive Untruthfulness-lying Imaginative l y i n g Interrupting Lack of interest i n work Carelessness i n work Laziness Cruelty-bullying Stubbornness-contrari-ness Temper tantrum Selfishness Tardiness Cheating Restlessness Unr e l i a b l e - i r r e sp ons ible evasion of duties Impertinence-impolite-ness-rudeness Insubordination-defiance <?2 -Frequency of Occurrence Problem Adjustment D i f f i c u l t y 0 > El O r-i CD CQ -P Pi CD 5^  CD Pi _ -P >» 0 O « O © O Pi 0 & 0 to PS o o u 0 0 !> rd CO •H }>. m •p ra -P W) jci d H fctO O 0 i>» •H 0 o o H o •H © ra Pi U u 0 o <n © • S4 0 H <d -P O PI 0 ra X Pi O ra © o © © Pi M r-i <h o M & o o «aj o Silliness-smartness-a t t r a c t i o n of attention Lack of sportsman-ship i n games Exaggerat i on • t o ob-t a i n attention Eavesdropping Desire to please . at a l l costs Arguing almost habitually Disrespectful a t t i -tude to 'elders Talcing parents for granted Un thankfulness-ingratitude Procrastination Lack of concentration Untidiness Lack of consideration for other children'p feelings Disregard for owner-ship of property Rudeness or rough-ness of speech Lack of i n i t i a t i v e Day-dreaming Unnecessary worrying Irreverence i n r e l i -. gious matters Precociousness 92 . This i s the fourth questionnaire i n our study of children's "behaviour problems. The same t r a i t s as were used i n the t h i r d questionnaire are l i s t e d on the attached sheet. The present purpose i s to evaluate the r e l a t i v e degree of d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n correcting these instances of unde-sirable behaviour. On the enclosed form each problem has a l i n e drawn beside i t . This l i n e has four d i v i s i o n a l points which corres-pond with headings at the top of the page. Indicate your judgment by placing a mark, thus /, across the l i n e beside the problem, and according to the heading. You may place your mark anywhere on the l i n e . Do not rate a problem i f you have never encountered i t . Below i s an example of rating. Problem. Amount of d i f f i c u l t y encountered i n correction. -p •H H CQ P <a u CD •p cd <D C5 U © Truancy Tardiness L L 4H> Problem Amount of d i f f i c u l t y en-. countered i n correction. •P cd 0 0 © «) 0 r§ ra - a pa-Stealing Disobedience T a t t l i n g - t e l l i n g tales O v e r - c r i t i c a l of others-faultfinding Nervousness - extreme E a s i l y discouraged Sulkine s s-sullennes s Domineering-overbearing-dictatorial Shyness-bashfulness Sensitiveness unsocial-withdrawing In_ui s i t ivene s s-me ddle s omene s s Very careless i n personal appearance inattentive Untruthfulness-lying Imaginative l y i n g Interrupting lack of interest i n work Laziness Carelessness i n work Cruelty-bullying Stubb ornnes s-c ontrar ine s s Temper tantrums Selfishness Tardiness Cheating Restlessness Unreliable-irresponsible-evasion of duties Impertinence-impoliteness-rudeness Insubordination-defiance Silliness-smartness-attraction of attention Lack of sportsmanship i n games Exaggeration to obtain attention Eavesdropping Desire to please at a l l costs Arguing almost habitually Disrespectful attitude to elders Taking parents for granted Problem Amount of d i f f i c u l t y en-countered i n correction CD -P •P ea •P A Pi cd e«D 0 0 • H CD H o (>. 03 Unthankfulness-ingratitude Procrastination lack of concentration Untidiness Lack of consideration for other children's feelings Disregard f o r ownership of property Rudeness or roughness of speech Lack of i n i t i a t i v e Day-dreaming Unnecessary worrying Irreverence i n r e l i g i o u s matters Precocibusness . This i s the f i f t h questionnaire i n our study of children's hehavious problems. The same t r a i t s as were used i n the two l a s t questionnaires are l i s t e d on the attached sheet. The present purpose i s to evaluate the r e l a t i v e con-tributions made by home and school i n the correction of these instances of undesirable behaviour. On the enclosed form the problems are tabulated i n the centre of the page. To the l e f t of the column i s a scale which applies to resident students; on the right i s one which refers to day pupils. Each problem has a li n e drawn on either side of i t . These l i n e s have f i v e d i v i s i o n a l points which correspond with headings at the top of the page. Indicate your judgment by placing a mark, thus /, across the l i n e beside the problem and according to the head-ings at the top. You may place your mark anywhere on the l i n e . If you have had experience with both resident and day students please score both scales. I f your knowledge i s limited to one type of pupil, score the scale for the kind with Trtiich you are fa m i l i a r . Following i s an example of scoring: lome ' influence very great. School influence negligible, Home Influence great. School influence small. Home and School influence equal. Home influence small School influence great. Home influence n e g l i g i b l e . School influence very great, Home influence very great. School influence negligible, Home influence great. School influence small. Home and School influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great, w o p H <0 HJ o 4 a> GJ H -P i CD P g H m o e 0) ta a H> o H W Home influence very great. School influence negligible, Home influence great. School influence small. Home and school influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great, Home influence very great. School influence negligible, Home influence great. School influence small. Home and School influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great-01 o p (—1 0 M> O 4 W CD CD H* p, CD Pi c+ Scale for Resident Pupils. Problem. © • • H CO -p •P rQ © • cd cd «H o © © © fjJD • Pi H U (4 -H H © . & W • H p) •p •H fciO -p cd H • cd >> © co a iH H © •H FH (4 d © CO Pi H S4 H © fH •H cd fctO bD > > © M © a © o o H CO © Pi © © 3 © d o o o o © o © o © Pi © Pi d d d 0 43 o © o © © H © H o Pi pi d d 3 ^ d <H CO © H © H H ' pf <H d S-l <td -H <H -H H Pi H rf-S3 Pi Pi <<-< T H <M -H •H i—1 •H H cd m Pi d O O H •H H •H H © O © O © cd o O a 43 a 43 a P< © o © O o o o o o a 43 a 43 M CO m © b o b o W CO w ra Unsocial-withdrawing. Inquis i t ivene ss-meddle somene s s. Very careless i n personal appearance. Inattentive. Untruthfulness - lying. Imaginative ly i n g . Interrupting. Lack of interest i n work. Carelessness i n work. Laziness. Cruelty - bullying. Stubbornness - contrariness. Temper tantrums. Selfishness. Tardiness. Cheating. Restlessness. © •p • H CO • cd © © © Cd «H o H f t © bD * d • 43 S) H © •H M J H • H d • cd CtO >j W +3 cd H H © •H fn > v © cd a r4 FH H © © CO d cd tiD «)!>' © •H a © i> © fciO © CO © d © o o H o o © d © d O © d © d o © o © O o © o © d PI d pi 43 d PI d d © H © H o © H © H pl U Pf <*H ra d <U Pi <>H H Pi H S3 H J3 H $3 tin «H U -H <(-) «H d d d d d •rl H •H H cd • •H H o O H O o © o © o © cd © O © O a 43 a 4 3 a d a 43 3 4 3 o O o o o o< o o o o w ra M ra W © w ra w r a Home influence very great. School influence negligible. Home influence great. School influence small. Home and school influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great, 3 o o 4 Co 01 ct H* P CD ct H-o P a t-3 P. p ct W CO P fcJ,0*J fV H>W pi Co H hi CD H CD 4 a CD CO H' , 4 CD CO •4 CD 03 P* 4 ct O O W H< P 0*1 Cft 4 4 CO ct H* ct Pi P* CD H> hi CO 0*5 hi pi CD h" ra P 03 W TO • CD o p ct M f-b & *d H' P O H P H CO CD Cft ct p • CO 03 ct pf CD ct P H- cr" p ct H« is* P ct P CD P H ct H O Vj ct M H- P O (ft p cm CD P O o P H 4 P ct Co H»»d O O P 4 c+ Ct CO O 0 p p 03 P-P H* P c+ P t» H H- P H CO H P hi H P |3 put_i CD CD c+ CD CD P 03 ct I 03 pu H" P O o o CO ct 03 f P ct cf CD P I CO P 0 ct P H-hi O ct i_ P I CD pu CO CD 03 n 1 H-P P Ct P Ct O 4 CD po . o ct H* O _{_ 4 ct H-P CD P O CD I H« •i o H H" ct © P CD 03 03 I P CD 4 <i CD P H 03 H< p. JD O P h-CD O I H> H' 4 ^ hi p CD ct 03 Home influence very great. School influence negligible, Home influence great. School influence small. Home and School influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great. 04t Home influence very great. School influence negligible. Home influence great. School influence small. Home and school influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great. CD O O O H' H ej t) 4 p 03 4 p CD CD <J O p. CD CD ' ' 4 o CD co £ P CD O 3 (D <<j ra CD 03 0 4 H-03 p »d O (14 W (0 o pi >d O CD 05 H' ra 4 CD CD OS 4 03 P Si o 4 4 4 CD «<i 1—1 H* H* P 0*5 TO p. » O P 01 1 <H-c+ CD J=S P H< 03 c+ H> <1 0 o 4 4 O 0*3 P" P CD ra ra o 4> CQ >P CD CD O c+ 4 P-o 4 CD 4 CQ P* H* >P P> 4 CD P CQ t"< Cj |H 03 P 03 O c+ o P< O H- O H>P Hj CD o ra o o ra o p.. p CD CD p O Ot) M> CQ ra H* P-CD 4 03 c+ H-O P H> O 4 O CD P <+ 4 03 c+ 'H* O P ra Home influence very great. School influence negligible. Home influence great. School influence small. Home and Sehool influences equal. Home influence small. School influence great. Home influence negligible. School influence very great. This i s the sixth and l a s t questionnaire in our study of Children's behaviour problems. The present purpose is to evaluate the influence of various methods used in the school to develop character. On the attached sheet ten forces in character education are printed at the top of the page. At the l e f t of the page twelve behaviour topics have been l i s t e d ; the f i r s t s i x of these are generalisations, the l a s t six are p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t s . Examples of each generalization are as follows: -1. Violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y : ex. stealing - cheating. S. Attitudes to parents and home: ex. disobedience -interrupting - arguing almost habitually -disrespectful attitude to elders. 3. Attitudes to work and small duties: ex. lack of interest i n work - carelessness - untidiness -lack of concentration. 4. D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children: ex. lack of sportsmanship - lack of consideration for other children's feelings - f a u l t f i n d i n g . 5. "Withdrawing" personality t r a i t s : ex. shyness -bashfulness - day dreaming - extreme nervousness. 6. "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s : ex. rudeness or roughness of speech - precociousness - selfishness. Beside each of the twelve topics are ten l i n e s , one under each of the ten forces at the top. Each l i n e has four d i v i s i o n a l points which correspond to captions at the head of the page. Indicate your judgment by placing a mark thus /, across the l i n e and according to the heading; you may place your mark anywhere on the l i n e . Please score each method for each behaviour topic. /03 . Below i s -an example of scoring. Influence of Religious education. Influence of Supervised Play and Organized Games. None Slight Moderate Very Great None Slight Moderate ' Very Great V i olations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y . Attitudes to Parents and home. / / / 7 Influence of Influence of rel i g i o u s supervised play and education. organized games. None Slight -Moderate 'Very Great None Slight Moderate Very Great V i olations of general standards of morality and int e g r i t y . Attitudes to parents and home. Attitudes to work and small duties. D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children. "Withdrawing" personality t r a i t s . "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s . Sensitiveness. S i l l i n e s s , smartness, a t t r a c t i o n of attention. Taking parents for granted. Procrastination. Lying. / / . . / . . / ; 7 " " 7 / / / / / .. . / / / / / / / / / T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g t a l e s . I / Influence of teacher personality and example. Influence of friends and companions. © •p xi w •H i—I CQ 0 •P cd fH 0 >d .Q -P cd © fH FH 0 0 p 44 « ) •H H CQ 0 •P cd U 0 <d o •P cd 0 FH © l> Violations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y Attitudes to parents and home Attitudes to work and small duties D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children "Withdrawing" personality t r a i t s "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s Sensitiveness S i l l i n e s s , smartness, att r a c t i o n of attention Taking parents f o r granted Procrastination Lying T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales A A A A A A A A A A A A A J_ J_ A 1_ A A Influence of "Influence of ~3&4s&*3&&-^5&& individual •••ebmpa&A&ag. counselling. ta CD CD •P U +3 cd c5 Xi U 0 bD <D t>» O H O 0) s' . w a i> None Slight Moderate Very Great V i o lations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y Attitudes to parents and home Attitudes to work and small duties D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children "Withdrawing" personality t r a i t s "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s Sensitiveness S i l l i n e s s , smartness, at t r a c t i o n of attention Taking parents for granted Procrastination Lying T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales Influence of group discussion of problems Influence of student p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n school government. None Slight j Moderate Very Great None Slight Moderate Very Great V i olations of general standards of morality and in t e g r i t y Attitudes to parents and home Attitudes to work and small duties D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children "Withdrawing" personality t r a i t s "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s Sensitiveness S i l l i n e s s , smartness, attraction of attention Taking parents for granted Procrastination Lying T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales Influence of school periods spent i n academic work; reading, history, mathematics, etc. Influence of school periods spent i n music, dramatics, etc. None Slight Moderate Yery Great None Slight Moderate Yery j&reat V i o lations of general standards of morality and i n t e g r i t y Attitudes to parents and home Attitudes to work and small duties D i f f i c u l t i e s with other children ,rWithdrawing" personality t r a i t s "Aggressive" personality t r a i t s Sensitiveness S i l l i n e s s , Smartness, att r a c t i o n of attention Taking parents for granted Procrastination Lying T a t t l i n g , t e l l i n g tales 

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105398/manifest

Comment

Related Items