Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between personality type and parenting style Reed, Lori Patricia 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 R43.pdf [ 4.03MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302103.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302103-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302103-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302103-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302103-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302103-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302103-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302103-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302103.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY TYPE AND PARENTING STYLE by LORI PATRICIA REED B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER DF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s thesis as con-forming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1988 ®Lori P a t r i c i a Reed, 1988 s In p resen t ing th is thesis in partial f u l f i lmen t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced d e g r e e at t he Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a , I agree that t h e Library shall make it f reely available f o r re ference and s tudy . I f u r the r agree that pe rmiss ion f o r ex tens ive c o p y i n g o f th is thesis f o r scholar ly pu rposes may b e g r a n t e d by t h e head o f m y d e p a r t m e n t o r by his o r her representat ives. It is u n d e r s t o o d that c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f th is thesis f o r f inancial gain shall n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t m y w r i t t e n pe rm iss ion . The Univers i ty o f Brit ish C o l u m b i a Vancouver , Canada D e p a r t m e n t o f DE-6 (2/88) A B S T R A C T This study investigated the relationship of personality type and parenting s t y l e . Using a sample of convenience, 102 parents (71 female, 31 male) completed three tests: the Myers Briggs Type Indicator which measures personality types, 64 items from the Block Child Rearing Practices Report which measures parental c h i l d rearing attitudes and values, and FACES III which measures family functioning. Forty of the 64 items from the Block Child Rearing Practices Report clustered into two homogeneous groups that served as subtests for parenting s t y l e . A canonical c o r r e l a t i o n between four personality type scores ( extraversion-introversion, sensing—intuition, thinking—feeling, judging— perceiving) and two parenting s t y l e scores (nurturance, res t r i c t i v e n e s s ) indicated s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between personality and parenting. Parents who were strong on sensing and moderately introverted tended to employ a parenting s t y l e that was highly r e s t r i c t i v e and moderately nurturant. Parents who were strong on perceiving and moderately extraverted tended to employ a parenting s t y l e that was highly nurturing and much less r e s t r i c t i v e . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST DF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v i i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 3 JUNG'S PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY 3 The Extraversion-Introversion Attitude 5 The Four Functions: Sensation-Intuition, Thinking-Feeling 7 THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR 15 RESEARCH EMPLOYING THE MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR.. 16 RESEARCH ON CHILDREARING 22 FACTORS INFLUENCING CHILDREARING PRACTICES.... 25 CHILDREARING PRACTICES AND PERSONALITY OF THE PARENT 26 CHAPTER THREE METHOD 30 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 30 SUBJECTS 30 INSTRUMENTS 32 The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 32 Type-Category Scores 33 Continuous Scores 33 Intercorrelations o-f Type-Category Scores 34 i i i Intercorrelations of Continuous Scores 35 R e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI 35 V a l i d i t y of the MBTI 37 The Child Rearing Practices Report 39 R e l i a b i l i t y of the CRPR 40 V a l i d i t y of the CRPR 42 FACES III 42 R e l i a b i l i t y of FACES III 43 V a l i d i t y of FACES III 44 PROCEDURE.' 44 ANALYSIS 45 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 47 EXTRACTION OF CLUSTERS 47 RELIABILITY 50 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS 53 Parenting Styles 53 Personality Types 54 Canonical Correlations 56 EXTENDED ANALYSIS 57 Personality Types 57 Personality Types and Parenting 59 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 62 CONCLUSIONS 62 LIMITATIONS 64 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS 65 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 67 i v I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 6 8 SUMMARY 7 0 REFERENCES • 7 1 A P P E N D I X 8 0 A P P E N D I X A BO A P P E N D I X B 8 1 A P P E N D I X C 9 0 A P P E N D I X D 9 2 v LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 I l l u s t r a t i v e Item S i m i l a r i t y for Nurturance 49 TABLE 2 I l l u s t r a t i v e I tern S i m i l a r i t y for Restrictiveness 50 TABLE 3 R e l i a b i l i t y of Instruments 52 TABLE 4 Canonical Variable Loadings For Parenting Styles 54 TABLE 5 Canonical Variable Loadings For Personality Type Patterns 56 TABLE 6 Canonical Correlation: Parenting Style Patterns With Personality Type Patterns 57 TABLE 7 Mean Parenting And Family Functioning Scores For Each Personality Type Grouping 61 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to thank my advisor, Dr. Larry Cochran, for his caring and supportive guidance throughout the writing of this thesis. An acknowledgement also goes to my methodologist, Dr. Robert Conry, for his patience and s t a t i s t i c a l wisdom. I would also l i k e to thank my family and friends for their encouragement and loving support. A special thanks goes to Mrs. Gabriel Henville, who was instrumental in helping me access parents for t h i s study. Also, a very special thanks goes to Mr. Steven Stack for his PC and word processing expertise. v i x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION How i s personality involved with the s t y l e with which one parents? Answers to this question have been scant. Although there i s a multitude of research which addresses issues related to personality and issues related to childrearing, few researchers have attempted to explore the relationship between the personality of the parent and his/her childrearing attitudes and practices. At present, associations reported to exis t between personality and parenting s t y l e include the following. In Block's (1955) study, fathers who preferred a r e s t r i c t i v e s t y l e of parenting d i f f e r e d with respect to various personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s when compared to those fathers who preferred a permissive s t y l e of parenting. In general, r e s t r i c t i v e fathers were more submissive, conforming, over-controlled, and inef f e c t u a l whereas permissive fathers were more f l e x i b l e , s e l f -r e l i a n t , persuasive, and sa r c a s t i c . Zuckerman and Oltean (1959) found that mothers who tended to be ho s t i l e and rejecting in t h e i r parental attitudes were more inclined to have a high need for achievement, a low need for nurturance, and a high need for aggression. Lynn's (1961) data revealed that mothers expressing permissive attitudes toward childrearing tended to be extraverted and non-neurotic. Introverted and neurotic mothers were more l i k e l y to be punitive when dealing with their aggressive children. 1 Within the f i e l d of personality, Jung's (1921) personality typology has proven extremely useful. The Myers Briggs Type Inventory ( Myers, 1962), which i s a test designed to implement Jung's theory of personality types has been employed in numerous studies. Using the Myers Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI), relationships between personality type and learning s t y l e , teaching s t y l e , and occupational choice have been discerned. However, no research to date has ventured to explore the possible relationship between "personality type' and parenting s t y l e . The present study intends to address the ways in which personality type, as conceptualized by Jung (1921) and operationa1ized by Myers (1962), relates to parenting s t y l e . Personality type i s defined as the individual's preferred way of perceiving and making judgements which i s based on the various combinations of four interlocking dimensions : extraversion -introversion, sensation - i n t u i t i o n , thinking - f e e l i n g , and judging - perceiving ( Myers and McCaulley, 1985). Chapter two w i l l address these terms in d e t a i l . For the purpose of this study, parenting s t y l e w i l l be defined as parental childrearing attitudes and values that tend to cluster into or close to a typ i c a l pattern, as measured by a subset of items taken from the Block Childrearing Practices Report (Block, 1965). 2 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There have been several research attempts to relate personality with such areas as learning s t y l e , teaching s t y l e , and parental attitudes. In these studies, personality has been examined from a variety of perspectives such as locus of control (Bender,1987; Knoop, 1981; Mathis and James,1972; Parish and Copeland, 1980)), temperament (Buss, Plomin, and Willerman, 1973) and f i e l d dependence/independence (B r i t a i n and Abad, 1974; Nelson, 1980). JUNG'S PERSONALITY TYPOLOGY One of the most promising and i n f l u e n t i a l works in the area of personality i s Jung's (1921) personality typology. Rather than focus on confining categories, Jung concentrates on defining an individual according to the kind of conscious mental a c t i v i t y he/she engages i n . Although the various conscious mental a c t i v i t i e s , when taken in combination, are referred to as 'type', Jung , treats them as personality dimensions whose development i s continuous. Only the d i r e c t i o n of the development i s considered cate g o r i c a l . From observations of himself, his patients, and other persons, Jung i d e n t i f i e d several dimensions that combine variously to create what he c a l l e d personality types — patterns in the way people prefer to perceive and make judgements. These dimensions involve basic attitudes (extraversion and 3 introversion) and basic functions ( sensation, i n t u i t i o n , thinking, and f e e l i n g ) . The dimensions interlock in the sense that extraversion and introversion denote the focus of cognitive a c t i v i t y and the four functions describe i t s s p e c i f i c v a r i e t i e s . Jung (1921) argues that these personality dimensions exi s t in everyone, but we d i f f e r in how much and how well we use each of them. Ty p i c a l l y , one attitude and one or two functions i s dominant ;they indicate the way the person generally interacts with the world. Jung (1921) focuses on what i s conscious in his e f f o r t s to divide human beings into recognizable types. When an individual i s described as either extraverted or introverted, i t s i g n i f i e s that his/her prevailing conscious attitude i s either one or the other. Although generally one attitude i s developed ( and therefore conscious) and the other remains unconscious, both af f e c t the individual's behavior. P e r i o d i c a l l y , the unconscious attitude w i l l manifest i t s e l f , but in an i n f e r i o r way. According to Jung (1921) the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious i s a compensatory one. The conscious mind must be w i l l i n g to recognize to some degree that which i s unconscious or i t w i l l become destructive in nature (Jung, 1921). When this occurs the compensatory relationship ceases. Therefore, the constant flowing of the unconscious material into the conscious mind contributes to psychic equilibrium. For Jung (1921), the superior function i s always the expression of the conscious material - i t s aim, i t s w i l l , and i t s achievement. The i n f e r i o r functions are primarily part of the unconscious, despite possessing a s l i g h t degree of consciousness. 4 According to Jung (1921), the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n in attitude begins very early in l i f e . He has even considered the p o s s i b i l i t y of type having a b i o l o g i c a l precursor. Evidence to suggest that type may be innate comes from the fact that both extraverted and introverted children are found in the same family. Despite sim i l a r environmental conditions, one c h i l d assumes one type while another a d i f f e r e n t type. Jung contends that this difference in type must be ascribed to individual d i s p o s i t i o n . THE EXTRAVERSION - INTROVERSION ATTITUDE In Jung's (1921) theory, the extraverted and introverted attitude describe the di r e c t i o n of a person's int e r e s t . Extraversion means outward turning and introversion means inward turning. Jung (1921) believed that people do both regularly. When a person acts in the world, he/she i s turning outside him/herself and when a person r e f l e c t s , he/she turns into him/herse1f. People who primarily use their superior function to interact in the world are considered extraverted. The extraverted attitude i s characterized by an interest in the outer world of events, people and things. The extraverted person i s sociable and optimistic and usually i s confident in unfamiliar surroundings. He/she enjoys organizations, groups, and parties and i s generally active and on the whole h e l p f u l . With respect to relationships with other people they are both e a s i l y and quickly made and broken. The extravert may tend to be s u p e r f i c i a l , dependent on making a good impression, af r a i d of r e f l e c t i o n , ready to accept the conventional morals and standards of the times, and possibly, 5 d i s i n c l i n e d to be alone. The extravert owes his/her normality to his/her a b i l i t y to f i t into existing conditions with r e l a t i v e ease. However, th i s same quality often contributes to the extravert's tendency to be oblivious to or neglect obvious personal needs. Unfortunately, the extremely extraverted individual often only takes notice of his/her loss of eguilibrium when serious personal problems ensue (Jung, 1921). People who reserve their superior function primarily for their private world of inner ideas, thoughts, and r e f l e c t i o n s are introverted. The introverted attitude i s characterized by an interest in the inner world. For the introvert, the subjective experience i s superior to the objective s i t u a t i o n . The introverted person i s shy and hesitant and i s at his/her best when alone, or in a small and fam i l i a r group. He/she pursues quiet endeavors and prefers his/her own thoughts to books or conversation. Consequently, th i s type usually lacks s o c i a l s k i l l s . The introvert tends to be sensitive, a f r a i d of looking r i d i c u l o u s , c r i t i c a l , pessimistic, over—conscientious, and usually keeps his/her best q u a l i t i e s to him/herself. Since the introvert feels less comfortable showing his valued g u a l i t i e s to the external world, he/she tends to be overlooked. The introvert demonstrates an independence of judgement and lack of conventionality. With respect to relationships, he/she often makes a loyal and sympathetic friend (Jung, 1921). It i s clear that the differences in attitude between the extravert and the introvert can cause misunderstandings. Just as i t seems incomprehensible to the extravert how a subjective experience could be superior to the objective s i t u a t i o n ; i t 6 remains equally as puzzling to the introvert that the object should always be decisive. As Jung (1921) contends "each speaks a d i f f e r e n t 1 anguage. . . . the value of one i s the negation of value •for the other." In addition, the two types tend to see only the other's weakness, so that to the extravert the introvert i s e g o t i s t i c a l and d u l l , while the introvert thinks the extravert s u p e r f i c i a l and insincere (Jung, 1921). THE FOUR FUNCTIONS: SENSATION - INTUITION. THINKING - FEELING In r e a l i z i n g that the a t t i t u d i n a l typology did not account for a l l the differences in personality that could be observed Jung (1921) i d e n t i f i e d four functions (sensation, i n t u i t i o n , thinking, feeling) which explain the way people prefer to perceive and make judgements. Jung (1921; 1971) defined a function as a "particular form of psychic a c t i v i t y that remains the same in p r i n c i p l e under varying conditions." (p.436) He contended that much of an individuals behavior which may appear variable and random i s , in a c t u a l i t y , regular and consistent. Each person can be expected to be consistent in ways that are s a l i e n t or meaningful for him/her. Differences can be attributed to the way individuals prefer to use their perception and judgement. Perception, Jung (1921;1971) believes, incorporates the numerous ways of becoming aware of things, people, events, or ideas. It incorporates the s o l i c i t i n g of sensation, information gathering, and the selection of the stimulus to be attended to. Judgement, on the other hand, incorporates the numerous ways of a r r i v i n g at conclusions about what has been perceived. It incorporates evaluation, choice, decision making, and the 7 selection of the response after perceiving the stimulus. The four functions people use to orientate themselves in the world are sensation, i n t u i t i o n , thinking and f e e l i n g . The two perceptive functions are sensation and i n t u i t i o n . In Jung's (1921) theory what comes into consciousness, moment by moment, comes either through the senses or through i n t u i t i o n . To remain in consciousness, perceptions must be used. The judgement functions, thinking and feeling are responsible for the sorting, analyzing, weighing, and evaluating. When sensation has p r i o r i t y and becomes the habitual reaction one may speak of a sensation type. The sensation type sees the world as i t i s ; no imagination tampers with his/her experiences, and no thought attempts to probe deeper in an e f f o r t to uncover the puzzling. Attitudes t y p i c a l l y developed as a resu l t of a preference for sensing include a reliance on experience rather than theory, a b e l i e f in the conventional and customary way of doing things, a preference for beginning with what i s known and r e a l , and then proceeding systematically, step by step, linking each new fact to past experience and testing i t for i t s pr a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . The sensing type's insistence on facts coupled with their calm nature give a fals e sense of reasonableness. In a c t u a l i t y , t h i s type i s i r r a t i o n a l . Jung (1921) argues that there i s l i t t l e logic in the experience of the senses, and even the same incident may arouse the same sensation at d i f f e r e n t times. Since the strength and pleasure of the sensation i s of utmost importance to the sensing type, he/she may become a re s t l e s s pleasure-seeker always looking for new t h r i l l s . 8 There i s a difference between the extraverted sensing type and the introverted sensing type. The former type i s more attracted to the object which i s creating the sensation. Whereas the l a t t e r • type concentrates more on the sensations he/she experiences. The opposite function to sensation i s i n t u i t i o n . However, l i k e sensation i t i s an i r r a t i o n a l function. Intuition, Jung (1921) argues, t e l l s what the p o s s i b i l i t i e s are; i t peers behind the scenes and produces hunches. This function provides insight in grasping complexity and demonstrates an a b i l i t y to see abstract, symbolic and theoretical relationships. As Jung (1971) explained, i n t u i t i o n "presents a content, whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence" (CW6, par. 770). This function i s responsible for mediating perceptions by way of the unconscious. Attitudes t y p i c a l l y developed as a result of a preference for i n t u i t i o n include a reliance on i n s p i r a t i o n rather than on past experience, an interest in the new and untried, and a preference for learning new material through an i n t u i t i v e grasp of meanings and relationships. The extraverted i n t u i t i v e type l i v e s primarily through the faculty of i n t u i t i o n . He/she i s drawn to p o s s i b i l i t i e s and w i l l i n g to take chances; everything i s s a c r i f i c e d for the future. When the extraverted i n t u i t i v e i s on to something new, nothing i s sacred; his/her morality i s based solely on loyalty to his/her i n t u i t i v e view. The weakness of t h i s type i s that he/she may sow, but never reap. For the extraverted i n t u i t i v e , new and other p o s s i b i l i t i e s are so enticing that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to carry a 9 task through to completion, or at least beyond the point where success i s con-firmed. Consequently, others often enjoy the rewards of his/her pioneering e f f o r t s . T y p i c a l l y , his/her relationships are also very weak for the same reasons (Jung, 1921). The introverted i n t u i t i v e type i s concerned with what Jung (1921) c a l l s the c o l l e c t i v e unconscious - the dark background of experience, the subjective and unusual. Most important to the introverted i n t u i t i v e are inner images which include fantasies, visions, and extrasensory perceptions. This type can appear very peculiar, unless he/she i s capable of finding a way to relate his/her experiences with l i f e (Jung, 1921) The two judgement functions are thinking and f e e l i n g . Thinking and feeling are two d i s t i n c t and contrasting means of evaluating phenomenon. Thinking, as conceptualized by Jung (1921), i s a l o g i c a l process capable of being formalized, that results in impersonal judgements of right and wrong. Feeling, on the other hand, i s a more subjective process which results in the acceptance or rejection of phenomenon and judgements of l i k e or d i s l i k e . Thinking types use both thinking and feeling, but prefer to use thinking for making judgements. The pure thinking type, Jung (1921) argues i s more often found among men than among women. Jung (1921) contends that women's thinking i s usually i n t u i t i v e in nature. The thinking type 'thinks things out' and derives conclusions based on objective facts. Attitudes t y p i c a l l y developed from a preference for thinking include; o b j e c t i v i t y , 10 i m p a r t i a l i t y , a sense of fairness and j u s t i c e , and s k i l l in applying l o g i c a l analysis. He/she prefers logic and order, and enjoys devising compact formulas to express his/her views. The danger for t h i s type l i e s in his/her tendency to believe that his/her formula represents absolute truth, which despite including much that i s good may be put into practice in a cold and c a l i c e manner. In essence the thinking type may assume the end j u s t i f i e s the means. This type w i l l r e linquish friends and family to his/her convictions without the least idea that he/she i s doing so (Jung, 1921). Whether an individual i s extraverted or introverted, i t w i l l influence the manner and the subject matter of his/her thought. The extraverted thinker channels his/her thoughts towards the outside world. His/her thoughts serve to put order into the external world. The individuals interest i s in the r e s u l t , not in the idea behind i t . This type i s concerned with facts and materials, and i f he/she i s interested in ideas they w i l l originate from t r a d i t i o n or from the prevailing climate of the time (Jung, 1921). In contrast to the extravert, the introverted thinker i s interested in inner r e a l i t y . He/she i s concerned with ideas as opposed to facts. The introverted thinking type formulates questions and creates theories; i t opens up prospects and y i e l d s insight, but in the presence of facts i t exhibits a reserved demeanor....Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake (Jung, 1921, p. 442). Since the introverted thinking type i s preoccupied with his/her inner r e a l i t i e s , he/she pays very l i t t l e attention to his /her relationships with the world: Consequently, the introverted 1 1 thinker experiences d i f f i c u l t y understanding how others think and/or f e e l . This type's awkwardness i s often evident by his/her shyness, silence or inappropriate behavior. The primary weakness for both thinking types i s their underdeveloped and neglected feeling function. Jung (1971) makes clear the d i s t i n c t i o n between the thinking and feeling functions with his statement - " When we think, i t i s in order to judge or to reach a conclusion, and when we feel i t i s in order to attach a proper value to something" (p. 105) . Feeling types use thinking and feeling, but prefer to reach judgements through f e e l i n g . Feeling i s a subjective process which results in the acceptance or rejection of phenomenon and judgement of l i k e or d i s l i k e . Feeling sometimes becomes confused with emotion . Jung (1921) argues that any function can lead over into emotion, but the emotion i t s e l f i s not the function. He d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between 'feeling judgements' and 'feeling s i t u a t i o n s ' ; the feeling function encompasses the two, but the l a t t e r i s closer to the emotional end of the scale. Both involve the valuing component. The feeling type has a well developed sense of history and t r a d i t i o n and an established hierarchy of values to which he/she adheres. As a rational function, t h i s type demonstrates a secure understanding of what i s most s i g n i f i c a n t to s e l f and others. The importance placed on human relationships i s evident in the feeling types attitudes which r e f l e c t a willingness to join with others, a desire for harmony, and a capacity for warmth, compassion, and empathy (Jung, 1971). 12 The extraverted -feeling type i s guided by and adjusted to the environment. Jung (1921) argues that this type i s found more often among women than men. The extraverted feeling type i s equipped with the s k i l l s to smooth over awkward si t u a t i o n s . These people are responsible for making s o c i a l and family l i f e more comfortable. This type can be helpful, charming, and sympathetic. The extraverted feeling type's weakness surfaces when his/her feelings are pushed to extremes, and then, he/she becomes s u p e r f i c i a l and lacks human warmth (Jung, 1971). The introverted feeling type i s guided by subjective components and outwardly appears very d i f f e r e n t from the fri e n d l y , warm extravert. Despite his/her impression of coldness, beneath the surface l i e s a person with compassion and much understanding for friends and those in need. This types genuine nature permits him/her a position of value in a group as he/she makes a constant and r e l i a b l e friend (Jung, 1971). Jung (1971) attributes several structural properties to the elements of his typology. The attitudes and functions are considered to be stable, categorical, interacting, and generating d i f f e r e n t combinations of surface t r a i t s . S t a b i l i t y stems from Jung's bel i e f that each person has an innate tendency to develop certain attitudes and functions. Although the environment plays a role in an individual's development, Jung (1971) contends that changes in type are not l i k e l y to occur. In Jung's theory, the degree to which an individual's type i s actually developed i s a continuous variable, but the direction of the development i s understood as being categorical. Thus, a 13 person i s an extravert or an introvert; sensing or i n t u i t i v e ; thinking or f e e l i n g . The union of various attitudes and functions results in the modification of each process which produces unigue e f f e c t s . For example, Jung argues that introverted sensing i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from extraverted sensing. The predisposition towards the development of certain attitudes and functions results in more dependence on and increased e f f i c i e n c y with them. This dependency on certain attitudes and functions influences the pattern of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , values, interests and other surface t r a i t s which develop (Jung, 1971). Everyone uses a l l four mental processes - sensing, i n t u i t i o n , thinking, and f e e l i n g , but we do not use them egually well. From childhood, each of us has come to rely on one more than the others. Since i t i s used more i t naturally becomes more mature and r e l i a b l e . Jung refers to the more mature function as the 'superior function - the core of the personality '. A secondary, less d i f f e r e n t i a t e d function i s believed to supplement the superior function. In Jung's theory, the two kinds of perception - sensing and i n t u i t i o n - are polar opposites of each other. S i m i l a r i l y , the two kinds of judgement - thinking and feeling — are polar opposites of each other. When the primary function i s one of perception the secondary function i s one of judgement and vice versa. Furthermore, the function that i s polar opposite to the superior function i s usually the least developed and least trusted of the four mental processes. Jung contends that the most 14 i n f e r i o r function i s not under ego control and i s undifferentiated, awkward, emotionally-charged, and capable of erupting suddenly. At the same time, Jung argues that the most i n f e r i o r function i s r i c h with v i t a l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y . THE MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1962) i s a test designed to implement Jung's theory of type. The Myers-Briggs formulation e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a l l e l s Jung's theory in terms of the EI, SN, TF dimensions of personality and contributes a fourth dimension JP (Judgement - Perception) that was i m p l i c i t in Jung's system (Matoon, 1981). A person's type i s assessed by means of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator which c l a s s i f i e s people on the basis of their s e l f reported behavior, preferences, and value judgements, into dichotomous categories along each of the four interlocking dimensions: E-I, S-N, T—F, and J-P. The E-I index i s designed to measure an individual's preferred orientation to l i f e . Extraverted types are regarded as being oriented primarily to the outer world of people, objects and action. Introverted types have a more inward orientation and tend to separate themselves from the world around them. The S-N index i s designed to measure an individual's preferred way of perceiving things. Sensing types rely on perceptions received d i r e c t l y through their sense organs; they attend to the concrete and p r a c t i c a l aspects of a s i t u a t i o n . I n t u i t i v e types look at things more generally in an attempt to i d e n t i f y inferred meanings and hidden p o s s i b i l i t i e s in a s i t u a t i o n ; they l i k e to deal with abstractions. 15 The T-F index i s designed to measure an individual's preferred way of making decisions. Thinking types focus on log i c a l structures in an attempt to c l a r i f y and bring order to a s i t u a t i o n ; they are masters at objectively organizing material, weighing the facts, and impersonally judging whether something i s true or f a l s e . Feeling types are masters at understanding other people's feelings and analyzing subjective impressions; they base their judgements on personal values. The J—P index i s designed to measure an individual's preferred way of dealing with the outer world. Judging types are organized and systematic; they l i v e in a planned, orderly way and their goal i s to regulate and control l i f e . Perceptive types are more i n g u i s i t i v e and open minded; they proceed through l i f e in a spontaneous, f l e x i b l e way and their goal i s to understand and adapt to l i f e . Although the d i s t i n c t i o n between judging types and perceptive types i s implied in Jungian theory, judgement and perception were never e x p l i c i t l y defined by Jung as independent functions as were the other dimensions of personality measured by the indicator ( Myers and McCaulley, 1985). RESEARCH EMPLOYING THE MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR This section reports representative studies on personality type differences in learning s t y l e , teaching s t y l e , and occupational choice. The MBTI i s being used widely to understand type differences in student learning and how teachers are intervening to promote learning as a function of personality type. Lawrence (1984) 16 reviewed developments in t h i s d i v e r s i f y i n g use of type theory. Findings indicated that extraverts in high school (McCaulley and Natter, 1974) and in adult learning f a c i l i t i e s (Haber,1980; Kilmann and Taylor, 1974) enjoyed learning in groups. Conversely, introverts d i s l i k e d the group experience and were seen as poor participators by fellow group members. Sensing types report preferences for t e l e v i s i o n and audiovisual aids (McCaulley and Natter, 1974) and seemed to gain from having them repeated (Golanty—Koel, 1978). Golliday (1975) and Roberts (1982) found laboratory exercises and demonstrations helpful to sensing types. Although memorizing comes e a s i l y to the sensing individual (Hoffman, Waters, and Berry, 1981), he/she has d i f f i c u l t y generalizing from examples to concepts (Yokomoto and Ware, 1982). A number of studies (Grant, 1 1965; McCaulley and Natter, 1974) suggest that sensing types set modest academic goals for themselves and then attempt to meet these goals by organizing their time and working in a systematic way (McCaulley and Natter, 1974). Several studies (Carlson and Levy,1973; McCaulley and Natter, 1974; Smith, Ivey, and McCaulley, 1973) found that i n t u i t i v e types enjoy self-paced learning and courses that permit them to study on their own i n i t i a t i v e . I n t u i t i v e types prefer examinations that include essay questions (Grant, 1965) and teachers see i n t u i t i v e s , as opposed to sensing types, as making more i n s i g h t f u l observations in class (Carskadon, 1978) . Consistent with the preference for l o g i c a l order and o b j e c t i v i t y i s the thinking type's preference for structured courses and well defined goals (Smith, Ivey, and McCaulley, 17 1973). Many studies (McCaulley and Natter, 1974; Carlson and Levy, 1973; Smith, Ivey and McCaulley, 1973) have demonstrated the thinking type's preference for demonstrations and teacher 1ec tures. Feeling types enjoy working on group endeavors (McCaulley and Natter, 1974) and in human relations laboratories (McCaulley, 1978; Haber, 1980; Steele, 1968). McCaulley and Natter (1974) found that feeling types were more l i k e l y to report that their s o c i a l l i f e interfered with their studies. Judging types prefer to learn from material presented in an orderly way, and through lectures, demonstrations, and workbooks (McCaulley and Natter, 1974; Carlson and Levy,1973; Smith, Ivey, and McCaulley, 1973). Judging types more often say they work e f f i c i e n t l y according to their schedules, hand assignments in on time (McCaulley and Natter, 1974), and benefit from study s k i l l s courses (Fretz and Schmidt, 1966). Perceptive types, on the other hand, are more l i k e l y to report sta r t i n g too late on assignments, allowing their work to p i l e up, and having to cram in order to f i n i s h (McCaulley and Natter, 1974). Kilman and Taylor (1974) found that in experiential learning environments, perceptive types are seen as more open and more e f f e c t i v e in id e n t i f y i n g concerns. As Myers (1962) predicted, the greatest number of differences are between sensing and i n t u i t i v e types. Sensing types prefer and excel in laboratory a c t i v i t i e s that teach s p e c i f i c material in an organized way. In t u i t i v e types prefer human relations laboratories where f l e x i b i l i t y and understanding of 18 subtle meanings of behavior are necessary s k i l l s . Lawrence (1982) has explored the relationships between personality type, learning s t y l e , and teaching s t y l e . He introduced teachers to type theory and presented p r a c t i c a l ways of taking type into account in teaching. Eggins (1979) findings also emphasized the complexity of type differences in learning and provided sugggestions to teachers of ways to teach the sensing and perceiving types who are most l i k e l y to experience d i f f i c u l t y in school. As Myers and McCaulley (1985) point out, not only does "type theory indicate that teachers have up to sixteen types to teach, each with individual patterns of attitude, in t e r e s t s , and application," but to further complicate the si t u a t i o n "... a teacher f a l l s into one of the sixteen types, and can be expected to begin with a teaching s t y l e natural to his/her own type." (p. 133) Lawrence (1982) argued that there i s clear evidence to suggest that teacher's types influence the level they teach at, how they teach, and what they prefer to teach. For example, Lawrence (1982) found that in elementary and middle school grades there are s i g n i f i c a n t l y more sensing and i n t u i t i v e teachers; in high school there tend to be an equal number of sensing and i n t u i t i v e types; in college and university more i n t u i t i v e than sensing types are found. Preferences in subject matter are also predictable. P r a c t i c a l courses draw the sensing types and theory courses are a t t r a c t i v e to the i n t u i t i v e types. Teaching of mathematics, science, and technical s k i l l s i s preferred by thinking types and feeling types are drawn to humanities, 19 language arts, and counselling. In an observational study of seventy-six volunteer elementary and middle school teachers in the classroom, DeNovellis and Lawrence (1983) found that correlations between MBTI continuous scores and observations of teachers and students showed small but s i g n i f i c a n t differences in directions consistent with theory. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n t u i t i v e s were rated as moving more freely about the classroom and permitting more individual a c t i v i t y . When disorder in the classroom ensued, i n t u i t i v e types attempted to gain control with nonverbal, negative behavior. Feeling types were seen as having students central in the a c t i v i t i e s and as attending to one or more students regularly. Teachers with a feeling type were also rated as providing more positive verbal and nonverbal feedback to pupils. S i g n i f i c a n t l y more nonverbal disapproval was i d e n t i f i e d among the 'NFP' teachers. Overall, observations of students indicated that productive behavior occurred in classrooms of a l l types of teachers. However, when nonproductive behavior occurred, i t tended to be expressed by withdrawal and passivity under the 1SJ' teachers and by h o s t i l e and aggressive acts under the i n t u i t i v e teachers. Lawrence (1982) points out that teachers are more l i k e l y to understand and get along with students of types si m i l a r to their own. For the insecure student, a teacher of sim i l a r type with whom he/she can e a s i l y relate i s needed. For the more secure student a teacher unlike him/her in type can provide him/her with the opportunity to test and strengthen less-used mental processes. Myers and McCaulley (1985) report that type theory also has 20 important implications for those responsible for the administration of educational systems. Type provides a framework for looking at motivations of students, a t t r i t i o n , and blocks to academic achievement. Type provides a way to make assignments that c a p i t a l i z e on the strengths and minimize the blind spots of each type, to create teams that can bring more to teaching than any one teacher could do alone, and to create learning environments that increase the c r e a t i v i t y of teachers in finding ways to motivate and ins t r u c t a l l sixteen types of students. (p. 136) The MBTI has proven especially useful in career counselling. In their review of the data on occupations and MBTI types, Myers and McCaulley (1985) have found that a l l occupations have people from a l l sixteen types. However, each occupation att r a c t s some types more than others. The basic assumption when using the MBTI in career counselling i s that one of the most important motivations for career choice i s a desire for work that i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y interesting and s a t i s f y i n g and that w i l l permit the individual to make use of his/her stronger, more developed process while not having to employ his/her less preferred processes. No occupation provides a perfect match between type preferences and work tasks, but good occupational choices can prevent major mismatches ( Myers and McCaulley, 1985). Information regarding occupations empirically a t t r a c t i v e to the sixteen types has been found consistent with theory and commonsense understanding of occupations and the MBTI (McCaulley and Morgan, 1982; McCaulley, 1977;1978). Type theory predicts that former knowledge of type preferences are more important for determining occupational choice than are occupational environments for determining type 21 preferences. In the early 1950s, Myers conducted a large longitudinal study that addressed th i s issue. Results showed that students had s i g n i f i c a n t l y chosen s p e c i a l i t i e s which in theory would a t t r a c t their types. In the early 1970s, McCaulley (1978) followed up the sample to investigate s p e c i a l i t i e s , work settings, professional memberships, and faculty appointments. He found that types in s p e c i a l i t i e s not typical of their type changed to s p e c i a l i t i e s which were more typical of their type. The results led McCaulley to contend that people seem more l i k e l y to change their work environment to match their type than to change their type to match their environment. Despite the multitude of research designed to address the relationship between Jungian personality types and learning s t y l e s , teaching s t y l e s , and occupational choice, l i t t l e attention has been given to examining the way personality type relates to parenting s t y l e . RESEARCH ON CHILDREARING Parents view the attitudes and behavior of their children from a variety of perspectives. Variations in the philosophies, needs, and goals of parents, as well as individual differences among parents and children result in an i n t r i c a t e union of parenting views and practices (Carter and Welch, 1981). The practices employed by parents to d i s c i p l i n e their children or to e l i c i t their compliance play a s i g n i f i c a n t role in the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of their children. For example, the degree to which a parent i s c o n t r o l l i n g , h o s t i l e , supportive, democratic, uses reason or punishment in dealing with his/her children has been 22 found to be important to the way in which the c h i l d develops (Baumrind, 1971; Becker, 1964; Champney, 1941; Fu et a l , 1983; Gecas, 1971; Hess, 1970; Hoffman, 1960; and Roff, 1949).Although these various components of c h i l d rearing have been examined, few researchers (Baumrind, 1967; and Elder, 1962) have explored the ways in which these various components combine to form d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of parenting. According to Shoben (1949), a given parent behaves toward a given c h i l d , across d i f f e r e n t s i tuations, with s u f f i c i e n t consistency to d i f f e r e n t i a t e him/herself from other parents. Following a s i m i l a r train of thought Elder (1962) and Baumrind (1967) i d e n t i f i e d several st y l e s of parenting. Elder (1962) has i d e n t i f i e d seven d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of parenting based on parent - adolescent role interdependence. Role interdependence was determined by variations in the a l l o c a t i o n of power and by d i f f e r e n t patterns of communications between parents and their adolescent children. The seven parenting st y l e s were c a l l e d : autocratic, authoritarian, democratic, equa1itarian, permissive, l a i s s e z - f a i r e , and ignoring. According to Elder, the autocratic parent refuses the c h i l d an opportinity to express his/her views, to assert leadership or s e l f d i s c i p l i n e . The authoritarian parent allows the c h i l d to contribute to the solution of the problem, but the f i n a l decision resides with the parent. The democratic parent permits the c h i l d to openly discuss the issues relevant to his/her behavior, but the f i n a l decision at least meets with parental approval. The equalitarian parent i l l u s t r a t e s minimal role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . The 23 c h i l d and the parent are equally involved in decision making concerning the c h i l d ' s behavior. The permissive parent permits the c h i l d a more active and i n f l u e n t i a l position than the parent in making decisions pertaining to the c h i l d ' s behavior. The laissez f a i r e parent permits the c h i l d the option of either subscribing to or disregarding parental wishes in making his/her decisions. The ignoring parent divorces him/herself completely from dir e c t i n g the c h i l d ' s behavior. It i s evident that movement from the autocratic to the ignoring structure results in a gradual increase in the c h i l d ' s involvement and a p a r a l l e l decrease in the parent's involvement in making decisions pertaining to the c h i l d . Baumrind (1967) has argued that parenting s t y l e s d i f f e r on four dimensions: (a) parental control, (b> maturity demands, (c> parent—child communication, and (d> nurturance; and tend to cluster into or close to three typ i c a l patterns which are termed: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive. Of course no parent f i t s a given pattern a l l of the time. The categories simply r e f l e c t dominant trends. Parents who f i t the authoritarian c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are l i k e l y to attempt to shape, control, and evaluate the attitudes and behavior of their children in accordance with a set standard of conduct. They value obedience, work, and the preservation of order and t r a d i t i o n a l structure. They favor punitive, forceful measures to curb their children's b e l i e f s or actions when they are in c o n f l i c t with what the parent thinks i s r i g h t . They discourage verbal give and take and are sometimes unresponsive to the point of rejecting their children (Baumrind, 1967;1968). 24 Parents who -fit the authoritative c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are l i k e l y to attempt to d i r e c t the attitudes and b e l i e f s of their children in a rational manner. They encourage verbal give and take, and share with their children the reasoning behind their parental policy of using firm control. They acknowledge their children's present q u a l i t i e s and inter e s t s , but also set standards for future behavior (Baumrind, 1967;1968). Parents who f i t the permissive c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are l i k e l y to behave in a non-punitive, acceptant and affirmative manner toward their children's attitudes and behavior. They o f f e r themselves as resources to their children, not as active agents responsible for modifying or shaping their thoughts and actions. They permit their children to regulate their own behavior, avoid the exercise of control or overt power, and do not encourage them to obey externally defined standards (Baumrind, 1967). Despite the value in i d e n t i f y i n g and defining s t y l e s of parenting, research in this area has been scant. Further attempts must be made to extend our understanding of parenting s t y l e s . FACTORS INFLUENCING CHILD REARING PRACTICES Child rearing b e l i e f s , values, and practices do not just appear out of the blue ( Sears, Maccoby and Levin, 1957). What leads a parent to employ one s t y l e of parenting over another? This question has received much attention in the l i t e r a t u r e . For example, many studies have shown that parental attitudes, values and behaviors vary with socioeconomic status (Chilman, 1965; Hurley and Hohn, 1971; Kohn, 1959;1976; Lesser, F i f e r , and Clark, 25 1965; Pavenstedt, 1965; White, 1957; Wright and Wright, 1976), parental experience, age, and sex (Carter and Welch, 1981), r e l i g i o u s a-f f i 1 i a t i o n (Elder, 1962), the husband—wife power structure (Dyer and Urban, 1958; Wolfe, 1959), family c o n s t e l l a t i o n factors (Brophy, 1970; Campbell, 1970; C i c e r e l l i , 1975; 1976; 1977; Elder and Bowerman, 1963; Hilton, 1967; and McGi11icuddy-De1isi, 1980), and the parent-child authority structure (Stone and Landis, 1953). More recent studies recognize the reciprocal influences between parent and c h i l d and external influences on the parent (Bell and Harper, 1977; Lerner and Spanier, 1978; McSi11icuddy-De1isi, 1980; and Walters and Stinnette, 1971). CHILDREARING PRACTICES AND PERSONALTY OF THE PARENT Although many concepts have been i d e n t i f i e d as determinants of childrearing practices, the influence of parental personality on parental c h i l d rearing practices has hardly been investigated (Block, 1955). Various studies (Fu et a l . , 1983; Harris, Gough, and Martin, 1950; Roff, 1949; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957; and Sears, Whiting, Nowlis, and Sears, 1953) have acknowledged the need to explore the relationship between personality patterns of the parents and their s t y l e of parenting. However, only a few researchers (Block, 1955; Lynn, 1961; and Zuckerman and Oltean, 1959) have more d i r e c t l y examined how personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of parents relate to their c h i l d rearing b e l i e f s and practices. In Block's (1955) study, the relationship between fathers' r e s t r i c t i v e and permissive attitudes toward c h i l d rearing and 26 their personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was explored. Findings suggested that fathers expressing r e s t r i c t i v e attitudes toward c h i l d rearing were perceived by competent observers as more constricted, submissive, repressing, conforming, suggestible, indecisive, i n e f f e c t u a l , over-controlled, and more concerned with feelings of personal inadeguacy. The men expressing permissive attitudes towards c h i l d rearing were rated as more s e l f - r e l i a n t , f l e x i b l e , stable, ascendant, rebe l l i o u s toward authority figures, persuasive, and s a r c a s t i c . As Block (1955) points out, the picture which emerges of the fathers expressing r e s t r i c t i v e a t t i t i u d e s toward c h i l d rearing i s nearly a prototype of what has been labelled the authoritarian personality (Adorno et a l . , 1950). From the standpoint of a d e f i n i t i o n of psychological health (Maslow, 1943), the r e s t r i c t i v e fathers represent a less optimal level of personality integration than the permissive fathers. Block's (1955) findings must be interpreted with caution for two obvious reasons. As the f i r s t g u a l i f i c a t i o n , i t must be noted that the sample consisted of male m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s who had volunteered for service. S e l f - s e l e c t i o n of a m i l i t a r y career i s l i k e l y related to pre—existing personality structures. Therefore, results within other populations may vary to the extent these populations d i f f e r from Block's (1955). As a second q u a l i f i c a t i o n , i t should be noted that an extremely permissive viewpoint i s not represented in the present sample. There i s i n f e r e n t i a l evidence that supports the notion that excessive permissiveness and i n a b i l i t y to set l i m i t s for the 27 c h i l d are associated with a less than optimal parental personality, most l i k e l y of an under-controlling or other— directed nature (Block, 1955). Zuckerman and Oltean (1959) attempted to discern whether a relationship exists between personality variables and attitudes toward c h i l d rearing using three subject groups: (a) 60 -female patients in an acute psychiatric treatment hospital, most of whom were mothers; (b) 24 mothers of college students; and (c) 88 student nurses, none of whom were married or mothers. Results indicated that mothers who tended to be ho s t i l e and rejecting in their parental attitudes were inclined to have a high need for achievement, a low need for nurturance, and a high need for aggression. In the student nurse group, relationships between personality and parental attitude measures were not found. Zuckerman and Oltean (1959) contend that perhaps parental attitudes in g i r l s who have had no experience r a i s i n g children are less a function of personality than in women for whom the attitudes are more than theory. Changes in parental attitudes which l i k e l y occur after there i s actual expereince in rai s i n g of children are expected to be in the dire c t i o n of personality needs (Zuckerman and Oltean, 1959). In his study of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of mothers of aggressive and nonaggressive children, Lynn (1961) i n d i r e c t l y discovered that mothers expressing permissive attitudes toward c h i l d rearing tended to be extraverted and non-neurotic. Contrary to expectation, introverted and neurotic mothers were more w i l l i n g to use greater degrees of physical punishment when dealing with aggressive behavior of their children. 28 As with a l l findings, these results should be interpreted with some q u a l i f i c a t i o n . U n t i l further v e r i f i e d and extended, the results should be evaluated in terms of the population of women from which the sample was drawn. The subjects were mothers of children attending v i l l a g e schools in Devon. Of course findings within other populations may vary to the extent these populations d i f f e r from that of Lynn's (1961). These various findings are important, but too meager a foundation for an understanding of how the personality of the parent a f f e c t s his/her s t y l e of parenting. The present paper w i l l address the question: In what ways are Jungian personality types related to parenting style? 29 CHAPTER THREE METHOD DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study was designed to correlate two sets of variables concerned with personality type and parenting s t y l e . Variables for personality s t y l e were drawn from The Myers Briggs Type Indicator and included four personality measures; extraversion-introversion, thinking - f e e l i n g , sensation - i n t u i t i o n , and judging - perception. Variables concerned with parenting s t y l e were drawn from a cl u s t e r analysis of items taken from The Block Child Rearing Practices Report. In order to determine the patterns of relationship between the four personality measures and st y l e s of parenting, a canonical correlation was computed. SUBJECTS The subjects were 31 male and 71 female parents ranging in age from 27 to 49 years <X age = 38 years), who met the c r i t e r i a of having a c h i l d between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Eight of the subjects were husband-wife dyads. Ninety-two percent of the subjects were married, 3"/. were divorced, 3"/. were l i v i n g common-law, and 2"/. were single. With respect to r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n , Catholic (38'/.), United (237.), and Protestant (137.) were most highly represented. Religious commitment ranged from 'not at a l l ' (287.) to 'highly' committed (47.), with 'somewhat' committed being the favored response (327.). Ninety-three percent of the 30 respondents were Canadian. The parents came -from varying educational backgrounds: 77. had attained -fewer than 12 years education, 237. had completed grade 12, 38"/. had reached 13 to 16 years o-f education, and 307. had achieved more than 16 years of education. Many d i f f e r e n t occupations were stated ranging from Janitor to C i v i l Engineer. The most highly represented occupations included: housewife/mother (257.), clerk in an o f f i c e (107.), registered nurse (87.), and so c i a l worker (67.). The parents were recruited from various municipalities in the lower mainland through an informal network of contacts. Four people, known personally by the author to be involved with d i f f e r e n t parent groups either through the school system or local community center, were contacted and the purpose of the study explained. They were given examples of questions from the instruments and were told the approximate length of time reguired to complete the questionnaire package. They were told that i f they agreed to a s s i s t the researcher in the data c o l l e c t i o n phase of the study, th e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s would include d i s t r i b u t i n g cover l e t t e r s to parents in their respective groups, supplying w i l l i n g participants with guestionnaire packages,and c o l l e c t i n g completed packages from designated 'drop o f f ' locations. They were instructed that the only verbal exchange that would take place would be when people agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e . At t h i s time, they would ask that guestionnaires be completed independently and returned to the sp e c i f i e d 'drop o f f ' l o c a t i o n within one week. The guestionnaire package was comprised of a cover l e t t e r , a demographic section, 64 items from The Block Child Rearing Practices Report, the FACES III inventory, and The Myers Briggs 31 Type Indicator and i t s accompanying answer sheet. A l l -four people expressed interest in the study and agreed to part i c i p a t e . The data c o l l e c t i o n period spanned four months ( May - August, 1987). A return rate of 737. < 102/140) was achieved. INSTRUMENTS THE MYERS BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR The Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) i s a test designed "to implement Jung's theory of type" (Myers, 1962, p . l ) . Although there are several forms of this instrument, the standard form, Form G, which consists of 126 items was used in thi s study. Form G has well defined methods of administration, objective scoring, and data concerning norms, r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y ( Myers, 1962; Myers and McCaulley, 1985). Because the four personality scales (E-I, S—N, T-F, J-P) were defined in chapter two, this section w i l l focus on information regarding the scoring, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the MBTI. Objective Scoring The questions on the MBTI are arranged in a forced-choice format. As Devito (1985) points out, the MBTI i s not as aversive as other forced-choice instruments because any single question deals with only one p o l a r i t y , so that the responses within an item r e f l e c t two opposing rather than competing choices. Since the goal of the MBTI i s to determine routine choices between opposites, each scored item has one answer weighted in favor of one of the eight preferences and the other answer weighted in 32 favor of the opposing preference. A prediction r a t i o , which gives the 'goodness' of a response as an indicator of preference i s used to assign scoring weights to the possible responses. The siz e of the prediction r a t i o determines whether a response i s not scored, gets one point, or two points. A l l indices are scored in the same manner except the T-F scale which i s scored d i f f e r e n t l y for each sex. Although d i f f e r e n t weights have been assigned to d i f f e r e n t answers in an e f f o r t to o f f s e t s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (Myers, 1962), McCaulley (1981) found s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y influences responses on the E-I and J-P dimensions. The Indicator furnishes two types of scores for each person. It c l a s s i f i e s respondents on four dichotombus type categories, and i t also y i e l d s eight numerical scores which can be transformed into four continuous scores, as described below. Type — Category Scores To define an individual's type, the points for each preference are t o t a l l e d , which produces eight numerical scores. These eight scores are interpreted as four pairs of scores, with the larger of each pair denoting the preferred pole. For example, an individual with an E score of 25 and an I score of 19 i s typed as an extravert. The f i n a l r e s u l t i s that an individual i s c l a s s i f i e d as one of 16 possible types: ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, ENTJ. Continuous Scores Continuous scores are a linear transformation of preference scores which are useful when conducting c o r r e l a t i o n a l research 33 with the MBTI. The continuous score i s determined by f i r s t c a l c u l a t i n g the difference between an individual's two scores for each of the four indexes. For example, the points attained on the extraversion (E) scale and the points attained on the introversion (I) scale are calculated. The scale with the largest number of points indicates the preference (e.g. i f E=19 and 1=10, the preference i s E). The smaller tot a l i s then subtracted from the larger to t a l (e.g. 19-10=9). The difference between the E and I scales i s discerned (e.g. 9) and i s assigned a corresponding score as determined by Myers (1977). (e.g., a difference of 9 between the E and the I scales i s delegated a corresponding score of 17). Second, for the E, S, T, or J preference scores, the assigned corresponding score i s subtracted from 100 (e.g. 100 -17= 83 ). For the I, N, F, or P preference scores, the assigned corresponding score i s added to 100. ( Myers and McCaulley, 1985 ). As a re s u l t , four continuous scores are calculated for each individual - one for each scale (e.g. E-I continuous score i s equal to 83). Continuous scores are a l l odd numbers, ranging from 33 to 161, with 100 serving as the d i v i s i o n point which separates the two opposing preferences. Intercorrelations of Type - Category Scores The r e l a t i v e independence of the dichotomous MBTI type categories was examined in studies by Strieker and Ross (1963) and Webb (1964). In both these experiments, phi c o e f f i c i e n t s were used to estimate the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among type categories. A s i g n i f i c a n t c orrelation between the S-N category and the J-P category was found. Information suggested that Sensing types tend 34 to be Judging types and Int u i t i v e types tended to be Perceiving types. The E—I, S-N, T—F scales appear to be independent of each other. This lends support to Jung s theory that there are only three typological dimensions: extraversion - introversion, sensation - i n t u i t i o n , and thinking - -feeling. Intercorre1ation of Continuous Scores Many studies have examined the r e l a t i v e independence of continuous scores using Pearson product - moment correlations (Myers, 1962; Richek, 1969; Strieker and Ross, 1963; and Webb, 1964) and factor analysis ( Ross, 1966). The results from these studies p a r a l l e l those examining type-category scores. The findings with both type category scores and continuous scores indicate that the MBTI measures three dimensions of personality which are independent of each other: extraversion -introversion, sensation - i n t u i t i o n , and thinking - f e e l i n g . The Indicator also taps a fourth dimension of personality, judgement - perception, which appears to be related to at least one of the other three indices. R e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI R e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI i s presented for both the type-category scores and the continuous scores. Researchers estimating the s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of the type - categories ( Hoffman, 1974; Myers, 1962; and Webb, 1964) have reported phi c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from .43 (T-F) to .84 (J-P). Tetrachoric c o e f f i c i e n t s for s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .66 to .92 have also been reported. Carlyn (1977) argues 35 that actual type - category r e l i a b i l i t i e s l i k e l y f a l l somewhere between estimates derived with phi c o e f f i c i e n t s and estimates derived with tetrachoric c o e f f i c i e n t s . In general, estimated r e l i a b i l i t i e s of type-categories appear to be s a t i s f a c t o r y for research purposes (Carlyn, 1977). Test - retest data for MBTI type-category scores have been reported by Levy, Murphy, and Carlson (1972), Stalcup (1968), and Strieker and Ross (1964a). The proportion of agreement between the o r i g i n a l and the retest type c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than would be expected by chance. Several methods have been employed to estimate the r e l i a b i l i t y of continuous scores. Computations based on continuous scores are somewhat higher than estimates of type-category r e l i a b i l i t y because information i s lost when continuous scores are converted to dichotomous categories. To examine the r e l i a b i l i t y of continuous scores, Myers (1962) devised a s p l i t - h a l f procedure involving Pearson product-moment correla t i o n s , Webb (1964) used a s p l i t - h a l f procedure sim i l a r to Myers' method and Strieker and Ross (1963) used Cronbach's c o e f f i c i e n t alpha. The three methods have yielded similar r e s u l t s , with reported c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from .76 to .82 (E-I), .75 to .87 (S-N), .69 to .86 (T-F), and .80 to .84 (J-P). Since Carlyn's (1977) review, several other r e l i a b i l i t y studies have been conducted. Carskadon (1979c) reported test -retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s for Form G of the MBTI. Across , seven week int e r v a l s , the four scales yielded r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s 36 ranging from .48 to .84 for continuous scores. Howes and Carskadon (1979) investigated the r e l i a b i l i t y of Form G as a function of both time and mood changes. R e l i a b i l i t i e s of test-retest continuous scores ranged from .78 to .87 and suggested no s i g n i f i c a n t differences as a function of the mood manipulations. They also found that the greater the preference score, the lower the li k e l i h o o d of type change upon retest. A recent study by McCaulley and Carskadon (1983) reported that across a l l items for the four subscales of Form G, r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for continuous scores ranged from .77 (TF index) to .89 (JP index). In summary, there are r e l a t i v e l y few studies published on the r e l i a b i l i t y of the MBTI. Nevertheless, of the studies available, reasonable internal consistency of each of the four scales and s t a b i l i t y of scores across several months has been demonstrated. V a l i d i t y of the MBTI The v a l i d i t y of the MBTI i s dependent on how well i t measures what i t was intended to measure: the theoretical constructs of Jung's personality typology. Three types of v a l i d i t y are examined: content v a l i d i t y , predictive v a l i d i t y , and construct va 1 id i ty. Considerable evidence for the Indicator's content v a l i d i t y i s found in Myers (1962). Bradway (1964) provided grounds for content v a l i d i t y in a study involving 28 Jungian analysts. The analysts were instructed to c l a s s i f y themselves according to the four type — categories and comparisons were made between s e l f -typing and MBTI typing. Results indicated that there was 1007. agreement on the E-I c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , 687. agreement on the S-N 37 c 1 assi -f i c a t i o n , 617. agreement on the T-F c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and 437. agreement on a l l three dimensions. Strieker and Ross (1964b> compared continuous scores received on the MBTI with those derived -from the Gray-Wheelwright Questionnaire (Gray and Wheelwright, 1946), another instrument designed to i d e n t i f y Jungian types. The two E-I scales showed a .79 c o r r e l a t i o n , the S-N scales exhibited a .58 c o r r e l a t i o n , and the T-F scales showed a .60 c o r r e l a t i o n . A l l three correlations were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , and lend support to Myers' contention that "both tests are r e f l e c t i n g the same basic r e a l i t i e s , that i s , the Jungian opposites which both were designed to r e f l e c t " (1962, p. 22) . Several studies have explored the Indicators a b i l i t y to predict choice of major and success in college (Conary, 1966; Goldschmid, 1967; and Strieker et a l . , 1965). These studies concluded that the Indicator has moderate predictive v a l i d i t y in certain areas. Numerous studies of construct v a l i d i t y suggest that individual scales of the MBTI measure important dimensions of personality s i m i l a r to those postulated by Jung (Myers, 1962; Richek and Brown, 1968; Ross, 1966; Strieker and Ross, 1962; and Webb, 1964). Most impressive i s the work of Carskadon (1979), in which those emerging as extraverts on the MBTI were found to exhibit a variety of behaviors i n d i c a t i v e of extraversion (e.g., less physical distance, more talkativeness, better r e c a l l of other person's names). Intertest c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies have been carried out between 38 the MBTI and a) The Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire (Wake-field, Sasek , Brubaker, and Friedman, 1976), b) Rotter's (1966) locus of control scale ( E l l i o t and Hardy, 1977), c) Harvey's "This I Believe" test (Carskadon and Knudson, 1978), d) Kelley's Role Construct Repertory Test (Carlson, 1980), and e> the Bern Sex Role Inventory (Padgette, Cook, Nunley, and Carskadon, 1982). The results from these studies are in the di r e c t i o n of theory and thus give credence to the construct v a l i d i t y of the instrument. THE CHILD - REARING PRACTICES REPORT Block's (1965) Child - Rearing Practices Report (CRPR) i s a s e l f descriptive instrument which consists of 91 items designed to measure parental child-rearing attitudes and values. The items which constitute the CRPR were derived from three sources. F i r s t , empirical observations were made of mothers interacting with their children in d i f f e r e n t structured experimental sit u a t i o n s . I terns that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d groups of mothers with d i f f e r e n t c h i l d -handling techniques according to an inverse p r i n c i p l e components factor analysis were i d e n t i f i e d and rephrased in a form suitable for s e l f administration. Second, items were extracted from the s o c i a l i z a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e . Third, a series of discussions with colleagues from Europe resulted in further items. In i t s f i n a l form, the CRPR i s comprised of "91 s o c i a l i z a t i o n relevant statements that are administered in a Q-sort format with a forced-choice, seven step d i s t r i b u t i o n " (Block, 1965, p.3). There are two forms of the instrument: a) a f i r s t person form which i s completed by mothers and fathers and b) a third person 39 form that young people use to describe the child-rearing orientations of their mothers and/or fathers. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that in an attempt to encourage more precise descriptions of child-rearing attitudes and values, the items are phrased in the active voice (e.g., I do, I ask, I believe) and stress a behavioral orientation (Block, 1965). R e l i a b i l i t y of The CRPR R e l i a b i l i t y of the CRPR, using the Q-sort form of administration, has been examined in two tes t - r e t e s t studies. In one study (Block, 1965), 90 students enrolled in a c h i l d psychology course described their child-rearing philosophies using the CRPR at the beginning of the course and again at i t s completion, eight months la t e r . The average co r r e l a t i o n between the two administrations was .71 (range= .38 to .85; sigma= .10). In the second study by Block (1970), 66 Peace Corps volunteers used the CRPR to describe the child-rearing attitudes of both their parents on two occasions within a three year i n t e r v a l . The cross time correlations ranged from .04 to .85 (median= .54) for maternal descriptions and .13 to .85 (median= .53) for paternal descriptions. The cross—time correlations in both studies suggest reasonable s t a b i l i t y for both forms of the CRPR. However, more research must attempt to discern the r e l i a b i l i t y of this instrument. Despite e f f o r t s to make directions clear and understandable regarding how to Q-sort items, participants often become confused and frustrated with the process and f a i l to 40 complete the study. Furthermore, such a format i s time consuming. For these reasons the author chose to use a l i k e r t format of the CRPR si m i l a r to that devised by Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982). Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) contend that a l i k e r t format of the CRPR f a c i l i t a t e s administration and interpretation of the scale, without impeding i t s r e l i a b i l i t y . In the Rickel and B i a s a t t i study two factors were determined by analysis of the guestionnaire using the Li k e r t type format: Restrictiveness and Nurturance. Forty items of the o r i g i n a l 91 loaded on the i d e n t i f i e d two factors. Two of the three samples employed the Li k e r t s t y l e format and yielded Cronbach's alphas ranging from .82 to .85 for the Restrictiveness factor and .84 to .85 for the Nurturance factor. The third sample employed the Q—sort format and produced a Cronbach's alpha of .61 for the Restrictiveness factor and .73 for the Nurturance factor. Thus, i t seems that r e l i a b i l i t y i s not r e s t r i c t e d by a Li k e r t s t y l e form of admin i s t r a t i o n . For the purpose of this study, the author has discarded 27 items from the CRPR ( f i r s t person form for parents) which were not relevant to this investigation. The 64 items retained from the o r i g i n a l 91 items are reported by Block (1965) to sample the following areas; a) openness of expression, b) achievement, c) inconsistency, d) modes and degree of control, e) supervision of the c h i l d , f) negative a f f e c t toward the c h i l d , g) encouragement of independence in the c h i l d , h) open expression of aff e c t towards the c h i l d , i ) rational guiding of the c h i l d , j) enjoyment of the parental role, k) over investment in the c h i l d , 1) punishment, m) protectiveness of the c h i l d , and n) parental 41 maintenance of separate l i v e s . This modified form was administered in a 6-point L i k e r t type scale. Consistent with the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study, the scale ranged from 1 = not at a l l descriptive of me to 6 = highly descriptive of me. V a l i d i t y of the CRPR In determining construct v a l i d i t y of the CRPR, Block (1965) was concerned with the degree to which parental s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s of child-rearing behaviors r e f l e c t actual parental behaviors v i s -a-vis their children. Therefore, Block examined the relationship between s e l f - r e p o r t as indexed by the CRPR responses and actual maternal behaviors toward the c h i l d in three structured si t u a t i o n s designed to assess achievement emphasis, modes and degree of control, and independence t r a i n i n g . Results from t h i s study exemplified the behavioral relevance of the CRPR (Block, 1965). While the CRPR i s a new instrument in need of further v a l i d a t i o n a l studies, the existing evidence suggests enough promise for research investigations. FACES 1 1 1 FACES III, an acronym for Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, was developed by Olson, Portner, and Lavee (1985) to measure cohesion and adaptability — the two primary dimensions which constitute the Circumplex Model (Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1983). FACES III i s a newly developed 20-item scale from items used in the national survey of 1000 "normal families" (Olson et a l . , 1983). It provides an assessment of how 42 individuals perceive their -family system and also their ideal family descriptions. The scores on cohesion and adaptability can be plotted onto the Circumplex Model to specify the type of system they perceive and would l i k e to experience. The difference between the actual and the ideal scores also provide a family s a t i s f a c t i o n score which suggests how s a t i s f i e d individuals are with their current family system regardless of their family type. For th i s study, only information concerning how individuals presently perceive their family system was sought. The Circumplex Model permits the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of 16 types of family systems by s p l i t t i n g both the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability into four le v e l s . The two dimensions are c u r v i l i n e a r in that families that score very high or very low on both dimensions appear dysfunctional, whereas families that are more balanced (the two central areas) appear to function more e f f e c t i v e l y (Olson, 1986). The 16 types can be broken down into three more general types: Balanced, Mid-range, and Extreme. Balanced types are the four central ones that are balanced on both dimensions. Mid-range types are those that score extreme on one dimension, but balanced on the other. Extreme types are those that score extreme on both dimensions (Olson, 1986). FACES III was included in th i s study with the intention that the cohesion and adaptability subscales might a s s i s t in the understanding of d i f f e r e n t parenting s t y l e s . R e l i a b i l i t y of FACES 111 With respect to internal consistency, items which constitute 43 the cohesion dimension showed a .77 co r r e l a t i o n , items which comprise the adaptability dimension exhibited a .62 co r r e l a t i o n , and a l l items showed a .68 c o r r e l a t i o n . Although there i s no information on the test retest r e l i a b i l i t y o-f FACES III r e l i a b i l i t i e s of test retest for FACES II (4 - 5 weeks) are reasonable, .83 for cohesion and .80 for adaptability (Olson, 1986). V a l i d i t y of FACES 111 Olson (1986) claimed there i s very good evidence for face and content v a l i d i t y of FACES III. He also argues that there i s excellent data to suggest that FACES III discriminates between g roups. According to Olson (1986), FACES III overcomes most of the limit a t i o n s of FACES II. In FACES II, cohesion and adaptability were highly correlated with each other, with s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and with marital and family s a t i s f a c t i o n . Cohesion and adaptability in FACES III are orthogonal (r= .03). Furthermore, the co r r e l a t i o n between adaptability and so c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y has been reduced to zero (r= .00) with some correlation between so c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and cohesion (r= .39). PROCEDURE The parents who participated in the study were asked to complete a battery of tests that included the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (Form G>, several subscales of The Child-Rearing Practices Report, and FACES III. In addition, pertinent 44 demographic information was s o l i c i t e d . Parents were requested to complete the guestionnaire package within one week and leave i t at the assigned 'drop off'1ocation. Parents were instructed to work on the guestionnaires independently. They were not directed to complete the instruments in a p a r t i c u l a r order. Each questionnaire provided a clear and concise set of instructions ( see Appendix B). ANALYSIS Results were analyzed in two major ways. F i r s t , to d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t y l e s of parenting, a cl u s t e r analysis of the 64 items taken from The Block Child Rearing Practices Report was employed. That i s , using a hierarchical grouping analysis items that seemed to be measuring si m i l a r childrearing attitudes and behaviors were grouped together. These groups are referred to as c l u s t e r s . The computer program used i s c a l l e d UBC C6R0UP (Lai, 1982) which i s a s e l f contained program written in Fortran IV. CGROUP i s a clustering technique that compares a series of score p r o f i l e s over a series of keys and, progressively, associates them into groups in such a way as to minimize an overall estimate of variation within these groups... In each of a series of steps CBROUP combines some pair of groups, thus reducing the number of groups by one in each step. The c r i t e r i o n to determine which pair i s to be combined i s established on a basis of p r o f i l e s i m i l a r i t y where the tot a l within—group variation i s the function to be minimally increased at each step in the process (Lai, 1982, p . l ) . The clu s t e r s were then subjected to an item analysis in an e f f o r t to examine the guality of each test item. The computer program used i s c a l l e d LERTAP. LERTAP computes the product moment corre l a t i o n of each item with i t s subtest and tot a l test scores. 45 It also computes a Hoyt analysis of variance to provide an estimate o-f test r e l i a b i l i t y . A canonical correlation was u t i l i z e d to determine the patterns of relationship between the c r i t e r i o n variables (parenting styles) and the four predictor variables drawn from the MBTI: EI index, SN index, TF index, and the JP index. Second, to d i f f e r e n t i a t e type of personality, a cluster analysis of the personality type scores based on the combination of a l l four indices was employed. The CGROUP clustering technique was used for t h i s analysis also. The c l u s t e r s were then subjected to an item analysis. Once again, the computer program used was LERTAP. F i n a l l y , c l u s t e r s with reasonable internal consistency were subjected to one way analysis of variance in order to determine the differences between the various personality types and parenting s t y l e s . 46 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS EXTRACTION OF CLUSTERS To d i f f e r e n t i a t e s t y l e o-f parenting, a clus t e r analysis of the 64 items retained from the o r i g i n a l 91 items of The Block Child Rearing Practices Report was employed. Examination of clust e r solutions ranging from 1 to 8 indicated that the three clus t e r solution was the most interpretab1e. The three cluster solution was chosen as appropriate for two reasons. F i r s t , through the procedure of examining the values of the fusion or amalgamation c o e f f i c i e n t ( i . e . the numerical value at which various cases merge to form a cl u s t e r , Aldenderfer and Bla s h f i e l d , 1984), a s i g n i f i c a n t jump between the three- and two-clust e r solutions was discovered. This jump in the value of the c o e f f i c i e n t implies that two r e l a t i v e l y d i s s i m i l a r c l u s t e r s have been merged; thus the number of clust e r s prior to the merger (3) i s the most probable solution. Second, two raters were asked to independently sort the 64 items into groups. They were instructed to make note of the construct or theme which influenced their decisions to place items into d i f f e r e n t groups. Each rater sorted the 64 items into three groups which clo s e l y resembled the three cl u s t e r s which emerged through cl u s t e r analysis. The raters i d e n t i f i e d a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system based on three themes which seemed apparent in the items; nurturance, control, and overprotectiveness. 47 However, when the three cl u s t e r solution was subjected to an item analysis the results indicated that only 2 of the 3 cluste r s demonstrated high internal consistency. Conseguently, only the two adequately r e l i a b l e c l u s t e r s were used for the remainder of the study. The 20 items which constituted cl u s t e r 1 were reported by Block (1965) to sample the following areas; a) encouraging openness of expression, b) open expression of a f f e c t , c) encouraging independence, d) enjoyment of the parental role, and e) rational guiding of the c h i l d . It i s important to note that 16 of the 20 items in cluster 1 were represented in the 18 item subscale which constituted Factor 2 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study. Factor 2 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study was labeled nurturance. They argued that the items in Factor 2 represen ted an endorsement of f l e x i b l e childrearing attitudes and practices. The items show the willingness of parents to l i s t e n to and share feelings and experiences with their children (1982, p. 132). Table 1 provides examples of items which i l l u s t r a t e the s i m i l a r i t y between cluster 1 in the present study and factor 2 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study. 48 Tab 1 e 1_ 11 l u s t r a t i v e I tem Simi l a r i t y for Nurturance Present Study Rickel & B i a s a t t i  Item-Scale (1982) Study I terns Correlation Fac tor Loadings I express my af f e c t i o n by hugging, kissing, and holding my c h i l d . 0.57 0.53 I joke and play with my c h i l d . 0.58 0.61 I encourage my c h i l d to talk about his/her troubles 0.61 0.63 Given the s i m i l a r i t y between items which comprised Factor 2 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study and items which comprised clu s t e r 1 in th i s study, c l u s t e r 1 was also labeled nurturance. The fact that a positive relationship (r= .44) was discerned between cl u s t e r 1 and cohesion from the FACES III inventory lends credence to the label's v a l i d i t y . The higher the score on cluster 1 the more l i k e l y the family i s to be high in cohesion. The 20 items which constituted c l u s t e r 2 were reported by Block (1965) to sample the following areas; a) emphasis on achievement, b) parental inconsistency, c) authoritarian control, d) negative a f f e c t toward the c h i l d , e) control by g u i l t induction, f) over investment in the c h i l d , g) parental maintenance of separate l i v e s , h) over protectiveness of the c h i l d . Nine of the 20 items which comprised cl u s t e r 2 were present in Factor 1 of the Rickel and B i a s a t t i study. Many of the d i f f e r e n t items which comprised Factor 1 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i study were items not chosen to be part of the 64 item pool chosen for th i s study. The items that comprised Factor 1 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study represented control related 49 aspects of childrearing attitudes and practices. S i m i l a r i l y , items which comprised cl u s t e r 2 showed a need for parents to control the way their c h i l d behaves and f e e l s . The items showed a general disregard for the feelings of the c h i l d . Conseguent1y, cluster 2 was labeled r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s l i k e Factor 1 in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (19B2) study. Table 2 provides examples of items which i l l u s t r a t e the s i m i l a r i t y between clu s t e r 2 in the present study and factor 1, r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i (1982) study. Table 2 11lustrative I tern S i m i l a r i t y for Restrictiveness I terns I do not allow my c h i l d to question my decisions, I do not allow my c h i l d to get angry with me. I believe a c h i l d should be seen and not heard. Present Study  I tern-Scale  Corre1ation 0.58 0.40 0.48 Rickel & B i a s a t t i (1982) Study  Factor Loadings 0.41 0. 40 0. 40 The relationship between cl u s t e r 2 and cohesion suggested that the more r e s t r i c t i v e the parent in his/her s t y l e of parenting the more l i k e l y the family i s to be low in cohesion. RELIABILITY For the purpose of t h i s study items taken from The Child Rearing Practices Report were adeguately discriminant (see Table 1). High internal consistency was demonstrated for parenting s t y l e #1 and moderate internal consistency was demonstrated for parenting s t y l e #2. For parenting s t y l e #1, mean 50 scores ranged -from 4.20 to 5.44 with standard deviation scores ranging from 0.86 to 2.00. Individual item scale correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.61 (median= 0.46). For parenting s t y l e #2, mean scores ranged from 2.59 to 5.68 with standard deviation scores ranging from 0.83 to 1.96. Individual item scale correlations ranged from .07 to .58 (med ian—0.30). As shown in Table 1, the item tot a l r e l i a b i l i t y analysis, when both parenting s t y l e s were collapsed into one scale indicated moderately high internal consistency, with a Hoyt Estimate of 0.74. (see Appendix C) As indicated in Table 3, moderately high internal consistency was demonstrated for a l l indices of The Myers Briggs Type Indicator except the feeling index that i s scored for females only. Moderate internal consistency was demonstrated for both subscales of the FACES III instrument. The r e l a t i v e independence of the cohesion and adaptability subscales was reflected in a Pearson co r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.12. As noted in the Methods chapter, a) middle scores on both cohesion and adaptability represent balanced family functioning; b> middle scores on one dimension and extreme scores on the other represent mid—range family functioning; and c) extreme scores on both dimensions represent extreme (unhealthy) family functioning (Olson, 1986). Consequently, a l l scores were inspected to determine i f extreme cases were present in t h i s sample. Only two of 102 subjects f e l l into the extreme category. Therefore the scores on each subscale have been interpreted according to Olson's (1986) balanced and mid-range descriptions which r e f l e c t healthy to moderately healthy family functioning. 51 TABLE 3 RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENTS Instrument The Child Rearing Practices Report ( 1 ) Cluster #1 (Nurturance) (2) Cluster #2 (Restictiveness) (3) Total Scale The Myers Briggs Type Indicator ( 1 > Extraversion (2) Introversion (3) Sensing (4) Intuition (5) Thinking (males) (6) Feeling (ma1es) (7) Thinking (f ema1es) (8) Feeling ( f ema 1 es > (9) Judgment (10) Perception FACES 11 I (1) Cohesion (2> Adaptability No. of R e l i a b i 1 i t y N I terns (Hoyt Estimate) 102 20 0.84 102 20 0.71 102 40 0.74 Re l i a b i 1 i t y  (Cronbach Alpha) 102 19 0.78 102 19 0.77 102 24 0.84 102 16 0.79 31 20 0.67 31 14 0.71 71 20 0.69 71 14 0.50 102 20 0.77 102 22 0.77 102 10 0.66 102 10 0.69 52 CANONICAL CORRELATION ANALYSIS Prior to conducting the canonical c o r r e l a t i o n , the correlations among the parenting and personality scales were examined (see Appendix D). As can be seen in Appendix D, the correlations between the parenting clusters were very low making them suitable -for canonical correlation analysis. S i m i l a r l y , correlations among the -four interlocking dimensions of personality were low, except for the sensing - i n t u i t i o n index and the judging - perceiving index which i s consistent with previous investigations. However, since this c o r r e l a t i o n was not high (r=.45), i t did not warrant special procedures before conducting the canonical c o r r e l a t i o n . Paren ting sty 1es. From the canonical variable loadings reported in Table 4, canonical variate #1 combines high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s and moderate nurturance. The opposite canonical variate i s a combination of low r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s ( i . e . permissiveness) and moderate aloofness or emotiona1/physica1 distance. Parents manifesting high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s are those that support statements l i k e 'I do not allow my c h i l d to get angry with me', 'I teach my c h i l d to keep control of his/her feelings at a l l times', and 'I prefer that my c h i l d not try things i f there i s a chance he/she w i l l f a i l ' . Parents moderate on nurturance are those that support statements l i k e , 'I respect my c h i l d ' s opinions and encourage him/her to express them', 'I feel a c h i l d should be given comfort and understanding when he/she i s scared or hurt', and 'My c h i l d and I have warm, intimate times together'. 53 Canonical variate #2 combines high nurturance and moderate permissiveness. The converse o-f thi s canonical variate i s a comb-ination of low nurturance and moderate r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s . Parents manifesting high nurturance are those that are respectful, supportive, openly express their feelings and encourage their children to do the same. Statements they feel are completely descriptive of them include; 'I express my aff e c t i o n by hugging, kissing, and holding my c h i l d ' , 'I usually take into account my ch i l d ' s preferences in making plans for the family', and "I encourage my c h i l d to talk about his/her troubles'. Parents moderate on permissiveness support statements l i k e "I often feel angry with my c h i l d ' , 'I do not allow my c h i l d to question my decisions', and 'I believe i t i s unwise to l e t children play alot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups'. Table 4 Canonical Variable Loadings for Parenting Styles Clusters Canonical Variate Canonical Variate ttl #2 Nurturance 0.553 0.833 Restrietiveness 0.857 -0.515 Persona 1i ty types. From the canonical variable loadings reported in Table 5, canonical variate #1 i s defined primarily as a combination of high sensing (low i n t u i t i o n ) and moderate introversion. The converse canonical variate i s primarily a combination of high i n t u i t i o n and moderate extraversion. An individual manifesting high sensing would rather be considered a 54 'practical person' than an 'ingenious person', 'teach fact courses' as opposed to 'courses involving theory', and would rather 'support the established methods of doing good' than 'analyze what i s s t i l l wrong and attack unsolved problems'. An individual manifesting moderate introversion tends to be rather 'quiet and reserved' as opposed to 'a good mixer'and 'gets introduced'more often than 'introduces others' when in a large group. When the moderately introverted person i s with a group of people, he/she would usually rather 'talk with one person at a time' than 'join in the talk of the group'. Canonical variate #2 i s defined primarily as a combination of high perception and moderate extraversion. The converse canonical variate i s primarily a combination of high judgement and moderate introversion. An individual manifesting high perception, when going somewhere for the day, would rather 'just go' than 'plan what he/she w i l l do and when', finds following a schedule 'cramps' rather than 'appeals' to him/her, and when he/she has a special job to do prefers to 'find out what i s necessary as he/she goes along' as opposed to 'organizing i t c a r e f u l l y before he/she s t a r t s ' . An individual manifesting moderate extraversion, when among his/her friends tends to be ' f u l l of news about everybody' rather than 'one of the last to hear', tends to 'talk e a s i l y to almost anyone for as long as he/she has to' as opposed to finding 'a lot to say only to certain people or under certain circumstances', and at parties usually'always has fun' as opposed to 'sometimes getting bored'. 55 Table 5 Canonica1 Variable Loadings for Persona1ity Type  Patterns Canonical Variate #1 Canon ica1 Variate #2 Extraversion/  Introversion -0.441 0.523 Sensing/  Intuition 0.882 -0.102 Thinking/  Feelinq 0.292 0.352 Judging/ 0.214 -0.739 Perception Canonical corre1ations. As i s indicated in Table 6, linear combinations of personality variables correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with linear combinations of parenting variables. The strong c o r r e l a t i o n in Table 6, (r=0.398) indicates that canonical variate #1 for parenting correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y with canonical variate #1 for personality. Rather then refer to these as canonical variates, for the purpose of c l a r i t y they w i l l be referred to as parenting s t y l e and personality type. This c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that parents who are strong on sensing and moderately introverted tend to employ a parenting s t y l e that i s highly r e s t r i c t i v e and moderately nurturant. For exploratory reasons, the researcher employed a 0.10 c r i t e r i o n for the second canonical c o r r e l a t i o n to be certain that a real finding i s not dismissed. Future studies can be aimed at confirming t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . The weaker correlation (r=0.251) suggests that canonical variate #2 for parenting correlates with canonical variate #2 for personality. This c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that parents who are strong on perceiving and moderately extraverted 56 tend to employ a parenting s t y l e that i s highly nurturing and much less r e s t r i c t i v e . Table 6 Canonica1 Corre1ation: Parenting Style Patterns With  Persona1ity Type Patterns Canonical Number o-f Bart l e t t ' s Test For Eigenva1ue Corre1ation Eigenvalues Remaining Eiqenvalues Chi- T a i l Sguare D.F. Prob. 0.15805 0.39756 23.10 8 0.003 0.06278 0.25056 6.32 3 0.097 EXTENDED ANALYSIS Persona1ity types• A cl u s t e r analysis was performed for the 102 subjects. As input for the cl u s t e r analysis the four index scores for each person from The Myers Briggs Type Indicator were recorded. The cl u s t e r analysis was intended to uncover patterns among these scores. Cluster solutions ranging from 1 to 10 were examined indicating the 6 cl u s t e r solution to be most interpretable. The 6 group solution was chosen as the most appropriate because a s i g n i f i c a n t jump in the amalgamation c o e f f i c i e n t occurred between the s i x - and f i v e - c l u s t e r solution which indicated that two r e l a t i v e l y d i s s i m i l a r c l u s t e r s had been merged. Therefore, the number of clu s t e r s prior to the merger (6> i s the most probable solution. To portray these personality types, the percentage of people within each group who scored in a given d i r e c t i o n was examined. Personality type #1 (N=15> was defined primarily by 57 •feeling (100'/.) rather than thinking, judging (1007.) rather than perception, and introversion (877.) rather than extraversion (137.). The sensing-intuition (737./277.) index was less discriminant. For the most part, this personality type includes people who generally engage with the world through fe e l i n g , judgment, and introversion. Personality type #2 (N=19) was defined primarily by i n t u i t i o n (907.) rather than sensing (107.), and thinking (907.) rather than feeling (107.). The ex traversion-in troversion (427./5B7. > index and the judgment-perception (427.Z587. > index were not discriminant. This group seems to include people who prefer to interact with the world using their i n t u i t i o n and thinking. Personality type #3 (N=9> was defined primarily by extraversion (1007.) rather than introversion, judgement (1007.) rather than perception, and feeling (897.) rather than thinking (117.). The sensing-intuition (227-/787.) index was moderately discriminant. For the most part, t h i s group seems to include people who choose to engage with the world through extraversion, judging, and f e e l i n g . Personality type #4 (N=27) was defined primarily by sensing (1007.) rather than i n t u i t i o n . The j udging-perception index (787./227.) and the ex traversion-in troversion (747./267.) index were moderately discriminant. The thinking-feeling (S67./447.) index was not discriminant. Thus, this group seems to include people who prefer to interact with the world using their sensing preference. Personality type #5 (N=16> was defined primarily by introversion (947.) rather than extraversion (67.) and judging (947. > 58 rather than perception (6V.). The sensing-intuition (757./25X) index and the thinking-feeling (757./257. > index were moderately discriminant. For the most part, this group seems to include people who choose to engage with the world using introversion and judgment. Unlike personality type #1, th i s type tends to prefer sensing and thinking rather than sensing and f e e l i n g . Personality type #6 (N=15) was defined primarily by feeling (1007.) rather than thinking, perception (937.) rather than judging (77.), and i n t u i t i o n (877.) rather than sensing (137.). The ex traversion-in troversion (737-/27"/) index was moderately discriminant. Thus, th i s group seems to include people who prefer to interact with the world using their f e e l i n g , perception, and i n t u i t i o n . Personality types and paren ting. Given that six d i f f e r e n t personality types emerged their implications for parenting s t y l e and family functioning were examined. As indicated in Table 7, the six personality types established the basis for six c e l l s ' in a one way analysis of variance on parenting and family functioning scores. The scores used for parenting s t y l e were the mean sum tota l scores for nurturance and r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s discerned from The Block Child Rearing Practices Report. The scores used for family functioning were the mean sum tota l scares for cohesion and adaptability taken from the FACES III inventory. In the f i r s t one— way analysis of variance concerned with nurturance there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t . A Duncan's Multiple Range Test showed that the s i g n i f i c a n t difference was att r i b u t a b l e mainly to the differences between personality #4 and personality #1, and between personaltiy #4 and personality #6, F 59 (5)= 2.56, p<.05. Parents who seem to be characterized by personality type #4 perceive themselves as employing a parenting s t y l e which i s less nurturing than do parents who seem to be characterized by personality type #1 or #6. In the second one—way analysis of variance concerned with r e s t r i c tiveness there was no main ef-fect. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between personality types. In the third one—way analysis of variance concerned with cohesion there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t . A Duncan's Multiple Range Test showed that the s i g n i f i c a n t difference was attrib u t a b l e mainly to the differences between personality type #4 and personality type #1, between personality type #4 and personality type #6, between personality type #2 and personality type #1, and between personality type #2 and personality type #6, F (5>= 3.19, p.<.05. Parents who seem to be characterized by personality type #2, #4, and #5 perceive themselves as belonging to less cohesive families (separated) than do parents who seem to be characterized by personality type #1, #3, or #6. In the fourth one-way analysis of variance concerned with adaptability there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t . A Duncan's Multiple Range Test showed that the s i g n i f i c a n t difference was attrib u t a b l e mainly to the differences between personality type #4 and personality type #5, and between personality type #4 and personality type #6, F (5)= 2.48, p<.05. Parents who seem to be characterized by personality type #4 perceive themselves as belonging to more adaptable families. They are considered 'structured' in their adaptability (Olson, 1986). Parents who 60 seem to be characterized by the other f i v e personality types perceive themselves as less adaptable. They are considered ' f l e x i b l e ' in their adaptability (Olson, 1986). Table 7 Mean Parenting and Family Functioning Scores For Each  Persona1ity Type Grouping Groups Parenting and Fami1y Functioning Variables Nurturance Restric tiveness Cohesion Adaptabi1i ty 1 101.529 42.812 41.823 24.823 2 95.353 40.263 38.833 24.632 3 99.125 39.000 41.125 26.000 4 91.720 41.296 38.269 23.630 5 96.875 46.600 39.500 27.875 6 102.600 38.769 42.267 27.667 61 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s of this study indicate that a relationship exists between a parent's personality type and his/her parenting s t y l e . Two personality types were linked with two s t y l e s of parenting. The stronger association was found for parents whose personality type i s characterized primarily by a combination of introversion and sensing. This personality type tends to employ a s t y l e of parenting marked by high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s and moderate nurturance. Ty p i c a l l y , parents of t h i s personality type may be slow to try something without understanding i t f i r s t , l i k e to set their own standards, d i s l i k e new problems unless there are standard ways to solve them, and enjoy using s k i l l s already learned rather than learning new ones. With respect to their s t y l e of parenting, they are l i k e l y to be highly contolling toward their children's attitudes and behaviors, believe physical punishment to be the best way of d i s c i p l i n i n g , and argue that scolding and c r i t i c i s m make their c h i l d improve. At the same time, these parents, on ocassion, are prepared to l i s t e n to and share feelings and experiences with their children in a r e l a t i v e l y nurturing way. The second relationship was not as strong, but there was a tendency for parents whose personality type i s characterized primarily by a combination of extraversion and perceiving to employ a s t y l e of parenting marked by high nurturance and moderate permissiveness. T y p i c a l l y , parents of t h i s personality type l i k e action and variety, act guickly sometimes without much 62 re-flection, l i k e to stay f l e x i b l e and avoid fixed plans, deal e a s i l y with unplanned and unexpected happenings, and l i v e by making changes to deal with problems as they come along. With respect to their s t y l e of parenting, they are l i k e l y to be r e l a t i v e l y non—punitive, open in receiving and giving a f f e c t i o n , allow t h e i r children time to loaf and daydream, and encourage the i r children to explore and question things. There was no association found between to t a l personality type, which would have included a combination of one of each of the four interlocking dimensions, and parenting s t y l e . However, when parents were grouped according to their entire personality type, differences did emerge with respect to nurturance, cohesion, and adaptability. S p e c i f i c a l l y , parents who manifested personality types characterized by a combination of f e e l i n g , perceiving,and i n t u i t i o n , or judging and introversion perceived themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nurturing towards their children than did parents who manifested a personality type characterized primarily by sensing. Parents who manifested personality types characterized by a combination of i n t u i t i o n and thinking, or introversion and judging, or sensing perceive themselves as belonging to less cohesive families than do parents who manifest personality types characterized by a combination of f e e l i n g , judging,and introversion, or extraversion, judging, and f e e l i n g , or f e e l i n g , perceiving and i n t u i t i o n . The one personality dimension that parents who perceive themselves as belonging to more cohesive or connected families have in common i s the feeling dimension. 63 LIMITATIONS U n t i l further v e r i f i e d and extended, the findings should be evaluated in terms of the population of men and women from which the sample was drawn. The subjects were parents who to a large extent were a c t i v e l y involved with t h e i r childen through the school system or community. Mothers were more highly represented (N=71> than were fathers (N—31). Also, the average age of the parents ( 38 years) prevented an exploration of the re l a t i o n s h i p between personality type and parenting s t y l e for the younger and more mature parent. This i s of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e because Jung believes that the personality dimensions are continually developing. Furthermore, the small sample size (N=102) made i t impossible to attain an adequate representation of each of the sixteen personality types. Therefore, clear differences in parenting s t y l e between personality types were clouded or l o s t . As a second gua1ification, i t i s important to note that although the strategy of c l u s t e r analysis i s 'structure seeking' i t s application i s 'structure imposing'. Aldenderfer and B l a s h f i e l d (1984) argue that d i f f e r e n t clustering methods may put the same objects into very d i f f e r e n t groups. Therefore, when using c l u s t e r analysis i t i s important to know when these groups are genuine and not simply forced upon the data by the method. The two c l u s t e r s discerned in t h i s study demonstrated face v a l i d i t y and were s i m i l a r to Rickel and B i a s a t t i ' 5 (1982) resu l t s with factor analysis. Nevertheless, future studies must duplicate these findings to improve confidence. 64 As a third q u a l i f i c a t i o n , i t should be noted that because only 40 of the 91 items of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report were retained for th i s study, the instrument , in i t s modified form, i s e s s e n t i a l l y new and requires further confirmation of i t s v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . It i s also important to recognize that the 40 items do not measure extremely permissive or extremely punitive parenting attitudes and practices. Refinement of th i s inventory to make i t sensitive to these areas would be important i f researchers are to capture a complete picture of the d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s of parenting. F i n a l l y , people do not always act in ways that are congruent with the attitudes and b e l i e f s they espouse. It i s d i f f i c u l t to determine to what extent the childrearing attitudes endorsed by parents, in fact, r e f l e c t the way they truly interact with their children. Direct observation of parent-child involvement over time in addition to the attitude inventory would l i k e l y shed some l i g h t on th i s issue. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS The major theoretical contribution from t h i s study i s that parenting s t y l e and family functioning can be regarded as extensions of parental personality. In part, this study also suggests that parents who manifest personality types that emphasize feeling tend to be more nurturing, and belong to families that are more cohesive and adaptable than do other personality types defined less by f e e l i n g . Of the two parenting sty l e s discerned in th i s study, the one 65 characterized by high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s and moderate nurturance seems to -fall somewhere between Baumrind' s (1967) authoritarian and authoritative c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s p a r a l l e l s the authoritarian s t y l e , but the moderate nurturance resembles the authoritative s t y l e . This finding suggests that high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s does not imply a parenting s t y l e void of nurturance. It i s important to note that previous studies (Block, 1955; Lynn, 1961; and Zuckerman and Oltean, 1959) aimed at examining the relationship between the parent's personality and his/her c h i l d rearing attitudes and practices have focused on independent dimensions of personality and independent dimensions of parenting. This study i s a unigue attempt to explore how the parents complete personality type a f f e c t s and interacts with his/her general s t y l e of parenting, which i s ultimately a combination of many c h i l d rearing dimensions. The results of t h i s study lend support to Block's (1955) findings. The introverted ,sensing personality type who employs a parenting s t y l e characterized, in part, by high restrietiveness i s s i m i l a r to the constricted, over—controlled, conforming father in Block's study who also expresses r e s t r i c t i v e attitudes towards c h i l d rearing. The extraverted, perceiving personality type who employs a parenting s t y l e characterized , in part, by moderate permissiveness i s s i m i l a r to the f l e x i b l e , stable, persuasive father in Block's study who expresses permissive attitudes toward c h i l d rearing. Lynn's (1961) findings were supported and extended by the present study. Introverted and neurotic mothers, in the Lynn 66 study, were more w i l l i n g to use greater degrees of physical punishment when dealing with the aggressive behavior of their children. Introverted parents, in this study, also employed a parenting s t y l e marked, in part, by high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s which includes a b e l i e f that physical punishment i s the best way of d i s c i p l i n i n g . Both studies also found that extraverted parents tend to express permissive attitudes towards c h i l d rearing. The results from both studies are , in d i r e c t opposition to Eysenck's theory linking aggressiveness with extraversion. In these two studies, there was an exception to the general non-aggressiveness of the introvert and the general aggressiveness of the extravert. The results of the present study also lend support to Rickel and B i a s a t t i ' s (1982) findings. Although the items in this study which comprised the two clusters were not i d e n t i c a l to the items which comprised the respective factors in the Rickel and B i a s a t t i study, there was considerable overlap. Additional s i m i l a r i t i e s may have emerged had the present study made use of a l l 91 items of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report instead of only 64 items. Despite the differences between the two studies, the results from both favor a modified version of the Block CRPR which embraces a two -clus t e r (factor) solution. This shortened form with a L i k e r t response format enhances the administration and interpretation of this instrument. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS These results have a number of p r a c t i c a l implications for family planning counsellors, family therapists and for group- and 67 home-based education programs that are becoming increasingly popular -for middle and lower s o c i a l status -families. The Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the modi-fied -form of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report provide information about the match between personality type and parenting s t y l e . Knowledge of the d i f f e r e n t matches would permit the helper/educator the opportunity to engage and connect with c l i e n t s in d i f f e r e n t ways and deal more e f f e c t i v e l y with resistance. This same information would a s s i s t in foster placement. If parenting s t y l e and family functioning are at least partly extensions of parental personality, helpers may be able to a l t e r family functioning by balancing aspects of personality. From a more preventative viewpoint, once the Block Child Rearing Practices Report i s revised further to include the measurement of excessive permissiveness and excessive punitiveness; i t in combination with the MBTI might provide helping professionals with information regarding which personality types may be predisposed to employing abusive c h i l d rearing practices. Early detection and intervention may increase the quality of family l i v e s . IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Based on thi s work, further research appears warranted to re p l i c a t e the present study with d i f f e r e n t populations in an e f f o r t to confirm findings and enhance genera1izabi1ity. A valuable study would be one concerned with the development of a more comprehensive instrument which measures c h i l d rearing 68 attitudes and practices. Perhaps a questionnaire comprised of scenarios r e f l e c t i n g d i f f e r e n t parent-child interactions with closed and open ended response categories would e l i c i t more information about various styles of parenting. Once a more extensive instrument of c h i l d rearing b e l i e f s and practices i s developed i t would be important to study an abusive population in an attempt to determine whether certain personality types are predisposed to adopting abusive st y l e s of parenting. This kind of information would allow for early detection and intervention and hopefully a reduction in the number of parents who resort to abusive means of intervening with their children. Direct observation of parent-child interactions would be a useful adjunct to information obtained from the typi c a l attitude inventory. This method of data c o l l e c t i o n would permit the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of alternate c h i l d rearing practices, perhaps not measured in the attitude inventory, and provide information pertaining to the congruence of parents' attitudes about raising children and their actual behavior towards their children. If the family i s considered a mutually influencing system, i t would be worthwhile expanding the present study to include measures of the c h i l d ' s personality type and his/her perception of his/her parent's s t y l e of parenting. This kind of study has the potential to provide families with valuable information about why parents with d i f f e r e n t personality types are received well or less well by their children of sim i l a r or d i f f e r e n t personality types. The potential for increased understanding and functioning of one's family i s cl e a r . 69 SUMMARY A battery of instruments which included The Myers Briggs Type Indicator, a subset of items from the Block Child Rearing Practices Report, and FACES III, was administered to a sample of 102 parents with children between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Two style s of parenting were defined on the basis of their scores on the modified form of the Block CRPR. When these two parenting s t y l e s were compared to the personality type of the parent, i t was found that parents who are introverted in their orientation to l i f e and prefer to perceive things through th e i r senses (sensing type) tend to employ a parenting s t y l e characterized by a combination of high r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s and moderate nurturance. Parents who are extraverted in their orientation to l i f e and prefer to deal with the outer world in a perceptive (perceiving type) way tend to employ a parenting s t y l e characterized by high nurturance and moderate permissiveness. Certain limitations on g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y from these findings were discussed. Implications for future research were outlined. 70 References Adorno, T.W., Frenkel—Brunswick, Else., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian persona 1ity. New York: Harper. Aldenderfer, M.S., and B l a s h f i e l d , R.K. (1984). Cluster  analysis• Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology  Monographs, 75, 43-88. Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian versus authoritative parental con t r o l . Adolescence,3, 255-272. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monographs, 4 ( 1 , Pt. 2). Becker, W.C. (1964). "Consequences of d i f f e r e n t kinds of parental d i s c i p l i n e . " In J.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (eds. ) , Review of Chi 1d Deve1opment Research, v o l . 1. New York: Russel Sage. B e l l , R. Q., and Harper, L.V. (1977). Child e f f e c t s . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Eribaum. Bender, W.N. (1987). Behavioral indicators of temperament and personality in the inactive learner. Journa1 of Learninq  D i s a b i 1 i t i e s , 20, 301-305. Block, Jack. (1955). Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated with fathers' attitudes toward c h i l d rearing. Chi 1d  Development, 26, 1, 41-48. Block, J.H. (1965). The Child-rearing Practices Report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the description of parental s o c i a l i z a t i o n attitudes and values. Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : Institute of Human Development, University of C a l i f o r n i a . In mimeo. Bradway, K. (1964). Jung's psychological types: C l a s s i f i c a t i o n by test versus c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by s e l f . Journa1 of Analytical Psychology. 9, 129-135. B r i t a i n , S.D., and Abad, M. (1974). Field-independence: A function of sex and s o c i a l i z a t i o n in Cuban and American adolescents. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention (82nd, New Orleans, Louisiana). Brophy, J.E. (1970). Mothers as teachers of their own preschool children: The influence of socioeconomic status and task structure on teaching s p e c i f i c i t y . Chi Id  Development, 41, 79-84. 71 Buss, A.H., Plomin, R., and Willerman, L. (1973). The inheritance of temperaments. Journal gf_ Persona 1 i ty , 41 , 513-524. Campbell, F.L. (1970). Family growth and variation in family role structure. Journal of Marriage and the Fami ly, 32., 45-53. Carlson, R-, and Levy, N. (1973). Studies in Jungian typology: I. Memory, so c i a l perception and s o c i a l action. Journal of  Personality. 41(4). 559-576. Carlson, R. (1980). Studies of Jungian typology: II. Representations of the personal world. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 801-810. Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journa1 of Persona 1ity Assessment, 415, 461-473. Carskadon, T.G. (1978). Uses of the Myers Briggs Type Indicator in psychology courses and discussion groups. Teaching of Psychology, 5(3), 140-142. Carskadon, T.G., and Knudson, M.L. (1978). Relationship between conceptual systems and psychological types. Psychological Reports, 42, 483-486. Carskadon, T.G. (1979). C l i n i c a l and counselling aspects of the Myers—Briggs Type Indicator: A research review. Research in Psychologica1 Type, 2, 2-31. Carskadon, T.G. (1979c). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s of continuous scores on Form G of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Research in Psychological Type, 2, 83-84. Carter, D., and Welch, D. (1981). Parenting styles and children's behavior. Family Relations, 30, 191-195. Champney, H. (1941). The measurement of parent behavior. Child Development, 12., No. 2, 131-166. Chilman, C.S. (1965). Child-rearing and family relationship patterns of the very poor. We1 fare in Review, 3, 9-19. C i c i r e l l i , V.G. (1975). E f f e c t s of mother and older s i b l i n g on the problem solving behavior of the older c h i l d . Developmental Psychology, 11, 749-756. C i c i r e l l i , V.G. (1976). Mothei—child and s i b l i n g - s i b l i n g interactions on a problem solving task. Chi Id Deve1opmen t, 47, 588-596. C i c i r e l l i , V.G. (1977). E f f e c t s of mother and older s i b l i n g on c h i l d ' s conceptual s t y l e . Journa1 of Genetic Psychology, 131. 309-318. 72 Conary, F.M. (1966). An investigation of the v a r i a b i l i t y of behavioral response of Jungian psychological types to select educational variables (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Auburn Unive r s i t y ) . Dissertation Abstracts, 26, 5222-5223. (University Microfilms No. 65-13, #898). DeNovellis, R., and Lawrence, 6.(1983). Correlates of teacher personality variables (Myers-Briggs) and classroom observation data. Research in Psychological Type. 6, 37-46. Devito, A.J. (1985). Review of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In J.V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental  measurement yearbook, volume 2 (pp. 1030-1032), Lincoln Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, Buros Institute of Mental Measurement. Dyer, W.G., and Urban, R. (1958). The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of equalitarian family norms. Marriage and Fami1y Living, 20, 53-58. Eggins, J.A. (1979). The interaction between structure in  learning materials and the persona1i ty of 1earners. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Indiana University. Elder, G.H. (1962). Structural variations in the c h i l d rearing relationship. Soc iometry. 25, 241-262. Elder, G.H. J r . , and Bowerman, C.E. (1963). Family structure and c h i l d rearing patterns: the e f f e c t of family s i z e and sex composition. American Sociological Review, 28, 891-905. E l i o t , J., and Hardy, R.C. (1977). Internality and extraversion-introversion. Perceptua1 and Motor Ski l i s , 45, 430. Fretz, B.R., and Schmidt, L.D. (1966). E f f e c t s of teacher— student s i m i l a r i t y in an educational s k i l l s program (Abstract) . Proceedings of the 74th Annua1 Convention of  the American Psychological Association, 1^, 271—272. Fu, V.R., Moran, J.D. I l l , Sawyers, J.K., and Milgram, R.M. (1983). Parental influence on c r e a t i v i t y in preschool children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 289-291. Gecas, V. (1971). Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent self-evaluation. Soc iometry, 34, 466-482. Golanty-Koel, R. (1978). The relationship of psychological types and mass media preferences to the values of non-academic high school students. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley). Dissertation Abstracts  International, 38, 4683A. (University Microfilms No. 73-29, 395) . 73 Golliday, J.M. (1975). An investigation of the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of three methods of u t i l i z i n g laboratory a c t i v i t i e s in selected topics of junior college mathematics (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of F l o r i d a , 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36 (02), 611A. (University Microfilms No. 75-16, 383) Goldschmid, M.L. (1967). Prediction of college majors by personality type. Journal of Counse 1 1 inq Psycho logy , 1_4, 302-308. Grant, W.H. (1965). Behavior of MBTI types (research  report)• Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Student Counselling Service. [Available from the Center for Applications of Psychological Type, G a i n e s v i l l e FLD Gray, H., and Wheelwright, J.B. (1946). Jung's psychological types, their freguency of occurrence. Journa1 of General  Psychology, 34, 3-17. Haber, R.A. (1980). Different strokes for d i f f e r e n t folks: Jung's typology and structured experiences. Group and  Organi zationa1 Studies, 5, 113-119. Harris, O.B., Gough, H.G., and Martin, W.E. (1950). Children's ethnic attitudes: II. Relationship to parental b e l i e f s concerning c h i l d rearing. Chi 1d Development, 21, 169-181. Hess, R.D. (1970). Social class and ethnic influences on s o c i a l i z a t i o n . In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichae1's manua1  of c h i l d psychology, 3rd Ed. Vol. 2 New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hilton, I. (1967). Differences in the behavior of mothers toward f i r s t - and later—born children. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 282-290. Hoffman, J.L. (1975). Personality relationships between supervising teachers and student teachers as determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of F l o r i d a ) . Dissertation Abstrac ts International, 36, 830A-831A. (University Microfilms No. 75-16, #393). Hoffman, J.L., Waters, K., and Berry, M. (1981). Personality types and computer assisted instruction in a self-paced technical training environment. Research in Psyc ho1og ica1  Type. 3, 81-85. Hoffman, M.L. (1960). Power assertion by the parent and i t s impact on the c h i l d . Chi Id Deve1opmen t, 31, 129-143. Howes, R.J., and Carskadon, T.G. (1979). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the scales and subscales of the Myers-74 Briggs Type Indicator as a function of mood changes. Research in Psychological Type. 2, 67-72. Hurley, J.R., and Hohn, R.L. (1971). S h i f t s in childrearing attitudes linked with parenthood and occupation. Developmental Psychology. 4, 324-32S. Jung, C.G. (1921). Psychological types (H.S. Baynes, trans.). New York: Harcourt, Brace. Jung, C.S. (1971). Psychological types. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Kilman, R.H., and Taylor, V. (1974). A contingency approach to laboratory learning: psychological types versus experimental norms. Human Relations, 27(9), S91-909. Knoop, R. (1981). Age and correlates of locus of control. Journal of Psychology. 108, 1, 103-106. Kohn, M.L. (1959). Social class and parental values. American  Journa1 of Sociology, 66, 337-351. Kohn, M.L. (1976). Social class and parental values: Another confirmation of the relationship. American Socio1ogica1  Review, 41, 538-545. L a i , C. (1982). Hierarchal grouping analysis with optional contiguity constraint. Handout: Computing Center, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Lawrence, G.D. (1982). People types and tig e r s t r i p e s (2nd ed.). Ga i n e s v i l l e , FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Lawrence, G.D. (1984). A synthesis of learning s t y l e research involving the MBTI. Journal of Psychological Type. 8, 2-15. Lerner, R.M., and Spanier, G.B. (1978). Chi Id Influences on  Marital and Fami1y Interaction. New York: Academic Press. Lesser, G.S., F i f e r , G., and Clark, C. (1965). Mental a b i l i t i e s of children from d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l class and c u l t u r a l groups. Monographs of the Society for Research in  Child Development, 30, 1-115. Levy, N., Murphy, C , J r . , and Carlson, R. (1972). Personality types among Negro college students. Educational  and Psycho1oqicaI Measurement, 32, 641-653. Lynn, R. (1961). Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the mothers of aggressive and unaggressive children. The Journa1 of  Genetic Psychology, 99, 159-164. 75 Maslow, A.H. (1943). The authoritarian character structure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 401-411. Mathis, R.W., and James, W. H. (1972). Internal-external control as an environmental variable in l i s t e n i n g . Journal  of Ex per imen ta1 Education, 40, 60-63. Mattoon, M. (1981). Jungian psyc ho1ogy in perspective. New York: The Free Press. McCaulley, M.H. (1978). Application of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to medecine and other health professions. G a i n e s v i l l e , FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type Inc. McCaulley, M.H. (1981). Jung's theory of psychological types and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In P.McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. v, (pp. 294-352). San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Inc. McCaulley, M.H. (1977). The Myers longitudinal medical study. G a i n e s v i l l e , FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. McCaulley, M.H., and Carskadon, T.G. (1983). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s of scales and subscales of the MBTI and of c r i t e r i a for c l i n i c a l i n t e r p r e t i v e hypotheses involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6, 24—36. McCaulley, M.H., and Morgan, M.K. (1982). Health professionals: C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and student se1f-assessment. In M.V. Boyles, M.K. Morgan, and M.H. McCaulley, (Eds.), The hea1th professions, (pp. 57-78). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. McCaulley, M.H., and Natter, F.L. (1974). Psychological (Myers-Briggs) type differences in education. In F.L. Natter, and S.A. R o l l i n , (Eds.), The governor's task force  on disruptive youth: Phase 11 report. Tallahassee, FL: O f f i c e of the Governor. CThis chapter available from Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Gai n e s v i l l e , FL.D McGil1icuddy-DeLisi, A.V. (1980). The role of parental b e l i e f s in the family as a system of mutual influences. Fami1y  Relations, 29, 317-323. Myers, I.B. (1962). Manual: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. [Distributed by Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.3 Myers, I.B. (1977). Supplementary manual: the MBTI• Palo Alto, C a l i f o r n i a : Consulting Psychologist Press. 76 Myers, I.B., and McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to  the development and use of. the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Nelson, D. (1980). Locus o-f control, self-esteem, and f i e l d independence as predictors of school achievement among Anglo American and Mexican American children. Hispanic Journal of  Behaviora1 Sc iences, 2, 323-335. Norusis, M.J. (1983). Introductory S t a t i s t i c s Guide SPSS:X. McGraw-Hill, Chicago, 111. Olson, D.H., McCubbin, H.I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., and Wilson, M. (1983). Fami1ies: What makes them work. Los Angeles: Sage Publishing. Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S., and Sprenkle, D.H. (1983). Circumplex Model VI: Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69-83. Olson, D.H., Portner, J., and Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III. St. Paul MN: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota. Olson, D.H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: v a l i d a t i o n studies and FACES III. Family Relations, 25, 337-351. Padgett, V., Cook, D., Nunley, M., and Carskadon, T. (1982). Psychological type, androgeny, and sex-typed roles. Research  in Psycho1ogica1 Type, 5, 69-88. Parish, T.S., and Copeland, T. F. (1980). Locus of control and father loss. Journa1 of Genetic Psyc ho1oqy, 136, 147-148. Pavenstedt, E. (1965). A comparison of the childrearing environment of upper-lower and very low—lower class families. Journa1 of Orthopsychiatry, 35, 89-98. Richek, H.G., and Brown, O.H. (1968). Phenomenological correlates of Jung's typology. Journa1 of Analytical  Psychology, 13, 57-65. Richek, H.G. (1969). Note on i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Psychological Reports, 25, 28-30. Rickel, A.U., and B i a s a t t i , L.L. (1982). Modification of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report. Journal of C I i n i c a l  Psychology, 38, No. 1, 129-134. Roberts, D.Y. (1982). Personality and media preferences of community college students. Research in Psychological Type, 5, 84-86. Roff, M. (1949). A f a c t o r i a l study of the Fels Parent Behavior scales. Chi Id Development, 20, No.1, 29-45. 77 R055, J. (1966). The relationship between a Jungian personality inventory and tests of a b i l i t y , personality, and inte r e s t . Austra1ian Journal of Psychology, 18, 1-17. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological  Monographs, 80, (1, Whole 609). Sears, R., Maccoby, E., and Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of  Chi 1d Rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson. Sears, R., Whiting, J., Nowlis, v., and Sears, P. (1953). Some child-rearing antecedents of aggression and dependency in young children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 47, 135-234. Shoben, E.J. J r . (1949). The assessment of parental attitudes in r e l a t i o n to c h i l d adjustment. Genetic Psychological  Monographs, 39, 101-148. Smith, A., Ivey, R., and McCaulley, M.H. (1973). Self-paced instruction and college student's personality. Engineering  Education, 63(6), 435-440. Stalcup, D.L. (1968). An investigation of personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of college students who do pa r t i c i p a t e and those who do not parti c i p a t e in campus a c t i v i t i e s (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Auburn University, 1967). Dissertation  Abstracts, 28, 4452A-4453A. (University Microfilms No. 68-5897). Steele, F.I. (1968). Personality and the laboratory s t y l e . Journa1 of App1ied Behaviora1 Science, 4, 25-45. Stone, C , and Landis, P.H. (1953). An approach to authority patterns in parent-teen age relationships. Rura1 Sociology,18, 233-242. Strieker, L.J., and Ross, J. (1962). A description and evaluation of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Research  B u i l e t i n , 62-6. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service. Strieker, L.J., and Ross, J. (1963). Intercorrelations and r e l i a b i l i t y of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator scales. Psychological Reports, 12, 287-293. Strieker, L.J., and Ross, J. (1964a). An assessment of some structural properties of the Jungian personality typology. Journa1 of Abnorma1 and Socia1 Psychology, 68, 62-71. Strieker, L.J., and Ross, J. (1964b). Some correlates of a Jungian personality inventory. Psyc ho1oq ica1 Reports, 14, 623-643. 78 Strieker, L.J., Predictions of Type Indicator. 25, 1081-1095. Schiffman, H., and Ross, J. (1965). college performance with the Myers-Briggs Educational and Psyc ho1og ica1 Measurement, Wakefield, J.A., Sasek, J ., Brubaker, M. L., and Friedman, A.F. (1976). V a l i d i t y of Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Reports. 59. 115-120. Walters, J ., and Stinnett, N. relationships: A decade review of Marriage and the Family, 33, 70-111. (1971). Parent-child research. Journal of Webb, S.C. (1964). An analysis of the scoring system of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological  Measurement, 24, 765-781. White, M.S. (1957). Social class, childrearing practices, and ch i l d behavior. American Soc io1og ica1 Review. 22, 704-712. Wolfe, D.M. (1959). Power and authority in the family. In Dorwin Cartwright and Ann Arbor (Eds.), Studies in so c i a l  power, (99-117). Michigan: Research Center for Group Dynamics and Institute for Social Research. Wright, paren ta1 extension J.C., and va1ues of the Wright, S.R. (1976). Social class and for children: A p a r t i a l r e p l i c a t i o n and Kohn thesis. American Sociological Review. 41, 527-537. Yokomoto, C.F., and Ware, J.R. (1982). Improving problem solving performance using the MBTI. Proceedings of the 1982 American Society of Engineering Education Annua 1 Conference, 163-167. Zuckerman, M., and Oltean, M. (1959). Some relationships between maternal attitude factors and authoritarianism, personality needs, psychopathology, and se1f-acceptance. Chi Id Development, 30, 27-36. 79 APPENDIX B THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND PARENTING STYLE The purpose of thi s research i s to determine whether parents with d i f f e r e n t personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s choose d i f f e r e n t methods of childrearing with their elementary age c h i l d . If you agree to partici p a t e in' t h i s study: 1. You w i l l be asked to complete three brief guestionnaires in your home or place of convenience. It w i l l take approximately 40 minutes of your time. 2. The study i s anonymous and a l l information w i l l be held in confidence. Your answers w i l l be used as part of group re s u l t s . 3. The researcher w i l l be pleased to answer any questions you may have about the study to be sure you are f u l l y aware of the procedure involved. Completion of the questionnaires w i l l indicate your consent to parti c i p a t e in the study. 4. You are free to refuse to parti c i p a t e or to withdraw from the study at any time. PLEASE TRY TO RESPOND TO ALL STATEMENTS. Lo r i Reed, B.A. Pri n c i p a l Investigator Department of Counselling Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 81 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND PARENTING STYLE Please check the most appropriate response. Where necessary write in the correct response. Please try to respond to a l l statements. 1 . Age years 2. Gender F M 3. Marital Status Married Divorced Common law Sing 1e 5. How many s i b l i n g s do you have? 6. Please indicate the age and gender o-f each of your s i b l i n g s be 1 ow SIBLING AGE GENDER #1 . #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 7. How many children are there in your family? 8. Please indicate the number of children, their age and gender be 1 ow CHILD AGE GENDER #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 9. What i s your occupation? 10. Please describe your job in brief d e t a i l . 11.What r e l i g i o n are you most a f f i l i a t e d with now or in the past? 4. Highest level of education less than 12 years 12 years 13 - 16 years more than 16 years 82 12. Please indicate how committed you are to your r e l i g i o n . Please c i r c l e the appropriate number. not at somewhat quite very highly al 1 1 2 3 4 5 13. What i s your na t i o n a l i t y ? Canad ian Other, please specify 14. If you answered Other to the previous question, please indicate how long you have been a resident of th i s country years. 83 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND PARENTING STYLE In trying to gain more understanding o-f the parent-child relationship, I would l i k e to know what i s important to you as a parent and what kinds o-f methods you use in rai s i n g your c h i l d . . . i n p a r t i c u l a r , your c h i l d who i s now in elementary school. It i s important that you answer the -following statements in r e l a t i o n to one c h i l d only. Please choose one o-f your children between the ages o-f 6 and 12 years. Age o-f c h i l d chosen years Gender o-f c h i l d chosen F M You are asked to indicate your opinions by marking the number which best describes your behavior in rel a t i o n to the c h i l d you have chosen. Mark your response next to each item. The response category i s indicated below. not at a l l descrip-t i v e of me. somewhat descrip-t i v e of me. f a i r l y descrip-t i v e of me. 4 gui te descrip-tive of me. 5 very descrip-tive of me. 6 highly descrip-tive of me, 1. I respect my c h i l d ' s opinions and encourage him/her to express them. 2. I encourage my c h i l d always to do his/her best. 3. I put the wishes of my mate before the wishes of my c h i l d . 4. I often feel angry with my c h i l d . 5. If my c h i l d gets into trouble, I expect him/her handle the problem mostly by himself/herself. to 6. I punish my c h i l d by putting him/her off somewhere by himself/herself for a while. 7. I feel a c h i l d should be given comfort and understanding when he/she i s scared or upset. 8. I try to keep my c h i l d away from children or families who have d i f f e r e n t ideas or values from their own. 9. I try to stop my c h i l d from playing rough games or doing things where he/she might get hurt. 10. I believe physical punishment to be the best way of d i s c i p l i n i n g . 11 I believe that a c h i l d should be seen and not heard 84 12. I sometimes -Forget the promises I have made to my c h i l d . 13. I think i t i s good practice -for a c h i l d to perform in front of others. 14. I express af f e c t i o n by hugging, kissing, and holding my c h i l d . 15. I find some of my greatest s a t i s f a c t i o n s in my c h i l d . 16. I prefer that my c h i l d not try things i f there i s a chance he/she w i l l f a i l . 17. I encourage my c h i l d to wonder and think about l i f e . 18. I usually take into account my c h i l d ' s preferences in making plans for the family. 19. I wish my c h i l d did not have to grow so fast. 20. I feel my c h i l d should have time to think, daydream, and even loaf sometimes. 21. I find i t d i f f i c u l t to punish my c h i l d . 22. I l e t my c h i l d make many decisions for himself/herself. 23. I do not allow my c h i l d to say bad things about his/her teachers. 24. I teach my c h i l d that in one way or another punishment w i l l find him/her when he/she i s bad. 25. I do not allow my c h i l d to get angry with me. 26. I -feel my c h i l d i s a b i t of a disappointment to me. 27. I expect a great deal of my c h i l d . 28. I am easy going and relaxed with my c h i l d . 29. I tend to sp o i l my c h i l d . 30. I talk i t over and reason with my c h i l d when he/she misbehaves. 31. I joke and play with my c h i l d . 32. I give my c h i l d a good many duties and family r e s p o n s i b i 1 i t i e s . 33. My c h i l d and I have warm, intimate times together. 34. I have s t r i c t , well-established rules for my c h i l d . 85 35. I think one has to l e t a c h i l d take many chances as he/ she grows up and t r i e s new things. 36. I encourage my c h i l d to be curious, to explore and question things. 37. I expect my c h i l d to be gateful and appreciate a l l the advantages he/she has. 38. I sometimes feel that I am too involved with my c h i l d . 39. I threaten punishment more often than I actually give i t . 40. I believe in praising a c h i l d when he/she i s good and think i t gets better results than punishing him/her when he/she i s bad. 41. I make sure my c h i l d knows that I appreciate what he/she t r i e s or accomplishes. 42. I encourage my c h i l d to talk about his/her troubles. 43. I believe children should not have secrets from their paren ts. 44. I teach my c h i l d to keep control of his/her feelings at a l l times. 45. When I am angry with my c h i l d , I l e t him/her know i t . 46. I think a c h i l d should be encouraged to do things better than others. 47. I punish my c h i l d by taking away a priviledge he/she otherwise would have had. 48. I enjoy having the house f u l l of children. 49. I believe that too much aff e c t i o n and tenderness can harm or weaken a c h i l d . 50. I believe that scolding and c r i t i c i s m makes my c h i l d improve. 51. I believe my c h i l d should be aware of how much I s a c r i f i c e for him/her. 52. I teach my c h i l d that he/she i s responsible for what happens to him/her. 53. There i s a good deal of c o n f l i c t between my c h i l d and me. 54. I do not allow my c h i l d to question my decisions. 86 55. I feel that i t i s good for a c h i l d to play competitive games. 56. I l i k e to have some time for myself, away from my c h i l d . 57. I l e t my c h i l d know how ashamed and disappointed I am when he/she misbehaves. 58. I want my c h i l d to make a good impression on others. 59. I encourage my c h i l d to be independent of me. 60. I make sure I know where my c h i l d i s and what he/she i s doing. 61. I find i t interesting and educational to be with my c h i l d for long periods. 62. I don't go out i f I have to leave my c h i l d with a stranger. 63. I control my c h i l d by warning him/her about the bad things that can happen to him/her. 64. I believe i t i s unwise to l e t children play a lot by themselves without supervision from grow—ups. 87 FACES 111 Please mark your response next to each item. The response category i s i n d i c a t e d below. 1 2 3 4 5 almost once i n sometimes -frequently almost never a wh i l e always DESCRIBE YOUR FAMILY NOW: 1. Family members ask each other -for help. 2. In s o l v i n g problems, the c h i l d r e n ' s suggestions are followed 3. We approve o-f each ot h e r ' s frien'ds. 4. C h i l d r e n have a say i n t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e . ____ 5. We l i k e to do t h i n g s with j u s t our immediate f a m i l y . 6. D i f f e r e n t persons a ct as leaders i n our f a m i l y . 7. Family members f e e l c l o s e r to other family members than to people o u t s i d e the f a m i l y . 8. Our fami l y changes i t s way of handling tasks. 9. Family members l i k e to spend f r e e time with each o t h e r . 10. P a r e n t i s ) and c h i l d r e n d i s c u s s punishment together. 11. Family members f e e l very c l o s e to each other. 12. The c h i l d r e n make the d e c i s i o n s i n our f a m i l y . 13. When our family gets together f o r a c t i v i t i e s , everybody i s present. 14. Rules change i n our f a m i l y . 15. We can e a s i l y think of things to do together as a f a m i l y . 16. We s h i f t household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s from person to person 17. Family members c o n s u l t other family members on t h e i r d e c i s i o n s . 18. I t i s hard to i d e n t i f y the le a d e r ( s ) in our f a m i l y . 19. Family togetherness i s very important. 20. I t i s hard to t e l l who does which household chores 88 An i l l u s t r a t i v e sample o-f items -from The Myers - Briggs Type I nd i c a t o r . EXTRAVERSION At parties do you always have -fun or sometimes get bored? INTROVERSION In a large group do you more often introduce others or get introduced? SENSING If you were a teacher would you rather teach fact courses or courses involving theory? INTUITION Which word appeals to you more: BUILD or INVENT? THINKING Which word appeals to you more: COMPASSION or FORE-SIGHT? FEELING Do you usually value sentiment more than logic or value logic more than sentiment? JUDGING PERCEIVING "Reproduced Psychologist When you go somewhere for the day would you rather plan what you w i l l do and when or just go? Does following a schedule appeal to you or cramp you? by special permission of the Publisher, Consulting Press, Inc., Palo Alto, CA 94306." 89 APPENDIX C The Child-Rearing Practices Report Cluster One - Nurturance Mean 1. I respect my ch i l d ' s opinions and encourage him/her to express them. 4.4S 2. I encourage my c h i l d always to do his/her best. 5.23 3. I feel a c h i l d should be given comfort and understanding when he/ she i s scared or upset. 5.44 4. I express af f e c t i o n by hugging, kissing, and holding my c h i l d . 5.39 5. I find some of my greatest s a t i s -factions in my c h i l d . 4.82 6. I encourage my c h i l d to wonder and think about l i f e . 4.85 7. I usually take into account my chi l d ' s preferences in making plansfor the family. 4.24 8. I feel my c h i l d should have time to think, daydream, and even loaf sometimes. 4.86 9. I talk i t over with my c h i l d and reason with my c h i l d when he/she misbehaves. 4.28 10. I joke and play with my c h i l d . 4.66 11. My c h i l d and I have warm, intimate times together. 3.86 12. I encourage my c h i l d to be curious, to explore and guestion things. 5.07 13. I believe in praising my c h i l d when he/she i s good and think i t gets better results than punishing him/ her when he.she i s bad. 4.87 14. I make sure my c h i l d knows that I appreciate what he/she t r i e s or accomplishes. 5.25 15. I encourage my c h i l d to talk about his/her troubles. 5.14 16. When I am angry with my c h i l d , I let him/her know i t . 5.00 17. I l i k e to have some time for my-s e l f , away from my c h i l d . 4.62 18. I make sure I know where my c h i l d i s and what he/she i s doing. 5.31 19. I find i t interesting and educa-tional to be with my c h i l d for long periods. 4.20 20. I don't go out i f I have to leave my c h i l d with a stranger. 4.33 I tern Scale SD Correlations 1 .04 0.86 0.93 1 .02 1 .23 1 .22 1 .25 1.15 1 .29 1 . 19 1 .39 0.99 1.13 0.99 0.99 1.14 1 . 46 0.94 1 .34 2.00 0.44 0.35 0.48 0.57 0.51 0.63 0.45 0.56 0.43 0.58 0.36 0.59 0.49 0.44 0.61 0.22 0.21 0.43 0.46 0. 13 90 Cluster Two - Restrictiveness I put the wishes o-f my mate before the wishes of my c h i l d . I often feel angry with my c h i l d . Mean I tern Scale SD Correlation 2. 3. 3, 4, 16 66 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 1 1 . 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20. If my c h i l d gets into trouble, I expect him/her to handle the problem mostly by him/herself. I try to keep my children away from children who have d i f f e r e n t ideas or values from their own. I try to stop my c h i l d from playing rough games or doing things where he/she might get hurt. I believe physical punishment to be the best way of d i s c i p l i n i n g . I believe a c h i l d should be seen and not heard. I sometimes forget the promises I have made to my c h i l d . I prefer that my c h i l d not try things i f there i s a chance that he/she w i l l f a i l . I do not allow my c h i l d to get angry with me. I feel that my c h i l d i s a d i s -appointment to me. I sometimes feel that I am too involved with my c h i l d . I teach my c h i l d to keep control of his/her feelings at a l l times. I think a c h i l d should be en-couraged to do things better than others. I believe that too much aff e c t i o n and tenderness can harm or weaken a c h i l d . I believe that scolding and c r i t i c i s m makes my c h i l d improve. I believe my c h i l d should be aware of how much I s a c r i f i c e for him/her. There i s a good deal of c o n f l i c t between my c h i l d and me. I do not allow my c h i l d to question my decisions. I believe i t i s unwise to let children play alot by themselves without supervision from grown-ups. 2.59 4.66 4.30 5.50 5.53 5.08 5.45 4.95 5.60 5. 13 4.96 4.49 5.68 5.50 4.98 5.07 4.61 4.21 1 .36 1 . 12 1 .27 1 .48 1 .41 0.83 0.92 0.93 1.11 1 .32 1 .05 1 . 15 1 .30 1 .60 0.86 0.87 1.13 1 .96 1 .42 1 .67 -0.23 0. 28 0.07 0.36 0.54 0.28 0.48 0.36 0.28 0. 40 0.39 0.07 0.39 0.31 0.13 0. 10 0.25 0.39 0.58 0.22 91 APPENDIX D Correlations Among Persona 1ity and Parenting Sea 1es Cluster Cluster  E/I S/N T/F J/P #1 #2 Extraversion/ 1.000 -.109 -.104 -.139 .010 .241 Introversion Sensing/ -.109 1.000 .074 .455 .215 -.280 Intuition Thinking/ -.104 .074 1.000 .076 .179 -.082 Feeling Judging/ -.139 .454 .076 1.000 -.045 -.164 Perceiving Cluster #1 .010 .215 .179 -.045 1.000 -.110 Cluster #2 .241 -.280 -.082 -.164 -.110 1.000 92 

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.831.1-0302103/manifest

Comment

Related Items