baumrind_1967

8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/baumrind1967 1/38

Socialization Practices Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and GirlsAuthor(s): Diana Baumrind and Allen E. BlackSource: Child Development, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 291-327Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development

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

Accessed: 23/10/2014 11:05

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

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=srcd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127295?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127295?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=srcd

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


SOCIALIZATION

RACTICES

SSOCIATED

WITH

DIMENSIONSOF COMPETENCE

N

PRESCHOOL

BOYS

AND

GIRLS

DIANA BAUMRIND nd

ALLEN

E.

BLACK

University

of

California,

Berkeley

The

investigation

has

as its

objective

to

identify

parent

attitudes

and

be-

haviors

associated

with

dimensions

of

competent

behavior

in

normal

pre-

school

children.

A

child-behavior

model

(similar

in structure to

models

presented by Schaefer

and

by

Becker &

Krug) for boys

and

girls sepa-

rately

was

developed

and related to

behavioral measures

obtained

in

the

home,

and

to

mother-son,

mother-daughter,

father-son,

and

father-

daughter

interview

dimensions

arrived

at

through

cluster-analytic

tech-

niques.

When

sex-related

correlates

were

interpreted,

particular

attention

was

given

to the

problem

of

equivalence

of

dimensions across

sex.

Specific

parent-child

relationships

varied

with the

sex

of

parent

and child.

In

gen-

eral,

independence

granting

and

verbal

give

and

take,

on the

one

hand,

and

enforced

demands

and

consistent

discipline,

on

the

other,

were

associated

with

stable,

assertive

behavior n

the

child.

This

program

of

research

had

as

its

objective

the identification

of

practices

associated

with

dimensions of

competent

nursery

school behavior

for

boys

and

girls.

Two

separate

studies were

conducted. The

objective

of

one

study

(Baumrind,

1967)

was

to

determine

whether

preschool

chil-

This

research

was

supported

by

research

grant

MH-03991 from the

National

Institute of Mental

Health,

U.

S. Public

Health

Service,

to Paul

Mussen and

Diana Baumrind. The authors are indebted to the field psychologists, Rosa-

mund

Gardner,

Viola

Litt,

Marie

Mastache,

Panthea

Perry,

Elizabeth War-

riner,

and

Judith

Williams.

The

study

could not

have

proceeded

without the

cooperation

of

the

personnel

of

the H. E.

Jones

Child

Study

Center

(Dorothy

Eichorn,

administrator)

and

the

Institute

of Human

Development (John

Clausen,

director at that

time,

and Brewster

Smith,

present

director).

We wish

to

acknowl-

edge

the

invaluable aid of

the

nursery

school

directors

(Thelma

Harms,

Yvette

Lehman,

Virginia

Leonard,

Anne

Kappel,

and

Hannah

Sanders)

who

helped

to

obtain

the

interest and

cooperation

of the

parents

and

children

and

assisted in

the





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

dren

who

are

assertive,

self-reliant,

self-controlled,

buoyant,

and

affiliative

are

reared

by

their

parents

in

a

different

fashion,

on the

one

hand,

from

children who are discontented, withdrawn, and distrustful, and, on the

other,

from

children

who have

little

self-control

or

self-reliance

and tend

to

retreat

from

novel

experiences.

In

the

first

study,

all children

(32)

who

clearly

manifested one

of these

patterns

of

behavior were

selected

for

three

study

groups

from

among

110

normal

preschool

children

after 3-5

months

of

observation n

nursery

school

and

laboratory

ettings.

Home

visits,

struc-

tured

observation,

and

structured

nterviews

were

used

to assess

parent

be-

haviors

and

attitudes.

Findings

from

the

first

study

can

be

summarized

briefly

as

follows:

parents

of the

most

assertive,

self-reliant,

and

self-con-

trolled children were controlling,demanding, communicative,and loving;

parents

of

the

unhappy

and

disaffiliated

group

were

relatively

controlling

and

detached;

and

parents

of the

least self-reliantand

self-controlled

group

of

children

were

noncontrolling,

nondemanding,

and

relatively

warm.

The

objective

of

the

present

study

is to

examine

empirically,

in

an

unselected

group,

the

relations

among

parent

behaviors,

parent

attitudes,

and

child

behaviors.

Measuring

instruments

from

the

previous study

were used

to

make

these

assessments

so that

the

degree

of

correspondence

between the

two

sets

of

findings

could be

assessed.

METHOD

Subjects

The

Ss

were all

children

enrolled

in

the

H.

E.

Jones

Child

Study

Cen-

ter,

Institute

of

Human

Development,

University

of

California,

Berkeley,

during

the fall

semester

of

1960. Of

the

107

children

enrolled

at

the

begin-

ning

of the

semester,

103

remained in

school

long

enough

to

have their be-

havior rated. There were 95 families who participated in the

study

and

were visited

in the

home.

The

other

eight

families,

for

the

most

part,

were

associated

in

a

professional

capacity

with

the

investigators

and

therefore

could not

participate.

A

few

parents

(one

mother

and

four

fathers)

were

absent

from

the

home

due

to

death

or

divorce.

In

Table

1

are

presented

some

sample

characteristics

relevant

to the

study,

including

the mean

IQ

for

the 83 children

for

whom

Stanford-Binets

were

available.

The

parents

reside

in

an

urban

university

community

and are

middle-class

and

very

well

educated;

95

per

cent of

the

fathers

and

81

per

cent

of

the

mothers

are

college graduates.Of the fathers, 75 per cent were classified under one or

two

of

Hollingshead

and

Redlich's

(1958)

modification

of

the Alba Ed-

formulation

f

the

Preschool

Behavior

Q-sort

tems.

We are

especially

grateful

o

the

parents

who not

only

talked

with

us

but

accorded s

the

privilege

of

observing

their families

n

the

home

setting.

Authors'

ddress:

nstitute

of

Human

Develop-

ment,

University

of

California,

Tolman

Hall,

Berkeley,

California

4720.

292





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRINDAND

ALLENE.

BLACK

TABLE

1

SAMPLE

CHARACTERISTICS

Variable

N

Mean SD

Age

of

child

in

months..........

103

47.0

6.02

IQ

of

child....................

83

125.4

14.53

Birth order of

child

...........

103

2.1

1.01

No.

of

children in

family.......

103

2.6 .92

Mother's

education............

90

2.1

.67

Father's

education

............

97

1.5 .61

Father's

occupation

...........

101 1.9

.98

Note.-The

Education

Code

(1

=

graduate professional training,

7

=

less

than

7

years

of

school)

and

Occupation

Code

(1

=

major

executives

and

major

professionals,

7

=

unskilled

workers)

are

those used by Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), with graduate student coded as Education =2 and

Occupation

=3.

wards

system

of

classifying occupations

into seven socioeconomic

groups.

Twenty

mothers

were

working

at

the time

of

the

study,

12 in

professional

capacities.

The

results

of the

study

should not be

generalized

to

popula-

tions which

display

dissimilar

ocioeconomic

and educational

evels.

Child-Behavior

Ratings

Over

a

minimum

period

of 3

months,

four

trained

psychologists

ob-

served and

recorded behavior

while the children

were involved

in

all

as-

pects

of the

nursery

school

program.

Each child

was

assigned

to

a

pair

of

psychologists,

and each

pair

observed

approximately

fifty

children

(one

half

were

3-year-olds,

and

one half

were

4-year-olds).

A

95-item

Q

sort

was

devised to

provide

a

means

by

which the

psychologists

could describe the

child.

The items

were sorted into

nine

piles going

from most characteristic

to least

characteristic

with

the fixed distribution:

7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 13,

11,

9,

7.

The domains of behavior focused upon included neurotic symptoms,

mood

and

energy

characteristics,

and

such

interpersonal

characteristicsas

self-control,

perseverance,

self-reliance,

self-assertiveness, riendliness,

and

cooperativeness.

Both

poles

of each

Q-sort

item

were defined

explicitly,

with

one

pole

reflecting

mental

health and

the other its

absence. An

attempt

was

made

to

assess

independently

the

diverse facets of

psychological

constructs such

as

"dominance"

and

"independence"

which

frequently

have

been

forced

into

polar opposition.

The

effect

of not

permitting independent

measurement

of

these facets is to superimposea structurewhich can restrictthe emergence

of several

related but not

equivalent

traits

or clusters.

Consider,

for

ex-

ample,

the four

Q-sort

tems:

1. Submitsto

group

consensusversus

takes

independent

stand.

2.

Suggestible

versus has

mind of his

own.

3.

Provokesversus

avoids conflictwith adults.

4. Permits self to be

dominated

versus

will

not

submit.

These four

293





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

items

might

all

be

considered

aspects

of

a

single

trait:

Autonomy

versus

Compliance.

However,

in

the

analyses

discussed

subsequently,

these

items

were in fact related to

separate

although

correlateddimensionswhich, in

part, may

account for

the

differences

among

the models of

child

behavior

compared.

To save

space,

the item

designations given

in this

paper

have

been

shortened

from

the

original

wordings

to

provide

succinct

definitions

of

both

poles.'

The chief

value

of the

ipsative

or

within-personranking

approach

in-

herent in

the

Q

sort,

for

this

study,

was that it

allowed the rater

to

focus

upon

one

child until

she felt

that she

had

observed the

child

sufficiently

o

do a valid

rating.

The

high

correlation

between

ipsative

ratings

treated

normatively

and

conventionally

acquired

normative

ratings,

shown

by

Block

(1957),

justified

their

further

use

in

item-based

factor

and cluster

analyses.

The final

scores used

for

further

analyses

were

the

composites

of

the

two

psychologists'

ratings.

The

reliabilities

for the

composited

items

varied

from a

low of .29 to

a

high

of

.88,

with

approximately

10

per

cent

of

the

reliabilities below .60

and

another 10

per

cent

above

.80.

The mean

value

was

approximately

68.

As

might

be

expected,

the items

with

low

reliabili-

ties

(below

.60)

did

not show

a

sufficientlyhigh pattern

of

intercorrelation

with other items to be

important

contributors o

the

final

cluster

structures

discussed

subsequently.

Items

with

high

reliabilities

(above .80)

almost

invariably

were

included as

cluster

definers.

When the

composite

item

means

for

boys

and

girls

were

compared

(Table

2),

a

fairly

characteristic set

of

differences

emerged.

Boys

were

seen as

more

active,

outgoing,

and

exploratory,

and

girls

as

more

involved

in

intellectual,

aesthetic,

and

interpersonal

pursuits

of

a

verbal

nature.

In

addition,

girls

were

described

more

frequently

as

indirect,

manipulative,

coercively dependent,

and

withdrawn,

while

boys

were

seen

as more con-

tent,

good

humored,

self-assured,

and

actively

friendly.

Child-Behavior

Model

An

initial

cluster

analysis

by

Tryon's

method2

utilizing

the

product-

moment

correlations

among

the 95

items

elicited

a

seven-cluster

solution

for

1

A

list

of

the

95

items,

their

reliabilities,

he

means

and

standard

eviations

for

boys

and

girls,

and

the

factor

coefficients

rom

the

two

factor

Principal

Com-

ponentsAnalysisare on depositwith the AmericanDocumentationnstitute.

Order

Document

No.

9308

from

ADI

Auxiliary

Publications

Project,

Photodupli-

cation

Service,

Library

of

Congress,

Washington,

D.

C.

20540.

Remit

in

advance

$1.25

for

35-mm. microfilm

or

$1.25

for

6

X

8-inch

photocopies,

and

make

checks

payable

o:

Chief

Photoduplication

ervice,

Library

f

Congress.

2

All

cluster

and factor

analyses

performed

in

connection

with

this

paper

utilized

he BC

TRY

system

of

computer

rograms

eveloped

under

he

direction

294





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE.

BLACK

TABLE 2

SIGNIFICANT

-SORT

TEMMEAN

DIFFERENCES

OR

BOYs

X

GIRLS

Boys

>

girls:

High

vs. low

energy

level

Good

sense of humor

vs. humorless

Content

vs.

discontent

Doesn't seek vs.

seeks overt

assurance that he

is

liked

Explores

vs. does

not

explore

environment

Takes

initiative

in

making

friends vs.

standoffish

Girls

>

boys

Acts

too

mature

vs.

pleasantly

childlike

demeanor

Enjoys

vs. does

not

enjoy

aesthetic

experience

Exploits

dependent

state

vs.

seeks

help realistically

Interestedvs. uninterestedin pre-primer kills

Guileful

and

manipulative

vs.

direct

and

straightforward

Chatters

to

obtain

attention vs. talks in

order

to

communicate

Note.-All

differences

reported

have a

p

<

.05

for

both

boys

and

girls.

The

first two clusters were

relatively

orthogonal

(r

=

.10

for

boys,

and

r

=

.06

for

girls)

and

reproduced

89

and 85

per

cent

of

the mean

of

the

original squared

correlations

or

boys

and

girls,

respectively.

In

general,

the

remaining

clusters

were

highly

correlated

with

the

first

two

clusters.

This

is an

analogous

situation to

that

which

Becker

and

Krug

(1964)

found conducive for

developing

their two-factor

circumplex

model

for

social

behavior

in

children.

Certainly,

in

the

present

case,

a

two-factor

model

seemed

adequate

to account

for the

major portion

of

the

variance.

A

procedure

similar

to that

used

by

Becker

and

Krug,

but

more rooted

in

the

rationale of

cluster

analysis,

was

followed

in

ordering

the

interrelations

of

the

Q-sort

items in

separate

analyses

for

boys

and

girls.

A

principal-components

olution was

chosen to

provide

the

most stable

two-factor

solution

possible.

All

Q-sort

items

were then

plotted

in this two-

factor

space

with

their

factor

coefficients

used

as

coordinates.

The

items

were formed into clusters on the basis

of

(a)

position

on the

circular

plot,

(b)

pattern

of

intercorrelationof

contiguous

items,

and,

in

a few

in-

stances,

(c)

theoretical

relevance.

The axes

were

rotated

graphically

to

bring

the

boy

and

girl

clusters

nto

a

similar

position.

The

defining

items for

each

of

the

eight

clusters

obtained from

this

ordering

and the

cluster

re-

liabilities

appear

in

Table

3.

The cluster

scores

are the

unweighted

com-

posite

of

standardized scores

for the

defining

items.

The

intercorrelations

among

items

used as

definers

were of

a

magnitude

such

that the

lowest aver-

age

r

that

any defining

item

has

with

the

other

defining

items in

a

cluster

is

.52,

with most

average

r's

above

.60.

This accounts

for

the

high

reliabil-

ity

of

the

clusters.

Because

of its

theoretical

value,

a

simple

hierarchicalor

second-order

analysis

was

performed

by

compositing

the

defining

items

of

of

R.

C.

Tryon

and

made

available

or

use

by

the

Computer

Center,

University

of

California,

Berkeley.

For

full

details,

see

Tryon

and

Bailey

(1966).

295





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 3

DESCRIPTION OF CHILD-BEHAVIOR CLUSTERS

EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AVERAGE

r

Cluster

I:

Unlikeable-Likeable.

Reliability

=

89,

=

.45:

Alienates vs.

attracts

other children

..........................

.72

Able vs.

not able to

form

close

friendships

....................

-.

71

Uses vs.

does not use

persuasion

to

get

what

he

wants............ -. .65

Takes

initiative

in

making

friends

vs.

standoffish

................

-.61

Cluster

II:

Hostile-Friendly. Reliability

=

.95,

P

=

.48:

Affiliative,

supportive

vs.

negativistic.

.................

........

-.79

Irritable vs.

even

tempered

...................................

.79

Obstructive vs.

helpful

......................................

78

Becomes hostile

vs. does not

become

hostile

when

hurt

or

frustrated..

.77

Content vs. discontent

........................................

-.76

Helps

vs.

does

not

help

other children

adapt

....................

-.73

Cluster III:

Impetuous-Self-Controlled.

Reliability

=

.86,

2

=

.29:

Impulsive

vs.

self-controlled

..................................

.73

Impetuous

vs.

planful

...................................

..

.

66

Thoughtless,

inconsideratevs.

thoughtful,

considerate

...........

.62

Cluster IV:

Rebellious-Dependable.

Reliability

=

.91,

P

=

.26:

Disrespectful

vs. courteous demeanor

with

adults ................

.78

Provokes vs.

avoids

conflict with

adults

........................

.76

Responsible

vs.

irresponsible

about

following

rules

..............

-. 68

Affectionate

vs.

unaffectionate with

nursery

school staff...........

-.63

Cluster V:

Autonomous-Compliant.

Reliability

= .89, P = .22:

Submits

to

group

consensus vs. takes

independent

stand........... -.74

Conforming

vs.

willing

to risk adult

disapproval

................

-.70

Suggestible

vs.

has

mind of

his own............................

-.69

Listens vs.

actively participates

in

discussions

..................

-.58

Cluster

VI:

Imaginative-Stereotyped.

Reliability

=

.88,

f-

=

.08:

An

interesting, arresting

child

vs.

uninteresting

and

bland.........

.64

Imaginative

vs.

unimaginative

................................

.62

Emotionally expressive

vs. bland

.............................

.61

Produces

stereotyped

vs.

original

work

.......................

-.61

Curious vs.

lacks

curiousity

................

.................

.56

ClusterVII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .89, fP

=

.40:

Gives

up

vs.

perseveres

when

adversity

is

encountered

...........

-.69

"Stretches"

to

meet

vs.

retreats

from

performance

demands

......

.67

Sets

goals

which

are

easy

vs.

hard to

achieve

....................

-.65

Hazards

failure

vs. avoids

difficult

tasks

........................

.57

Withdraws

vs.

stands his

ground

when hurt

or

frustrated.........

-.52

Cluster

VIII:

Confident-Fearful.

Reliability

=

.91,

f'

=

.51:

High

vs.

low

self-confidence

..................................

.71

At

ease

vs.

ill

at

ease

at

nursery

school

........................

.69

Apprehensive

vs.

nonapprehensive

............................

-.68

Self-abasive vs.

self-valuing...................................

-.66

Conflicted

vs.

resolute

about

making

decisions ..................

-.66

EIGHT-CLUSTER

SOLUTIONFOR

GIRLs

AVERAGE

r

Cluster

I:

Hostile-Friendly.

Reliability

=

.80,

P'

=

.33:

Affiliative,

supportive

vs.

negativistic............

............. -.58

Helps

vs.

does not

help

other

children

adapt....................

-.57

Alienates vs.

attracts other

children

...........................

.56

Cluster

II:

Unsocialized-Well Socialized.

Reliability

=

.88,

P

=

.35:

Thoughtless,

inconsideratevs.

thoughtful,

considerate

...........

.71

296





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND

AND

ALLENE.

BLACK

Obstructive

vs.

helpful

......................................

.66

Guileful and

manipulative

vs. direct and

straightforward...........

.63

Does

not

vs. does

regret wrong-doing

..........................

.61

Cluster

III:

Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability

=

.89,

2

=

.22:

Provokes vs. avoids

conflict

with

adults.........................

.74

Disrespectful

vs. courteous demeanor with

adults................

.73

Dependable,

trustworthy

vs.

undependable,

untrustworthy

....... - .71

Cluster

IV:

Domineering-Tractable.

Reliability

=

.88,

2

=

24:

Bullies vs. avoids

forcing

will

on

other

children

.................

.77

Managerial

and

bossy

vs.

tactful

and modest

...................

.74

Permits self to be dominated vs. will

not

submit

................

-.64

Cluster

V:

Autonomous-Compliant.

Reliability

=

.91,

If

=

.31:

Submits

to

group

consensus vs.

takes

independent

stand..........

-.72

Suggestible

vs.

has mind of

his own

...........................

-.70

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

Conforming

vs.

willing

to

risk adult

disapproval

................

-.

66

Listens vs.

actively

participates

in

discussions

..................

-.64

Cluster

VI:

At

Ease-Ill

At

Ease.

Reliability

=

.93,

fl

=

.44:

At ease

vs. ill at

ease at

nursery

school

.......................

.75

Seldom vs.

often

spends

time

in

withdrawn

fantasy

..............

.74

Poorly

vs.

well

oriented

in

his

environment

.....................

-.73

Withdraws

vs. stands his

ground

when hurt or

frustrated..........

-.70

Self-abasive

vs.

self-valuing

..................................

-.66

Cluster

VII: Confident-Fearful.

Reliability

=

.91,

?*

=

.54:

High

vs.

low

self-confidence

.................................

.73

Conflicted

vs.

resolute about

making

decisions

..................

-.71

Gives

up

vs.

perseveres

when

adversity

is encountered ........... -.70

Cluster

VIII:

Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability

=

.94,

i*

=

.47:

Does not vs. does become

pleasurably

nvolved

in

tasks............

-.78

Gives

his

best vs.

expends

little

effort

..................

...... .77

Aimless vs.

purposive

.......................................

-.76

"Stretches" to

meet

vs.

retreats from

performance

demands

......

.76

Enjoys

vs.

avoids new

learning

experiences.....................

.. .73

Hazards failure vs. avoids

difficult tasks

....................... .56

FOUR-CLUSTER

SOLUTIONFOR BOYS

AND

GIRLS

Disaffiliative-Affiliative.

Reliability

=

.95-boys,

.91-girls;

f

=

.49-boys,

.35-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters I and II.

Resistive-Cooperative. Reliability = .94-boys, .92-girls; f* = .21-boys,

.29-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters

III and IV.

Independent-Dependent.

Reliability

=

.90-boys,

.94-girls;

i2

=

.18-boys,

.42-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters V and

VI.

Assertive-Withdrawn.

Reliability

=

.93-boys,

.95-girls;

f

=

.52-boys,

.56-

girls.

Composite

of

Clusters

VII

and VIII.

Two-CLUSTER

SOLUTION

FOR

BOYS AND GIRLS

Set A

Irresponsible-Responsible.

Reliability

=

.96-boys,

.94-girls;

-

=

.45-boys,

.30-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters

I,

II, III,

IV.

Active-Passive.

Reliability

=

.93-boys,

.96-girls;

P

=

.39-boys,

.54-girls.

Composite of Clusters V, VI, VII, VIII.

Set B

Nonconforming-Conforming.

Reliability

=

.92-boys,

.94-girls;

7' =

.21-boys,

.32-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters

III,

IV, V,

VI.

Stable-Unstable.

Reliability

=

.93-boys,

.94-girls;

P

=

.66-boys,

.58-girls.

Composite

of

Clusters

VII and

VIII with

Clusters

I and

II

reflected.

Note.-Average

=

the

average

orrelationf

the temwith

heother

luster

efiners;eliability

the

reliability

f

the

composite

f

the

cluster

efiners

Spearman-Brown);

'

=

reproducibility

f

the

mean

of

the

squared

orrelations

mong

tems.

297





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

relevant

clusters from

the

eight-cluster

solution,

giving

one

four-cluster

and

a

pair

of

two-cluster

solutions.

Figure

1 illustrates

the

model

of

child

be-

havior which evolved from the data. The circumscribedpoints represent

the

position

of

the

cluster

defining

items

as

plotted

in

the two-factor

space.

The

separate

boy

and

girl

solutions

were

similar

enough

so

that

for

the

four-cluster

and

two-cluster

solutions the

individual

clusters

could be

given

the

same

designations.

Although

the

items which

were

composited

to

de-

fine the axis

designated

Active-Passive do

not

clearly

measure this

dimen-

sion,

the

items

which had

the

highest

oblique

factor

coefficients

for

both

boys

and

girls (participates

energetically

vs.

remains

unoccupied,

self-

starting

vs. needs

encouragement,enjoys

vs.

does

not

enjoy

nursery

school,

andhigh vs. low energylevel) clearlymeasureActive-Passivebehavior.

Since

none

of the

previously reported

models

dealing

with

relevant

NONCONFORMING

BOYS

BOYS

U

k

A

E

I

a

A

r

T

T-

A

\pk

p

m

IV_

;0

L

u

E

E

E

--J

SL

TGIRLS

CONFORMING

A -

Lm

mS

46

COr

464

Z_

'IT

46?

?

L

UTO?oQuDOMNEpk tG

X \COM?UANT

G I L

t; I

C O F R M N

FIG.

1.-Child-behavior

model for

boys

and

girls

298





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRINDAND

ALLENE. BLACK

material

have

considered

boys

and

girls separately,

we will

overlook

for

a

moment

any

apparent

differences

between the

boy

and

girl

solutions

in

orderto consider he

generalizability

f the model without

regard

to sex.

The model

evolved as a

parsimonious

and

meaningful

post

hoc

solu-

tion to

the

problem

of data

reduction

and

not

as

an

attempt

to

define

the

real

structure of

child

behavior.

Although

the raters

were

experienced

psychologists

with

diverse theoretical

commitments,

the

rating

procedures

were

not

ones that

would

minimize

halo

effects

entering

into

the obtained

intercorrelations

among

items. Passini

and

Norman

(1966)

demonstrated

recently

that

Ss

who are

acquainted

superficially

can

produce peer-rating

factor

structures that

are

highly

similar

to those obtained from

Ss

with

whom ratersare

well

acquainted.

Similarly,

how

much

of

the

factor struc-

ture

reported

here is

a

function

of

a

universal

conceptual

bias

among

raters remains

moot.

The

conceptual

bias would

have

to

be more or less

universal,

however,

since the

results

from

diverse

studies

appear

strikingly

equivalent.

Initially,

Schaefer

(1961)

developed

a

hypothetical

model

based

on an

integration

of his own

work with

Guttman's

circumplex

method

and

a

review

of

previous

work.

Then,

Becker

and

Krug

(1964)

developed

an

empirically

derived model

from a

reworking

of

Becker's data

analyzed

previously

from

a

standard

factor-analyticapproach. Both authors found

substantial

support

in

the

literature for

their

models.

The

differences

be-

tween

the Schaefer and

the

Becker and

Krug

models

result

primarily

from

the

greater

differentiation f

the

later

model.

Figure

2

compares

the

child-behavior

models

of

Becker and

Krug

(1964),

Schaefer

(1961),

and the

four-cluster

solution for

the

current

study.

The

four-cluster

rather

than

the

eight-cluster

solution was

chosen

because its

cluster

designations

are

identical for

boys

and

girls.

Re-

examinationof

the full

model

(Figure

1)

will show

even

more

marked

sim-

ilaritiesamong the three models. With the exceptionof the area definedin

the

four-cluster

solution as

Independent,

and its

opposite

Dependent,

the

models

appear

equivalent

in

the

sense

that for

any

point

the

behaviors

de-

scribed to either

side

of

it,

at

the

item

level,

are

very

similar

for

almost

all

models

reviewed

by

Schaefer

and

by

Becker and

Krug.

Within

the Inde-

pendent

area,

most

other

studies

appear

to

have

items

defining

an

extension

of the

Resistive-Rebellious

areas,

but

most of

these

studies

lack a

constella-

tion

of

items

directed

at

the

positive

aspects

of

noncompliance

nvolved

in

Autonomous-Independent

ehaviors.

By

Contrast,

our

model

distinguishes

between Rebelliousand Autonomousbehavior for both boys and girls. The

distinction

proved

to

be

helpful

in

interpretations

of

parent-child

correlates,

especially

for

girls.

The

differences

between

the

models

are

most

marked at

the

poles.

As

the

psychologist

moves

up

through

levels

of

abstraction

from

individual

item

definitions

to

labeling

composite

clusters or

factors,

more

and more

free

play

is

granted

to

theoretical

bias.

The

difference

between

Becker

and

299





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


IRRESPONSIBLE

•%.

HOSTILITY

S)

/i4-'7A;jq,

,.

F.FIANT"

00,

0

HOSTILE

0%

P E

e

T(B)

R

0

t

0

V

A

R A

I

(S)

(S)

T

I

V

N

E

vE

0

R

0

"(B)

0

00,

COOPERAT/-

'f<

4.LOVE (S)

'•/G/

•RESPONSIBLE

FIG.

2.--A

comparison

f

two-factor

child-behaviormodels. Outer

ring

=

Four-cluster

olution

from

reported

study;

middle

ring

=

Becker and

Krug's

(1964) model; nnerring= Schaefer's1961) model. BeckerandKrug'smajor

axesare

indicated

by

(B)

and

Schaefer's

y

(S).

Krug's

polar

dimension

Emotional

Stability

and our

Stable dimension

is

more

a

function of

somewhat

differing

views

of

the

human

condition than

of a

difference

n

the

ordering

of

variables.

Comparability

f

the

Boy-

and Girl-Cluster

olutions

As

can be

seen from

Figure 1

and Table

3,

the

boy

and

girl

models

are

very

similar n both the

designations

given

to the clusters

and

in a

large

number of

the

defining

items within

clusters.

The

only

difference that

re-

flects content rather than

style

is

the

appearance

of

boy

Cluster

VI,

Im-

aginative-Stereotyped,

which

has

no

counterpart

among

the

girl

clusters.

As

is

indicated

by

the

position

of

its

center

mass

close

to

the

origin,

this

cluster

is

probably

more

closely

related

to

a

third

orthogonal

factor than

it

300





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND

ND

ALLEN

.

BLACK

is

to

the

first

two

factors. In

fact,

the third cluster

from the

original

cluster

analysis

by

the

Tryon

method had as

its

defining

items

four

of the

five

items defining ClusterVI. A similar third cluster emerged for girls, but it

was

even

more

highly dependent

on the

first two clusters than the

boys,

which

in

both

cases

were

dimensions similar

to Active-Passive

and

Irre-

sponsible-Responsible.

The area

of

child behavior

concerned

with

crea-

tivity appears

fruitful

as

a

possible

third

more or less

orthogonal

dimension

upon

which

a

three-dimensional

model of child behavior

might

be

con-

structed.

The

domineering aspects

of

girl

Cluster

IV

do

not

emerge

clearly

for

boys,

although

for the

Resistive-Cooperative

composite

clusters

these

items

also have

relatively high-factor

coefficients

for

boys.

This

type

of

content analysis of the differences between solutions is informative but

limited in

that it

lacks

the

necessary rigor

of

definition

to

allow for

com-

parison

of

correlates

with a

set of

independentparent

variables.

Recently,

Tryon

(1964)

proposed

an

index

of

similarity

between

clusters

or

dimensions

as

a

solution

to

the

problem

of

matching

factors

from

different

samples

when

the

identical

set

of

variables

is used.

This

problem

and

the

previous

attempts

at

solution

are

discussed

by

Harmon

(1960).

Tryon's

statistic

cos

0 was

discovered

empirically

through

the

successful

attempt

to

reproduce

the

known

intercorrelationbetween

clus-

ters within a single group solutionfrom the oblique factor coefficients,and,

like

r,

its

limits

are

--1.8

When

the

cos

0

value

between

two clusters

ap-

proaches

1,

the

clusters

are

equivalent

in

the sense

that

the

pooled

set of

item

definers

from

the

two

clusters

have

very

nearly

the

identical

pattern

of

factor

coefficients

for

both

clusters.

If

the

clusters

are

from

the

same

group

solution,

the

r

between them

will

also

approach

1.

But

once the

value

of

cos

0

has

been

established for

within-group

solution

comparisons,

no

logi-

cal

restrictions

prohibit

its

use for

across-group

solution

comparisons.

The

only

restriction

s

that

each

solution

must

contain

the

same

set

of referent

variables.

Table

4

gives

the

intercorrelation

between

the

clusters

within the

boy

a

Actually,

he

intercorrelation

reproduced

was

not

the raw

correlation

ased

on

factor

scores,

but,

rather,

he

correlation

etween

cluster

domains

(common

factor

r).

This is

simply

an

estimate

of

the

correlation

f

composites,

n

old

formulation

recently

reviewed

by

Ghiselli

(1964).

Cos 0

is

exact

only

when

the

definers

or

each

cluster

are

precisely

collinear, .e.,

when

they

all

fall

on the

same

straight

ine

in

the

space

under

consideration.

his

is

rarely

he

case,

but

for all cluster solutions studied by the present authors, the correspondencehas

been

strikingly

ccurate.

Frequently,

t

has

been

found

preferable

o refer

only

to

the raw

correlation

between

cluster

scores

rather

than

the

correlation

between

cluster

domains

or

common

factors.

In

the

present study

for

43

of the

109

possible

within-group

cluster

intercorrelations

from

the

child-behavior,

mother-interview

and

father-interview

cluster

analyses

for both

boys

and

girls,

the

product-moment

r

between

cos

0

and

r

was

.92.

301





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


I

It

%0

0

0

o"

N' 00

t

N

N

-~ ll?(

???

~

: ? t

~V

o

N

C0

)

Z

CU

0C

4-J0

00

Ou

04

>

U)9

(D

C4'00

pq

N

t-C)00.t

(n.

r.

>

z

zd

H

H

.-

00 mC)

C

c

(7 O

0

0

C

\0

C*4

to

V44

5

i

I

iii

e-

V-

0%

t

-

-

W)

M

01

'W44

N

-0

C

0

0

4-J

45

a) "

0

i

a

0

=

-00

N

0

M

<

S-m

-;

0

o OW~

-,

II:(

NP

eOCQ

lr~

~~C

"

. ;

cr

gC~C~0





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


C~I

o

~)

00'*N C00

0

m

\0C\C

d

-

I

0

0

0C4

Cb

U)

CC)

C)

0:

OvC%0CI.

Cl)

O

C

-

0

>1

C

CCC.)

0

m

\0

(D

C CC

)

U)Uo C)

Cb

0

0/)

mH

c

00

oU)

V) 41vF9 C oe

z

-z

U)

H

W)

-

va,

000

0

C)

F9

cu

In

0

c

'0

.d

0

u

x

.

M

WCI

c

w0

C

C)

0 0

m t 0

43 C4

o

W

19k

~

,

f

N-o

..

0

0

C

*

.

.

~

H

...

E

'

CC

c

C~

'-C

-

0

cd

00C.

. .

C

0

b

co

Vc

0

0

COCd

CC

c)

V04

1.C)

.

04

cuo

~

0

0

0

C)zC

-9

'0

C)

>1

~

0.

0C

0-4

00

C

-u,.

0

o..

C

H

0

'0

0

cu

cu~

Hk

COIrC u

W

CCU

~Cd

*

:

.

II

XII

~ O

00

m

00

CC

C

'0,0

0CC

1 1

A

0

1.

C.

M~C





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

and

girl

solutions

along

with cos

e

for the

boy-cluster

versus

girl-cluster

comparisons.

The circular

ordering

of the

correlations between

variables

for both boys and girls is quite consistent,and most of the clusters given

the

same

designation

have

high

cos

0

values. The correlation

analog

of

approximately

65

common

variance for

an

r

or .80 was

used to

arrive

at

a

definition

of

"high"

for

the

purposes

of this

study.

The

only

marked

dis-

parities

between

the

boy

and

girl

solutions

occur

in the

Independent--

Nonconforming

ectors

where the

contributionof

the

Imaginative boy

clus-

ter

is

potent.

Parent-BehaviorMeasures

In

previous

papers,

Baumrind

(1964; 1967)

described

in

detail

the

procedures

associated

with

the

home

visit and the Home

Visit

Sequence

Analysis

(HVSA).

The

home

was

the

setting

in which data

concerning

parent

behavior were

obtained.

The

psychologist

who visited the home

was

not one of

the

pair

that

rated

the

child's

behavior.

In

order

to achieve a

standardized

situation,

the

home visit

was

structured

identically

for

each

family

and

occurred for all

families

during

a

period

commencing

from

shortlybefore the dinner hour and lasting until just after the child's bed-

time. This

period

is

commonly

known

to

produce

instances

of

parent-child

divergence

and

was

selected

for

observation n

order

to

elicit

a

wide

range

of critical

nteractionsunder

maximum

tress.

A

system

was

developed

for

recording

in

detail

those

parent-child

in-

teractions where

one

member

attempted

overtly

to

influence the

behavior

of another.All

protocols

were

coded

after

the

home

visits

were

concluded.

The

major

interaction

unit

coded,

called a

control

sequence,

consisted

of

two or

more

causally

related acts

containing

a

single

message

and

involving

the same two family members as participants n an interchangeinitiatedby

one

of them

to

alter the

behavior of

the other

and

ending

with

the

other's

compliance

or

noncompliance.

Type

I

sequences

are

control

sequences

in-

iniated

by

the

parent

in

order

to

control

or

alter the

behavior

of the

child

or

his future

capacity

to act.

The

following

is

a

Type

I

sequence

in

which

the

parent

uses minimal

power,

and the

child

complies

after

the

parent

per-

sists:

MARK

gets up

from

the table.

FATHEa:"What do you say, Mark?"

MARK:

I

wanna

go."

FATHER:

What

do

you

say,

Mark?"

MARK:

Excuse

me,

please."

Type

II

sequences

are

child-initiated

control

sequences

where

the child

makes

a

demand

of

the

parent.

The

following

is a

Type

II

sequence

with

304





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND ND ALLEN

.

BLACK

which

the

parent

fails

to

comply, although

the

child

uses

increasingly

greater

power:

JOHN:

"Can

go

out?"

MOTHER:

"Yes.

Oh

no,

I

guess

you

can't.

I

didn't

realize

how late

it

was."

JOHN:

But

why

didn't

you

tell me

the time?"

MOTHER:

"You

ave o take

a bath

now."

JOHN:

Please,

Mother.

(Crying,

beseeching,being terribly

cute.)

I

never

get

to

go

down

the

street."

MOTHER:

"Not

tonight,

ear."

The

coded

information

from

the

sequences

was used

as

the basis

for

de-

fining theoretically

relevant

variables,

nine

of which were used in this

study.

The

nine

variables

chosen

are

defined

n Table

5.

Parent

Interviews

Each

parent

was

interviewed

separately

and

a

tape-recorded

tran-

script

made.

The

transcriptions

were

typed,

and the

psychologist

who

did

the

interviewing

was

able

to

review

and

study

her

interviews

prior

to

com-

pleting

her final

ratings

on

56

rating

scales.

The

individual

scales

which

have

been

reportedby Baumrind (1967) were designed to cover a broad

domain

of

parent

attitudes

and

practices

related to

child

rearing. Many

of

the

questions

asked

and the

scales

used

to

code the

transcripts

were

adapted

from

the

parent

interview

used

by

Sears,

Maccoby,

and

Levin

(1957),

although

the

format

and

emphasis

of

the

interviews

are

quite

dif-

ferent.

The

perspective

taken,

however,

was

that

of

self-report

rather

than

clinical

interpretations

of

parents'

statements and

demeanor.

This

is,

the

parent's

appraisal

of

his

or

her

own

feelings

and

practices

was

taken at face

value

and

the

ratings

made on

that basis.

For the individual items, the significant mean differences between

parental

attitudes

toward

child

rearing

of

boys

versus

girls

and

mothers

versus

fathers

are

given

in

Table 6.

It

is

of

interest

that

mothers

of

girls

compared

to

mothers

of

boys say

that

they

are more

strict

about

neatness,

demand

obedience,

control verbal

protest,

and

use

withdrawal

of

love. The

withdrawal-of-love

tem for

mothers

of

girls

correlates

negatively

with

the

mother-interview

cluster

Warmth

(-.64)

and

positively

with

the item

Negative

Sanctions.

Frightening

the

Child

(.62)

which

together

with

Withdrawal

of

Love

formed

the cluster

defining

maternal

Punitiveness for

girls. If the inference is valid (e.g., Bronson,Livson,&Katten, 1959; Hein-

stein,

1965)

that

in

California

homes,

at

least,

the

mother

is

the

more

important

socialization

agent

as

well as

the

more

nurturant

parent,

and if

expressed

attitudes

provide

information

about

actual

differential

reinforce-

ment for

boys

and

girls

of

direct

expressions

of

feeling

and

self-assertive

be-

havior,

then

it

is

likely

that

preschool

girls

more

than

boys

are

punished

for

direct

expression

of

feelings

and in

ways

which

would

generate

greater

305





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

conflict and

guilt

about

wrong

doing.

This

might

account,

in

part,

for

the

significant

behavior

differences

in risk

taking,

passive

dependence,

and

covert

hostility

betweenboys and

girls

notedin this

study

and elsewhere.

TABLE

5

HOME-VISIT EQUENCE

ANALYSIS

VARIABLE

DEFINITIONS

VARIABLE

DEFINITION

(a)

Positive

Outcome...................

The

per

cent of

parent-initiated

control

sequences

(Type

I)

where

the child

complies.

(c) Accepts

Power

Conflict with

Child....

The

per

cent

of

child-initiated

sequences (Type II) where the

parent

does

not evade

child's

request

as a method

of com-

pliance.

(f)

Independence

Training,

Control

.....

The

per

cent of

parent-initiated

control

sequences (Type

I)

where

the

message

concerns

cognitive

insight

into cause and

effect

relations or

factual

knowledge

about

the

world.

(h) Respects

Child's

Decision...........

The

per

cent

of

parent-initiated

control sequences (Type I) in-

volving noncompliance

where

the

parent

retracts

directive

on

the

basis of

the

child's

arguments.

(j)

Uses

Reason to

Obtain

Compliance...

The

per

cent

of

parent-initiated

control

sequences (Type

I)

where

the

parent

uses

reason

with

the

directive.

(k)

Encourages

Verbal

Give and

Take....

The

per

cent of

control

sequences

(Type

I

and

Type

II)

in

which

the

parent,

in

order to

handle

a parent-child divergence, uses

power

or

reason

or

responds

with

power

or

reason

to

the

child's

demands,

where

the

parent

engages

the

child

in

argument,

generally

altering

his

course

of

action

as

a

result.

(m)

Satisfies

Child

.................... The

per

cent of

child-initiated

sequences

(Type

II)

where

the

interaction

produces

satisfaction

for

the

child.

(q)

Uses

Coercive

Power

Without Reason.. The per cent of parent-initiated

control

sequences

(Type

I)

where

the

parent

uses

coercive

power

without

giving

a

reason.

(r)

Takes

Initiative in

Control

Sequences..

The

per

cent

of

total

control

sequences

(Type

I

and

Type

II)

which

were

initiated

by

the

parent

(Type I)

rather

than

the child

(Type

II).

306





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND

AND ALLENE.

BLACK

TABLE 6

SIGNIFICANT

PARENT-INTERVIEW

ITEM

MEAN

DIFFERENCES

MOTHER INTERVIEW

Mothers

of

boys

>

mothers of

girls:

12.

Negative

sanctions:

Deprivation

of

privileges

44.

Tolerance

of

verbal

protest

Mothers of

girls

>

mothers of

boys:

2. Strictness: Neatness

10.

Demand for obedience

13.

Negative

sanctions:

Withdrawal

of

love

27. Control

of

verbal

and/or

physical aggression

toward

parent

38.

Maturity

expectation:

Does not reward

dependency

FATHER INTERVIEW

Fathers of

boys

>

fathers

of

girls:

11.

Negative

sanctions:

Corporal

punishment

18. Positive sanctions as

reinforcer: Praise

19.

Positive sanctions

as

reinforcer:

Tangible

reward

28.

Directiveness:

Restrictions

on

child's

initiative

Fathers of

girls

>

fathers of

boys:

None

MOTHER

INTERVIEW

X

FATHER

INTERVIEW

Mothers of

boys

>

fathers of

boys:

12. Negative sanctions: Deprivationof privileges

14.

Negative

sanctions:

Isolation

36.

Maturity

expectation:

Permissivenessfor

exploration

37.

Maturity

expectation:

Rewarding

of

self-sufficiency

42.

Communication:

Attentiveness to child's

communication

47.

Individual

character of child

perceived

48.

Warmth: Presence

of

a

loving relationship

50.

Warmth:

Approval

52.

Warmth:

Empathy

55.

Conscientiousness: Sacrifice

own needs to those

of

children

Fathers

of

boys

>

mothers

of

boys:

10. Demand for obedience20. Parents'

feeling

of control

over child

22. Lacks

internal

conflict about

disciplinary procedures

23.

Consistency:

Follow-through

n

discipline

26.

Consistency

of

discipline:

Parental

agreement

27.

Control of

verbal

and/or

physical

aggression

toward

parent

28.

Directiveness:

Restrictions on child's

initiative

32.

Reason

for

restrictions:

An

absolutist

ethical

imperative

Mothers of

girls

>

fathers

of

girls:

1.

Strictness: Care

of

family

property

2.

Strictness:

Neatness

11.

Negative

sanctions:

Corporal

punishment

12. Negative sanctions: Deprivationof privileges

37.

Maturity expectation:

Rewarding

of

self-sufficiency

40.

Independence:

Encourages

contact

with other

adults

55.

Conscientiousness:

Sacrifice own

needs to

those of

children

Fathers

of

girls

>

mothers

of

girls:

17.

Negative

sanctions:

Frightening

the

child

22.

Lacks internal

conflict

about

disciplinary procedures

Note.---

<

.05

for

I

est

of

either

correlated

r

independent

means as

appropriate.

307





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

Parent-interviewClusters

As was the case with the final procedures used with the child be-

havior,

four

principal

axes

factor

analyses

were

performed

on

the

inter-

view data

for

mothers

of

boys,

mothers

of

girls,

fathers

of

boys,

and

fathers

of

girls.

These

analyses

revealed that

(a)

the

raw

intercorrelations

were,

in

general,

much

lower

than

for the

child

behavior,

(b)

all

four

solutions

were

similar

but

not similar

enough

to

allow

combining

of

boys

and

girls,

and

(c)

there was

no

basis

for

establishing

a

firm

two-

or three-dimensional

orthogonal

structure

n

any

of

the

solutions. Since

there seemed

to be

little

value

in

pursuing

a

workable model of

parent

attitudes,

the decision-

making features of the BC TRY cluster analytic system were utilized to

provide

final

clusters as

similar

as

possible

across solutions.

Table 7

gives

the

defining

items,

that

is,

those items

which were

composited

to

obtain

cluster

scores for

the

final

clusters and the cluster reliabilities.

For

clarity

of

interpretation,

additional

items that

have a

relatively

high average

cor-

relation with the

definers

are

also

listed.

The

clusters

defining

Warmth

and

Consistent

Discipline

emerged

almost intact

as

the

first

two

clusters

from

all four

analyses.

The

relatively

low reliabilities for

some

of the

other

clusters

reflect the

generally

low

order of

intercorrelation

mong

items

and,

in addition,fewer items clusteredtogetherthanfor the childbehavior.

Comparability

f

the

Parent-Interview

Clusters

Table 8 contains

the raw intercorrelations

among

parent-interview

clusters within a

group

solution,

along

with

cos 0

values

for

across-group

solution

comparisons.

n

addition,

both

r

and

cos 0

values

are

given

for the

mother-father

comparisons

or

boys

and

girls

separately.

For

mothers,

clus-

ters

measuring

Warmth,

Consistent

Discipline,

Maturity

Demands,

and

Punitivenesswere found for both

boys

and

girls

and were similarfor both

sexes

(cos

0

>

.80).

However,

the

pattern

of

intercorrelations

of

the

clusters differs

for

boys

and

girls.

Maturity

Demands

for

mothers

of

boys

is

relatively orthogonal

to

the

other

clusters,

while it

correlates

highly

with

Consistency

(.58)

and

negatively

with Punitiveness

(-.36)

for

girls.

Two

additional

clusters

designated

Restrictiveness

and

Encourages

Independent

Contacts were found for

boys

but

not for

girls,

and one

cluster

designated

Socialization

Demands was

found

for

girls

but not for

boys.

Encourages

Independent

Contacts

showed

a

significant

positive

correlationwith both

maternalWarmthand

Maturity

Demands.

For

fathers,

four

clusters were found and

given

identical

designations

for

both

boys

and

girls, although

the

similarity

across

sex was

high

only

for

Consistent

Discipline

(cos

0

=

.85).

Warmth

and

Strictness

Concern-

ing

Orderliness

had

cos

0

values

in

the

.70's,

while

Punitiveness

had a

similarity

ndex of

only

.52. For fathers

of

boys,

all

four

clusters

were

rela-

308





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND ND ALLEN . BLACK

TABLE 7

DESCRIPTION OF PARENT-INTERVIEW CLUSTERS

MOTHER

NTERVIEW-BOYS

AVERAG

r

Warmth.

Reliability

=

.84,

*

=

.45:

48.d

Warmth: Presence of

a

loving relationship

.............

.59

53.*

Warmth:

Sympathy..................................

.57

50.d

Warmth:

Approval..............................

.56

42.1

Communication:

Attentiveness

to child's

communication....

.54

52. Warmth:

Empathy

...................................

.53

Consistent

Discipline.

Reliability

=

.71,

2

=

.20:

24.d

Consistency:

Child-rearing

ractices

...................

.53

23.d

Consistency:Follow-through

n

discipline.

...............

.42

22.d Lacks nternal onflictaboutdisciplinaryrocedures........ .41

17.

Negative

anctions:

Frightening

he

child

................

-.40

11.

Negative

anctions:

Corporal unishment

................

-.38

Maturity

Demands.

Reliability

=

.61,

f

=

.16:

34.

Maturity xpectation:

Household

esponsibilities...........

..43

37.d


Rewarding

f

self-sufficiency

.......

.43

3.

Strictness:

Responsibilities

boutorderliness

.............

.40

Punitiveness.

Reliability

=

.59,

f*

=

.24:

13.d

Negative

anctions:Withdrawalf

love.................

.41

17.1

Negative

anctions:

Frightening

he

child.................

.41

42.

Communication:

ttentiveness

o child's

communication....

-.41

50. Warmth:Approval..................................... -.40

51.

Warmth:

Absence

f

hostility

...........................

-.37

Restrictiveness.

Reliability

=

.80,

P

=

.10:

36.d

Maturity

xpectation:

Permissiveness

or

exploration

......

-.

64

28.d

Directiveness:

Restrictions n

child's

nitiative

........... .56

54.d

Conscientiousness:

eeping

rack

of

the child.............

.53

Encourages

ndependent

ontacts.

Reliability

=

.70,

f

=

.17:

40.d

Independence:

ncourages

ontact

with other

adults.......

.54

41.d

Independence:

ntroduces

hildto

new

experiences.

.......

.54

51.

Warmth:

Absence

f

hostility

.........................

.40

MOTHERNTERVIEW-GIRLS

AVERAGE

r

Warmth.

Reliability

=

.87,

f,

=

.47:

42.d

Communication:

Attentiveness to

child's

communication.... .63

53.d

W

armth:

Sympathy

...................................

.62

48.d

Warmth:

Presence of

a

loving

relationship................

.61

50.

Warmth:

Approval

...................................

.60

13.

Negative

sanctions:

Withdrawal

of

love.....................

-.56

Consistent

Discipline.

Reliability

=

.84,

f*

=

.32:

24.d

Consistency:

Child-rearing

practices

...................

.

.60

23.4

Consistency:

Follow-through

n

discipline..................

.60

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

22."

Lacks internal

conflict about

disciplinary

procedures

.......

.51

Maturity

Demands.

Reliability

=

.77,

P

=

.23:

34.d


Household

esponsibilities..........

.56

3.d

Strictness:

Responsibilities

boutorderliness

.............

.55

23.

Consistency:

Follow-through

n

discipline

...............

.55

47.

Individual

haracter f child

perceived

...................

.50

37.d

Maturity

xpectation:

Rewarding

f

self-sufficiency.

.46

309





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILDDEVELOPMENT

Punitiveness.

Reliability

=

.77,

r-

=

.30:

13.d

Negative

sanctions:

Withdrawal

of

love

..................

.62

17.d

Negative

sanctions:

Frightening

the

child

................

.62

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

42.

Communication:

Attentiveness

to

child's

communication....

-.52

Socialization

Demands.

Reliability

=

.65,

f2

=

.09:

7.d

Strictness:

Aggression

toward

other

children

..............

.42

39."

Maturity expectation:

Intellectual

achievement

expected....

.37

6.d Strictness: Quarreling

with sisters and

brothers

...........

.37

FATHER INTERVIEW-BOYS

AVERAGE

r

Warmth.

Reliability

=

.87,

2

=

.38:

48."

Warmth:

Presence

of a

loving

relationship

...............

.

74

49.d

Warmth: Demonstrativeness.

...................

........ .66

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

53. Warmth:

Sympathy

..................

.................

.61

50. W

armth:

Approval

...................................

.60

Consistent

Discipline.

Reliability

=

.81,

f2

=

.15:

24.d

Consistency:

Child-rearing

practices......................

.66

23.d

Consistency:

Follow-through

n

discipline

................

.56

20.d

Parent's

feeling

of control over

child

.....................

.54

Strictness

Concerning

Orderliness.

Reliability

=

.87,

=

.08:

2.d

Strictness: Neatness..

.

...............

........

.....

.

.61

3.*

Strictness:

Responsibilities

about

orderliness

.............

.61

8. Strictness:

Television

.............

................

.37

Punitiveness.

Reliability

=

.69,

f2

=

.12:

43.d Communication: Expressionof negative feelings to child.... .44

17.d

Negative

sanctions:

Frightening

the

child

................

.42

11.d

Negative

sanctions:

Corporalpunishment

................

.41

51. Warmth:

Absence

of

hostility

...........................

-.35

10.

Demand

for immediate

or

total

obedience.

................ .34

13.

Negative

sanctions: Withdrawal

of

love

..................

.32

FATHERNTERVIEW---GIRS

AVERAGE

Warmth:

Reliability

=

.86,

Pf

=

.18:

48.d

Warmth:

Presence

of a

loving

relationship

...............

.71

49.d

Warmth:

Demonstrativeness

...........................

.68

50.d

Warmth:

Approval.....................................

.61

13.

Negative

sanctions: Withdrawalof love .................. -.46

Consistent

Discipline.

Reliability

=

.76,

f2

=

.39:

23.d

Consistency:

Follow-through

n

discipline.

................

.80

21.

Parent's

appraisal

of

his/her

general

influence

on

child

.....

.73

20.d

Parent's

feeling

of control over child .....................

.71

56.

Conscientiousness:

Acceptance

of

responsibility

...........

.69

24.d

Consistency:

Child-rearingpractices

.....................

.65

Strictness

Concerning

Orderliness.

Reliability

=

.83,

f2

=

.18:

2.d

Strictness:

Neatness

....................................

.63

1.d

Strictness:

Care

of

family

property.......................

.

61

3.V

Strictness:

Responsibilities

about orderliness

.............

.61

Punitiveness.

Reliability

=

.82,

i'

= .15:

17.d

Negative

sanctions:

Frightening

the

child

................

.61

13.d

Negative

sanctions: Withdrawal

of

love....................

.60

26.d

Consistency

of

discipline:

Parental

agreement

............

--.59

51.

Warmth:

Absence

of

hostility

..........................

-.47

Note.-A

superscript

d

indicates the items

defining

the

cluster;

reliability

=

the

reliability

of the

composite

of

the

cluster definers

(Spearman-Brown);

=

reproducibility

of the

mean

of

the

squared

correlations

mong

items; average

r

-

the

average

correlation

f the

item with the other cluster

definers.

310





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND

AND

ALLEN

E. BLACK

\OaO0 Mhl

000'0

~~u00

M0 U

0

b0

4.o4

O?o0-'

0 0

qt0tnOk

00?oC

0u

>

r

-

02 0.00u

00'0C4

o3

0

0 0) -

Fel

? Im

II', h

3II

mo(

0) Z

t

000

0

t-o

c d ~

41

0

%

0

0

u

v

t-

-m

m

pq

0

3

a?0.

I

IN

0

0

.

. . .

*

so%0 0'0

..g)0

cl

cj

e()0

a

U2

.. .

a)

aC

)

C1

:m::.

b~

0

'-f

4

cVcd~(

QUO

V141

A

..4-.1

.444

.

0 E4a0 0)

I..?

Z

z4

.o60 ,.'

x

02

- 0 M000 0O

""

eq

(U

00

Zd 0

41 : :cd bcIc3

O

aE:co $4(

0

41

-q4

cd

t-

eq

a

0000

'in 0k0

M

0inZ

0.4)I

~C4

00

cd

Cd

c

VIP,

pq

0f

W

k(

02.0

H. 0..C4

0).a0

,4 m C40

0-r0

V00

0)

00

.

.

.

...

4

00

C4

4

-.04 00

z0

0

.0

10a

0

w

ll

o~

10.6-1

0

C4

0 Cd0-~%

6-1

Cd

Cdc

o0

S-)

00

M

c

d

o

be

c-.

C

::I.

r.

ED)

te w

jN~

,

, L;

loo

:..0 0 U

0

0)

(u0)

.-4

cue

.0

.

.

0

0I

00

~~00~

0)000

a

cu

U

C.)

cu

..4

V4M

311

U

0

Cn

4

j

Q

cu~u

0

>,

r.

>

be

4

C

4

()Z

d

u

; ~ ~ Y ) 3 .

mv

o

Cd

Cd

OE

r

~ ~ ~

i

r

o 1424

k

0cc~A4

x3C ~~rt Occ 311





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

tively

orthogonal;

for

girls,

Warmth

was

correlated

significantly

with

Con-

sistent

Discipline,

and

both

Warmth and

Consistent

Discipline

were

cor-

relatednegativelywith maternalPunitiveness.

For

the mother

x

father

comparisons

of

identically

designated

clus-

ters,

it

is

generally

the case

for

both

boys

and

girls

that even

where

cos

0

is

high,

r

is

low,

indicating

that

although

the same

constellation

of attitudes

is

salient

for

both

mother and

father

clusters,

there is

relatively

little

predic-

tive

value from one

parent

to

the

other. A

possible

exception

is Consistent

Discipline

which

intercorrelated

43 for

boys

and

.32 for

girls. Although

maternal

and

paternal

Punitiveness

are uncorrelated

for

boys,

paternal

Punitiveness

s

negatively

correlatedwith maternal Warmth and Consistent

Discipline. PaternalConsistentDiscipline is correlatedpositively with ma-

ternal

Maturity

Demands for

both

boys

and

girls

and

with maternal En-

courages Independent

Contacts

for

boys

and maternal Socialization De-

mands

for

girls.

The fact

that the child-behavior correlates of

maternal

Socialization

Demands for

girls,

maternal

Maturity

Demands,

and

paternal

Consistent

Discipline

for

boys

are similar s

discussed

n

the Results section.

RESULTS

Sex-Related

Efects

of

Parent

Attitudes

Parent

variables

given

identical or similar

designations

frequently

correlate

with

child-behavior

variables

quite differently

for

boys

and

girls.

It

might

appear

to follow that

different

socialization laws are

needed

to

predict

the

behavior

of

boys

and

girls.

However,

in the instances examined

(Bayley

&

Schaefer, 1964; Bronfenbrenner,

1961; Sears,

Rau,

&

Alpert,

1965),

speculations

to that

effect,

while

reasonable,

do not

follow

unequiv-

ocally

from

the data

presented.

The

ambiguity

is

frequently

with

respect

to

the

equivalence

of the entities

given

the same

designations.

The variables

are

comparable

f

they

correlate

highly,

but it

is of

course

not

possible

to

correlate

directly

across sex.

Cluster-analytic echniques

are

helpful

here in

two

ways:

(a)

a

measurable

entity

with a

higher

reliability

emerges

with a

well-defined

set

of referents

when

highly

intercorrelated

tems

are

com-

posited,

and

(b)

it

is

then

possible

to

obtain cos

0 values between

clusters

across

solutions.

When

cos 0 values

are

high,

the

two

dimensions are

comparable.

However,

the

possibility

of

a

large

difference

in

pattern

of

intercorrelation

f clusters

between

groups

arises to the

extent that

across-

group

cluster

comparisonsgive

cos 0 values less than

unity

for all identi-

cally

designated

clusters.

Where

such

large

differences

exist,

across-group

comparison

of

effects

for individual

clusters

cannot

be

interpreted

clearly.

For

example,

if

Cluster

A for

Mothers

of

boys

correlates

positively

with

Hostility,

and

the

identically

designated

Cluster A

for

mothers

of

girls

cor-

relates

negatively

with

Hostility,

hen

the

meaning

f

the

differencen

cor-

312





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND ND

ALLEN

.

BLACK

relations between

Cluster

A

with

boy

behaviors

and Cluster

A

with

girl

behaviors is

altered

by

the sex-related interaction of

Hostility

with

Cluster

A. Without resortingto partial correlation,the relationsbetween a set of

independent

variables

and a set

of

dependent

variables

for

independent

groups

can be

clearly

understood

only

when the

within-set

patterns

of

in-

tercorrelation

among

variables are similar

for

each

group.

Actually,

calcu-

lating

correlations

with

long strings

of

partialed-out

variables

is

statistically

meaningless

with the

degrees

of

freedom available

in

psychological

studies

and

seldom

attempted

except

with

selected variables chosen on the basis of

observed

relations.

When the

criteria

for

selection for

studying

the

differential

relations

between parent attitudes and boy and girl behavior is set to include only

those

clusters

which

have

a

high

cos 0

value

and a

similar

pattern

of

inter-

correlation

with

other

parent

clusters,

all

paternal

clusters

are eliminated

and

only

maternal

Warmth,

Consistent

Discipline,

and Punitiveness can

be

considered.

The

correlations

of

maternal

Warmth and

maternal

Con-

sistent

Discipline

with

child

behaviors are

undifferentiated

with

regard

to

sex when

it is

noted that

for the size

N

available,

a

difference n

correlation

between

identically

measured

variables

of

approximately

40 is

significant

at the

.05

level.

(See

Tables

11

and

12.)

The

positive

correlationof ma-

ternal Punitivenesswith Hostile behaviorfor boys (.15) and negative cor-

relation

with the

same

behavior

for

girls

(-.31),

however,

is

suggestive

of

a

sex-related

difference

n

relation. If

the above

requirements

are

relaxed

to

include

all

similarly

designated

clusters,

some

interesting

sex-related differ-

ences can be

considered. Maternal

Warmth

was

correlated

positively

with

Autonomy

for

boys

(.26)

and

not at all

for

girls.

Paternal

Warmth

was

correlated

positively

with

Autonomy

for

boys

(.28)

and

negatively

(-.21)

for

girls.

In this

connection,

it

may

be

noted

that

Autonomy

has a

sex-

differentiatedrelation to

paternal

Consistent

Discipline

(.35

for

boys,

and

-.05 for

girls)

and to

paternal

Punitiveness (.03 for

boys,

and .34 for

girls).

Paternal

Consistent

Discipline

and

paternal

Punitiveness

are

them-

selves

negatively

related

clusters.

These

data,

especially

the

fact

that

pa-

ternal

Warmth

and

paternal

Punitiveness

each

have

opposite

associations

with

independence

in

boys

and

girls,

support

the

hypothesis

that

girls

more than

boys require

a certain

degree

of

tension in

their

relation

with

a

parent,

as

well

as

leeway

to rebel in

order

to

develop

independence

and

self-assertiveness.

t

must be

kept

in

mind,

however,

that

the

four

Warmth

clusters and the

two

paternal

Punitiveness

clusters

do

not

entirely

meet

the

requirements

et for

comparability.

Relations

Between

Parent-Attitude

nd

Parent-Behavior

Measures

A

comparison

of data

derived

from

parent

interviews

with

data de-

rived

from

parent

observation

may suggest

areas

in

which

parents

are

313





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

capable

of

giving

reasonably

veridical accounts of

their

relations

with

their

children.

However,

it

should

be

noted that

originally

the

data

collected

from these two sources were intended to be

supplementary

rather than

overlapping

and

that

the

variables

so

far

defined for the HVSA

do

not

span

the

domain

of

parent

behavior.

Additionally,

the HVSA uses data

from

both

parents

with

contributions

rom the mother

predominant.

The

inter-

correlations

of

the

HVSA

variables for

parents

of

boys

and

girls

separately

and their

correlations

with

the

interview clusters

appear

in

Table 9.

The

maternal

Warmth

clusters

are

both

highly

reliable and

highly

comparable

for

boys

and

girls,

yet

their

correlations with the

parent-

behavior variables

are

somewhat different.

Most notable

of

these

differences

was the

relatively

high

correlation

of

maternal

Warmth

for

boys

with

Satisfies

Child

(.44),

itself an

aspect

of

warmth,

and the low correlation

with

the same

variable for

girls

(.12),

while the

opposite

relations

hold

(-.47

for

girls,

.10 for

boys)

for

Uses

Coercive

Power

Without

Reason,

a

variable

highly

correlated with

the

interview cluster

Punitiveness

for

girls

(.52)

but

not for

boys

(.05).

The

correlations

with firm

control

(Positive

Outcome and

Accepts

Power

Conflict

With

Child)

were

positive

for both

sexes.

In

general, the behavioral correlates of the Warmth variables were

consistent

and

reasonable.

Even when

sex

related,

none

were

in

directions

opposite

to

commonsense

or

generally

accepted

theory.

If

observed

behavior

is

used

as

the

criterion,

mothers'

reports

con-

cerning

Consistent

Discipline

with sons are less

veridical than

any

other

combination. The

only

significant

correlation

between

Consistent

Disci-

pline

for

mothers of

boys

and

any

parent-behavior

ariable was with

Satis-

fies

Child.

For

the

other

parent-child

combinations,

there

is

more

corre-

spondence

between

attitude

and behavior

measures.

The

expected

correlationswith Positive Outcomeare all significant.In addition,for same-

sex

pairs,

a

significant

negative

correlation

was found with

Uses

Coercive

Power

Without Reason.

It was

reported

previously

that maternal

Maturity

Demands

had

a dif-

ferent

pattern

of

correlation

with

other

maternal

interview

clusters

for

boys

and

girls.

Similarly,

that

cluster's

pattern

of

correlation

with

parent-

behavior

variables was

different for

boys

and

girls.

For

girls,

Maturity

De-

mands

correlated

positively

with

Positive

Outcome,

Independence

Train-

ing,

and

Respects

Child's

Decision,

indicating

a

relatively

straightforward

relation between reported and observed behavior. For mothers of sons,

Maturity

Demands

correlated

positively

with

Uses

Reason

to

Obtain

Com-

pliance,

but

negatively

with

Respects

Child's

Decision,

indicating

a

more

equivocal

relation.

The

correlation of the

mother-son

cluster

Encourages

Independent

Contacts

with

Parent Takes

Initiative

in

Control

Sequences

(-.26)

and

Uses

Reason to

Obtain

Compliance

(.34)

gives

evidence of

consistency

314





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND

ND ALLEN

.

BLACK

C)~

O C C

~(

O

,,-•

O

,,-

O e,, e,,

--.

O O OO O

,,-

e',

,

,- cu'l e O O

,,-

e', O O

,--•

•

0....O

0

000

0..

ON

.

N

t

.. ..00

-

. .

to00

e

c

Mq m m 000C> ld4c)CN lt n%Nl(

En

I i

IIII

I I

I

II

U)

I

m

q o

ON

q ?O

C

\

0

q

I CI

-f4

meq

t-

CNI

O

C.

tn414

00

O

c-q 0q

OO-

0

•qooo

m-0f

O

c%

eq

O

0000

V--

q

O

U

e

H

1O

I

0

I0

m

IrI II

I

I

II

0I II

S

I

q

I

II

I

II

III

I

I

IM

I

1~1

I

I

z

HImo

o

-I0I I CI00o

c%4m

-- O 'IMO

,0m

II

<0

o 0 0 cq

0 ei

0

00-0

0

0

cq

00

C-4

-C-4

c

0

t-•

m,,

O

,,19

O O

',-•

O

,

O

?

C

1N

m

O

t-,,1

O

4 14

m,-

m

_

,-q

cq

I I I

I

I

IqI0Im

m

II

N

H

10

I-I

I

I I

mI0

I

I

I

-

. .

. .

. . .

. .

. . . .

Al

I I I I I I I I I I

t

o

o

.

.t-

o

..

.

.c ..

. ...

.

.

I

00

n

00

0

..

.

000

t

C2..

o0

0

0 q o0

ooio-

c

o

o

CN

C)

m

oo:

::.

................0

nL

,U?

?

. . .

.

.

. . .

...

II

?

o

.

a

.

c

?0(

~)I

C \?lC c d ~ t~~> O6 f ~>\)CC C

cC

d

Q~In

.

.

. .

......

.

. .

.

.

...

......

.

. . . .

.U.

..

. .

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

OJ

U

................

)..........................?)... ...... .

.. . . ....

. . . . . . ..

.......

........

: :

:

:

:

:

.

o.Q

.

"

4.

:•-.

.......

o

:

:•

:•

::

:

::

::••.............

.

.0=.....

3;n

H

?)0 . .

.

. .

0rln

Z'

.n

o

d

.

.

.

.

.

C

o

"

U

O

)U)

1)

W

d

.

H

000 4.-d

0

..

.

:?

0

n

0

&.0

444

l l : ?

r n n

>?

(1)

U

"

E'

O

'

""

.

2

.

-

-

C

.-

),-U)

1._.

,,)

(1):(1).u

•

:O

u

4-J4-1

N

4

5

En

>

E

U

4-1

1

*,

d d

dr.

d

0

4-

.4 4-):z 0

0

A

UO W uV) q U A4j)

e :

CU ???-

C C

X4o ? Iro .L 1

315





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

between

attitude

and

behavior.

The

negative

correlation

with

Independ-

ence

Training

(-.21)

is

not

as

contradictory

as

it

first

appears

in that

the

latter variableis concernedwith

cognitive

differentiationratherthan social

self-reliance.

Punitive

attitudes

seem

to

predict

parent

behavior

which is

coercive

and

inconsistent.

Expressions

of

punitive

attitudes were

associated

with

coercive

behavior for all

parent-child

pairs,

but less

markedly

for

mothers

of

boys.

For same-sex

pairs,

but

especially

for

mother-daughter

pairs,

Puni-

tiveness

correlated

highly

with Uses

Coercive

Power Without

Reason. For

both

parents

of

girls,

Punitiveness

correlated

negatively

with

Uses

Reason

to

Obtain

Compliance.

For

mothers

of

girls,

Punitiveness

correlated

nega-

tively

withfirmcontrol

(Positive

Outcomeand

Accepts

Power

Conflict).

The

mother-son

cluster

Restrictiveness

correlated

positively

with

Par-

ent

Takes

Initiative in

Control

Sequences

and

with Satisfies

Child

(.23),

thus

supporting

a

relation

between restrictive

attitudes and

overprotective

(not

hostile)

behavior.

In

general,

the

pattern

of

correlations

between

parent

attitudes and

observed

behavior

frequently

differs

depending

upon

sex

of

parent

and sex

of

child,

and

not in

a manner

which

could

be

predicted.

There were

few

inconsistencies

between

measures of

attitude

and

measures of

behavior,

but

the

relations

were not

strong.

Correlation

f

Sample

CharacteristicsWith Parent

and Child

Variables

The

intercorrelations

among

the

sample

characteristicsand

child's

IQ

and their

correlations

with the

parent-interview

clusters,

HVSA

variables,

and

child-behavior clusters

appear

in

Table 10.

It

should

be noted that

father's

occupation,

father's

education,

birth

order,

and,

to a lesser

extent,

family

size

have

skewed distributions

(Table 1).

Of

particular

interest

is

the

consistently

negative

relation

of

father's

education

with all

behavior

in

the

Active

quadrant.

Father's

education

and

occupation

were

correlated

negatively

with

Confident,

Adaptive

behavior

in

girls,

and

father's

educa-

tion was

correlated

negatively

with

Autonomous,

Imaginative

behavior

in

boys.

These same

variables

were

related to

parent

behavior and

interview

clusters

measuring

rigidity,

coerciveness,

and

lack

of

involvement

on the

part

of

parents

of

girls

and

to

a lesser

extent on the

part

of

parents

of

boys.

The

results

suggest

that

the

generally

beneficial

effects

on the

child's

de-

velopment attributed to high socioeconomic status and educational level

may

undergo

a

reversal

at

the

upper

levels.

For

boys,

IQ

was

associated

(strongly)

with

Self-Controlled,

Depend-

able,

Friendly,

and

Likeable

behavior,

while

the relations

of

IQ

to

equiva-

lent

clusters

for

girls

are

(weak)

in

the

opposite

direction. Like

Bayley

and

Schaefer

(1964),

we find that

girls'

IQ

compared

to

boys'

IQ

is

relatively

independent

of

the

maternal and

child

variables

studied. From

an

early

316





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

oMCoOMN"

Mv-4000

C49-4

coo0

l

N

N

V

N0141

N

N1

114

V

0

0-440

00N'4

M'40

00

eT-4 T-4

N-N m

0

mf)

cm-

M

0

00000br000U~

000

0

CA0 '40CAN00-

--N

10

-

0'0-

o

4

-

04T-

-400

-

j4T-

1041

Cd

00

'0 t0'0 CAt- ON ON 0

V-C

000000

0

Coc

000 c

'40L- ON e

00

U

---00

mN -0

0

0-

V

00

04-

004LO0 M

0

4t

.

.

.

. .

.

. . .

4 4-

1111 11 II

II

I t

1

0

OO'~~00

Otl)

0

z

0

0

0M)M0000

00

4

00

N

IIT4T4

II

U

aCd

cd

0

0

CA

N

-

-

CA

0

00

0 0N

c-

.0

oa)o

10N N"C4 o 0 NO C

eq

q

"

C4

C4

4

0.Cd

M0*0

ad

0

v

v-CU)

V..--

r.

0

w

...4

:

: :

: .

U

O d~r

41

0

Co

04-

U~

b

-dI

1Ic

";

;5

0.2

0

0

1

4-J

M

I

R

Cc

".a

4--)

cd

d

w

.-4

a,

Z O r U c E

( U Z E - 0 6 - 0 6

060

0

tu

q

d:m

d\Or3UO0.4

4

6 4 u d~c

318





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLEN

E.

BLACK

age,

a

boy's

place

in

the

world

is

tied

to

his

cognitive

abilities,

while a

girl's

value

to her

parents

and herself is

enhanced

by

quite

a

different

set

of

skills. Indeed,

high

IQ in a

girl

may

make it more difficultfor her to as-

sume her

expected passive,

conforming

ole.

Child-Behavior

Correlates

of

Parent-AttitudeClustersand

HVSA

Variables

The

individual

relations which

appear

between

parent

variables

and

child

variables

(Tables

11

and

12)

are not

strong.

However,

many

are

significant,

and

the

patterns

of

significant

correlations

are

internally

con-

sistent

and

some are

of

striking

theoretical

interest.

In

particular,

some

quite

large

differences

in correlationbetween

parent

behavior and child

behavior

appear

for

boys

and

girls.

These

differences

are

reported

as

sex-

related

correlates,

however,

rather than

as

possible

sex-related effects

be-

cause of

the notable

differences

n

patterns

of intercorrelations

f the

parent

variables

across sex.

An

assessment

of

the

generality

of

the

findings

must

always

take

into account the nature

of

the

population.

The

population

studied

consisted

of

very

well-educated,

moderately

affluent

parents

who

were

involved with their

children's welfare even when

they

were not

notably

warm and

sympathetic.

The

statistically significant

relations

are

discussed below as

though

parental

behavior anteceded

and,

in

fact,

gen-

erated the

child

behavior

with which it

was associated. Such

a

position,

while

theoreticallymeaningful

and

with few

exceptions

intuitively

convinc-

ing,

is

not demonstrable

rom these data.

1.

Warmth

was

not an

important predictor

of

child

behavior

in this

study.-The

associations

of

Warmth

with

child-behavior

clusters were low.

It is of

interest to

note,

however,

that the

Warmth variables

(interview

clusters and

HVSA variable Satisfies

Child)

were related

positively

to

Au-

tonomous

behavior for parents

of

boys and related negatively for parents

of

girls.

There

are two

conditions

which

may

account for the

unimpor-

tance of

parental

warmth as

a

predictor

of

child

behavior in

this

study by

contrast

to most studies. The first

consideration is

the

restricted

range

of

parents

studied.

The second

consideration

s

that

the Warmth

variables as

measured

in

this

study

are

homogenous

since

they

consist

only

of such

closely

related attitudes as

approval,

empathy,

sympathy,

and demon-

strativeness.

Punitiveness and

coerciveness

were measured

separately

from

these

variables.

In

most correlational

studies

(e.g.,

Becker &

Krug,

1964),

the warmthfactor tends to be a ratherglobal constructincluding such di-

verse

variables

as

use of

reasoning,

success

of

enforcement

policy,

and

nonpunitive

attitudes.

When the

dimension

measured is

more

restricted,

warmth

may

act as a

precondition

for the

effectiveness

of

enforcement

policy

or of

maturity

demands and as

a

component

of

such

related

pre-

dictive constructs

as

"uses reason" or

"grants

ndependence."

But

the

pre-

dictive

importance

of

parental

warmth

in

accounting

for

variance

in

child

319





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

*4

00Cq4Vft

Mo

'n

v

t

o1(

"

"M

4'

o

qrlsu"4 000404

O

40

0

- 4-

04

0

C0

H

O U0

Ctu~aroJuo

'"4h

'"40

cur) a

'"40'0e '.0

d O

eq0

cI) -%2UTtuJo1JUoCuoN

I"

I"

'

I

H

C

44' 0

'n

-40N0"

4w

04

eq 0

v

.?

'N 4v

0%

o>4

..jqisuodsa.u

i

S o

'"QSUd'.4t

0

00

'"04"-0

'"

0 eq

0 4'

-u

'"e

0

0

0z

0

-4uapuadapuI

"

H

00eq

%0e

0.0In.

9- V 4

-1

co

V

'm00 0

-

t

o

tdNO -o oogmmo

o eq

No

-

%0

-

~

l u 4 u a p l g u

Z

IiSJ

I II

I ii

I

.1

;AT~sa12T JVqaeo--o

N' - -

O

ON

Fr5~.0

0u.e ooeqe'.e'44'

u~. VrC eq~O

C

'.4O

V) 0V0

V

m

N

O

Co

OO N"

0 0 0 N

ce0

-aA WUOU

I I I

>A0S1

1 1

1

1

1

(n

AqTdtuo

p

n

m

0

in

n

W

N 00%

P3-~aVI13UT~ff13UI

II

f I

.............I

I"

-snouovuolnV

tj1?tfd(

Sl~sa~a

-( CO Oe'~r

o

eq

0

0

-

'.3 '.5 oeql

'.

p;DOJWOuJdaa

-o

oNg e mq-ooo

t-- -4

-

b0

m

0" k-'"4

%

c l l ~ i ~

n o i - a a a q a - a

-snonoaad

I *

000

Z

vC 00

0~400t

"4 4'

~

4' eq e 4

O0

o

kU~kI

-

.0 .00

0

'

0q.o"W0

.

H

c

LSnO

"'JA II

~

I

I

II

*.O

00

00

:w

05

4v

0

d

V

O

MW

)

0

V

H

4-

S

S

V 4

. 2 ;

W.0.-

Go

U

Q

Unn04 ?:

cd~O

tr.

4

320





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND

ND

ALLEN

.

BLACK

z

olqrisun P10

"M

cc

O"

NY

N

m

C40

to

'n000 00 V 0 00

m

"""0OJO9N ooeoN

m

4

4

-

a

A

QNf I I

I

-OVP

l*u~ro~o

ii3dvc~O

O~b)O

( V

W4Jq

0Nmuosom

0"

0N

V)

aUT~-'Of03UOI

I

I II

u

0 Z

00

o

Nin t-in

co

g N

to

V g

I-

c~4

0

o

CCS

bN

C O N O

0UaT41Sa-dM~

0o)

U)

4

-1AqJSv

"M

N N

N

N

0

0

N-

m00

OA~?J

-~

O' ~

0000

9rOO

0f)

.

0

DAlSSaLJ

i.

C" %O4

"

o

1%

V44

N 0

CM4

0

k%.09

u

-a.vdpp

.

.

.-

-z

%o

%

4

0

.m of N0

o

r.

o

%o

o

t-

00

0

-w4puapajuoI

I

I II

M

c

0N0

00C

1%

%

%

N

00

-a sta

WI

2I

F

0u

n

0000

in)

0V m

in

mIn

w

-sn-09

V

o)0

z 04 -.2Uriaau1tuo0 Irwu

-

q

snofl

i

I

m*ol

t

" Vo)

00f00

0

o

W

0

W

N

00

Z%0in O

N

0

0

cc

in

1

%

0

0

9 0

paZTUT:iZOS

am

.............................

-al

I

I

0

ri

PIk191u3

JA1 0'.0) 09P3 0U)0%'4) If) 00 Ve N 0'. V09 'of4

~~Y 000

0 0 - 0

U

..

.Al

U)

')-~ aa~~o::

l1

X

tl~ud

a~

h c\

rr~co)

CV

*~0), ~

. 00

if)

1.4

.=.o

4-A

Cu :>

c

~

,~

~ .

cu

0 ..~00)1Q

.54

3a4

Ou

a

.

00) 00

>

u

d1

0

b

OU&r.

O

r :

04e

,: g:?0.0 4U..cd(uL)V

fr

L

cu..

.

u

C

>tr

)0u

W

0

O.

4 ?

4v

,=

>,w

.

ur

v0 0

.,-'

W

tJ4

cu

Q

9)

a

Cdj

z

a

4_1405?

C2

c

C u

41

> e

Cd?WE E:3.hc

oMEO

E

44:~I~

CU

~Cm~

321





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

behavior is

low

by

comparison

with

control variables

in

this

culturally

ad-

vantaged population.

2. Punitive attitudes were not associated with

Fearful

or

Compliant

behavior.-On

the

contrary,

particularly

for

girls,

associations

of

paternal

Punitiveness were with

Independent

and

Domineering

behavior.

For

boys,

paternal

Punitiveness

was associated with Unlikeable

behavior. These

par-

ticular

results

concerning

the

effects of

paternal

Punitiveness are

similar to

those

reported by

Becker and

Krug

(1964).

In

both

studies,

paternal

Puni-

tiveness

was associated with

nonconforming

and

defiant

behavior in

girls.

It

should

be noted that

Punitiveness was

not correlated

with antisocial

non-

conformity

(Unsocialized,

Rebellious

behavior)

or with

Unstable

behavior

in the

girls.

MaternalPunitivenesswas associatedwith rather differentbe-

havior in

girls

than

paternal

Punitiveness.

In

general,

maternal

Punitiveness

was

associated

in

girls

with

friendly,

outgoing,

sociable behavior

towards

peers

and adults in

the

nursery

school

setting.

The

positive

association shown here between

Independent

behavior

and

paternal

Punitive Attitudes for

girls

supports

Bronfenbrenner's

bserva-

tion

(1961)

that

among

educationally advantaged subgroups

too much

warmth and

support

seem to

have

a

"debilitating"

ffect on

girls.

As

noted

in a

recent

report by

Baumrind

(1966), hostile, self-righteous,

and non-

empathic practices

were

associated,

in

the

studies

reviewed,

with

cognitive

and

emotional disturbances

n

the

child. Data

reported

here

give

a

differ-

ent

impression

than

the consensus

of those

results,

due

primarily

to

two

factors:

the

emphasis

in this

study

on

adaptive

rather than

maladaptive

functioning,

and

the

special

characteristics

of

the

population

studied.

Where

the

range

studied

is

not

restricted,

it

seems

likely

that

punitive

atti-

tudes

as

well

as

warmth bear

a

curvilinear relation to

assertiveness.

Whether

a child reacts in an assertive or

passive

manner to

parental

puni-

tiveness is probably a function of several factors: the child's vigor and

reactivity,

the

parent's

consistency

in

enforcing high-power

directives,

the

parent's

warmth,

and the child's

intelligence,

to

name

but

a

few.

The conditions

in

the

population

studied were such

as to increase the

likelihood that

the

girls

could

react

assertively.

The children

were intelli-

gent,

and their

parents

were

conscientiously

concerned

with

their

welfare.

Punitiveness correlated

negatively

with

consistency

and

positively

with un-

certainty

about

effectiveness,

suggesting

that

the

punitive

father

was

weak

rather

than

strong.

Because

of

the

parents'

inconsistency

and doubts

and

the fact that they were involved rather than detached, the girls whose

parents

were

punitive

did

in

fact

have

leverage

and

could

resist

effectively

punitive

demands.

According

to

Wolpe

(1958),

anxiety

or avoidance and

self-assertion

are

reciprocally

inhibiting

responses

to

threatening

or

frustrating

experi-

ences. What

aspect

of the fundamental

fight-flight

reaction to such

experi-

ences will

predominate

for a

given

individual

will

be

a

function

of

prior

322





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND

AND

ALLEN

E.

BLACK

experience

as

well

as

genotype.

The

ways

in

which

girls

are

reared

tradi-

tionally

(see

Table

6,

for

example)

probably

serve

to

perpetuate

in

girls

preferencesfor the avoidantor anxietyresponseto aggressivethreats.When

parents

of

girls

periodically

expose

them

to

frightening

experiences

within

the

home

setting

(a

defining

item

of the

Punitiveness

clusters),

daughters

have the

opportunity,

which

boys

routinely

have,

to become resistant

to

the

stress

associated

with

such

aggressive

threats

and

to

learn

that

offen-

sive

reactions

to

aggression

are

frequently rewarding.

The

more

punitive

fathers

in

this

study

would

provoke

anger

by

their

attacks,

but then

with-

draw

when

their

daughters responded

assertively,

thus

differentially

re-

warding

assertive

rather

than

avoidant

responses.

Any kind of

vigorous,

abrasiveinteraction n which assertive

responses

are

stimulated

and either

not

punished

or

rewarded should increase

the

likelihood that

the

individual

so

stimulated

will

react

assertively

rather

than

avoidantly

to

threatening

or

frustrating

stimuli.

Maternal

Socialization

De-

mands

(relatively

uncorrelated

with

Punitive

Attitudes)

were also

asso-

ciated with

Independent

behavior

in

girls,

and

additionally

with

Adaptive,

Confident

behavior. Our

results

do not

suggest,

therefore,

that

parental

punitiveness

is

the

only

way

or

the

best

way

of

encouraging

self-assertive

behavior in

girls.

They

do seem

to

suggest

that

mildly tension-producinginteractions

encourage

rather than

suppress

self-assertive

responses

in

the

young

child

and,

conversely,

that

tension-reducing

nteractions f

too

pre-

dominant

can

have

the

opposite

effect.

3.

Paternal

Consistent

Discipline

was

associated

with

Independence

and

Assertiveness

in

boys

and

with

Afiliativeness

in

girls.--Paternal

con-

sistency

was

associated

for

boys

with

Likeable,

Autonomous,

Imaginative,

and

Confident

behavior.

Thus,

obedience in

the

home was

associated for

boys

with

constructive

nonconformity

in

the

nursery

school

setting.

For

girls,

the

highest

associations

were

with

Well-Socialized, Friendly, and

Dependable

behavior.

For

both

boys

and

girls,

paternal

Consistent

Dis-

cipline

was

related

negatively

to

father's

and

mother's

educational

level.

The

more

highly

educated

fathers in

this

highly

educated

group

were

the

least

consistent.

Perhaps

the

more

highly

educated

fathers

in

this

aca-

demic

community

were

too

involved

with

their

work to

accept

significant

responsibility

or

disciplining

their

children,

so

that

much

of

their

potential

usefulness

as

models was

lost.

Unlike

paternal

punitiveness,

paternal

con-

sistency

was

unrelated

to

Independence

in

daughters.

Maternal

Consistent

Discipline

was

not

related

significantlyto any of the child-behaviormeas-

ures,

but

for

both

boys

and

girls

the

highest

correlation

was

with

Adap-

tive

behavior.

The

associations of

Accepts

Power

Conflict

With

Child with

child-behavior

clusters

were

similar

in

direction

to

covariates

of

paternal

Consistent

Discipline.

However,

the

discrepancy

in

associated

behavior

for

boys

and

girls

was

more

marked.

For

boys,

the

highest

correlates

were with

Autonomy

and

Confidence.

For

girls,

the

highest

correlate

was

323





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

also

with

Autonomy,

but here the relation was

negative.

Girls

whose

par-

ents

Accept

Power

Conflict were

Responsible

and

Conforming,

while

boys

were Autonomousand Confident. For both

sexes,

paternal

ConsistentDis-

cipline

was

associated

with

Stable

behavior.

Parent's success

in

obtaining

compliance

with

directives

(HVSA

variable,

Positive

Outcome)

was

asso-

ciated for

girls

with similar

behavior

as

Accepts

Power Conflict

With

Child,

but not

to

the same

degree.

For

boys,

highest

associations

(weak)

were with

Likeable

behavior.

4.

The

cluster maternal

Maturity

Demands

was

also correlated

with

Independence

and

Assertiveness

for

boys.-This

cluster consists

of

items

concerning

household

responsibilities,

orderliness,

and

rewarding

of

self-

sufficiency. Significant

correlates

with the

eight-cluster

solution were

Like-

able,

Rebellious, Autonomous,

Adaptive,

and Confident.

The

partial

corre-

lations

of

Maturity

Demands

with

these

same

child-behavior

dimensions,

with

age

held

constant,

(Child's

age

and

Maturity

Demands

correlate

.40)

are

slightly

lower,

but in

most

instances

remain

significant.

Thus,

the

child's

age

affected

maternal

Maturity

Demands,

as

might

be

expected,

but the

significant positive

correlations

of

Maturity

Demands

with

Inde-

pendence

and

Assertiveness

or with

Stability

and

Nonconformity

cannot

be

attributed

o the

child's

age.

5. For

girls,

covariates

of

maternal

Socialization

Demands were

simi-

lar

to

the

covariates

of

maternal

Maturity

Demands

for

boys.-The

cluster

Socialization

Demands consists of

items

concerning

control

of

aggression

and

expectations

of

intellectual

achievement. Like

paternal

Consistent

Dis-

cipline,

maternal

Socialization

Demands

covaried

negatively

with

parent's

education

and

positively

with

indexes

of

competence

in

the

child.

For

girls,

Confident

and

Adaptive

behavior

were

associated

positively

with

maternal

Socialization

Demands. The

HVSA

variable

Takes

Initiative

in

Control Se-

quences which correlated significantlywith SocializationDemands (.33)

was

associated

positively

with

Autonomous

behavior

in

girls.

The

HVSA

variable

Independence

Training,

Control was

associated

in

girls

with

Adap-

tive,

Assertive

behavior,

showing

a similar

pattern

of covariates

as

Sociali-

zation

Demands.

6.

Parents'

willingness

to

offer

justification or

directives

and to

listen

to

the child

were

associated with

Competent

Behavior

on

the

part

of

the

child.-Uses

Reason

to

obtain

Compliance

(HVSA

variable

j)

was

associ-

ated in

boys

with

Independence

and

Nonconformity.

Encourages

Verbal

Give and Take (HVSA variable k) and Uses Coercive Power Without

Reason

(HVSA

variable

q)

(negative)

were

associated

in

girls

with

Stable

behavior.

Uses

Coercive Power

Without

Reason

was

associated

for

both

sexes,

but most

strongly

for

girls,

with

maladaptive

behavior.

For

parents

of

boys,

predominate

covariates

were

with

Stereotyped,

Dependent

be-

havior;

and

for

parents

of

girls,

predominate

covariates

were

with

Regres-

sive,

Fearful

behavior.

Uses

Reason

to Obtain

Compliance

was

associated

324





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA

BAUMRIND

AND ALLEN

E.

BLACK

significantly

with

Independence

and

Nonconformity

for

boys

and

with

Stable

behavior

for

girls.

Clearly

in

boys

and

girls

from

this

population

(mean

IQ

of

125),

use of

reasoning

and

willingness

to

engage

in verbal

debate

was

associated

with

Adaptive,

competent

behavior.

It

is

interesting

to note

that

fathers'

education

and

occupation

were

associated

with

arbitrary

behavior

(i.e.,

these indexes

were

negatively

re-

lated to

Uses

Reason

and

Encourages

Verbal

Give and

Take,

and

positively

related to

Uses

Coercive

Power

Without

Reason).

The

positive

relation

be-

tween

arbitrary

use of

power

and fathers'

socioeconomic

and

education

level

which,

at

first

glance,

contradicts common

sense

is

understandable

n

the

particular

population

studied for

reasons

alreadygiven.7. Restrictivenessand

refusal

to

grant

sufficient

independence

(HVSA

variable

Respects

Child's

Decision,

and

mother-son

interview

clusters,

Re-

strictiveness,

and

Independent

Contacts)

were associated

in

boys

with De-

pendent,

Passive

behavior.-Maternal

Restrictiveness

was

strongly, nega-

tively

correlated

with

Imaginative

behavior. Sons whose mothers did not

permit

them

to

explore

the

environment,

who

placed

restrictions

upon

their

initiative,

and

who

expected

a

high

level of

conscience

development

tended to

be

Stereotyped

in

their

thinking

and

Dependent,

while

sons

whose

mothers

Encourage Independent

Contacts

were

more

likely

to

be

Independent,

Active,

and

Nonconforming.

DISCUSSION

In

summary,

these

findings

suggest

that

parental

practices

which

are

intellectually

stimulating

and

to some extent

tension-producing

(socializa-

tion

and

maturity

demands,

punitiveness,

firmness

in

disciplinary

matters)

are

associated

in

the

young

child

with

various

aspects

of

competence.

Techniqueswhich fostered self-reliance,whetherby placing demandsupon

the

child

for

self-control

and

high-level performance

or

by

encouraging

independent

action

and

decision-making,

acilitated

responsible,

independ-

ent

behavior.

Firm

discipline

in

the

home did

not

produce

conforming

or de-

pendent

behavior in

the

nursery

school.

For

boys,

the

opposite

was

true.

Independent,

assertive

behavior in

girls

was

associated

positively

with

parental

demands and

negatively

with

high

acceptance.

Firm,

demanding

behavior

on the

part

of the

parent

was

not

associated in

the

parent

with

punitiveness

or

lack

of warmth.

The

opposite

was true.

These conclusionsconcerningthe effects of disciplinarypractices are

consistent

with the

findings

of

a

study reported

earlier

(Baumrind,

1967).

In that

study,

a

group

of

children

who

were

both

socialized

and

independ-

ent were identified.

These children

were

self-controlled

and

affiliative

on

the one

hand

and

self-reliant,

explorative,

and

self-assertive

on

the

other

hand.

They

were

realistic,

competent,

and

content

by

comparison

with

the

other

two

groups

of children

studied. In

the

home

setting,

parents

of

these

325





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

children

were

consistent,

loving,

and

demanding.

They

respected

the child's

independent

decisions,

but

were

very

firm about

sustaining

a

position

once

they

took a stand.

They

accompanied

a directive with a reason.

Despite

vigorous

and at

times

conflictful

interactions,

their

homes

were

not

marked

by

discord or

dissensions. These

parents

balanced

high

nurturance

with

high

control

and

high

demands

with

clear communicationabout

what

was

required

of

the

child.

By comparison

with

parents

of children

who were

immature,

parents

of these

highly

mature

children

had

firmer

control over

the

actions

of

their

children,

engaged

in

more

independence

training,

and

did

not reward

dependency.

Their

households were better

coordinated and

the

policy

of

regulations

clearer

and

more

effectively

enforced. The

child

was more satisfied

by

interactions with his

parents.

By

comparison

with

parents

of

children who were

unhappy

and

disaffiliated,

parents

of the ma-

ture

childrenwere less

authoritarian,

lthough

quite

as

firm

and

more

loving.

REFERENCES

Baumrind,

Diana.

Naturalistic

observational

procedures.

Paper

delivered at Con-

ference

on Research

Methodology

of

Parent-Child

Interaction.

Syracuse,

New

York, October,

1964.

Available from

author.

Baumrind,Diana. Effects of authoritativeparentalcontrolon child behavior. Child

Development,

1966,

37,

No.

4,

887-907.

Baumrind,

Diana. Child

care

practices

anteceding

three

patterns

of

preschool

behavior. Genetic

psychological

Monographs,

1967, 75,

43-88.

Bayley,

Nancy,

&

Schaefer,

E. S.

Correlations

of maternal and

child

behaviors

with

the

development

of

mental

abilities: data from

the

Berkeley

growth

study.

Monographs

of

the

Society

for

Research in

Child

Development,

1964,

29,

3-79.

Becker,

W.

C.,

&

Krug,

R. S.

A

circumplex

model for

social behavior

in

children.

Child

Development, 1964, 35, No. 6, 371-396.

Block,

J.

A

comparison

between

ipsative

and

normative

ratings

of

personality.

Journal

of

abnormal

and

social

Psychology,

1957,

54,

50-54.

Bronfenbrenner,

U. Some

familial

antecedents of

responsibility

and

leadership

in

adolescents.

In

L.

Petrullo & B. M.

Bass

(Eds.),

Leadership

and

interpersonal

behavior.

New

York:

Holt, Rinehart,

1961.

Pp.

239-271.

Bronson,

Wanda

C., Livson,

N.,

&

Katten,

Edith

S.

Patterns of

authority

and

affection

in

two

generations.

Journal

of

abnormaland social

Psychology,

1959,

58,

143-152.

Ghiselli,

E.

E.

Theory

of

psychological

measurement.

New

York:

McGraw-Hill,

1964. Chap. vii.

Harman,

H.

H. Modern

factor

analysis.

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago

Press,

1960.

Pp.

256-260.

Heinstein,

M. Child

rearing

in

California,

a

study

of

mothers with

young

children.

Berkeley:

California State

Department

of Public

Health,

1965.

Hollingshead,

A.

B.,

&

Redlich,

F. C.

Social class

and

mental

illness.

New

York:

Wiley,

1958.

326





8/10/2019 Baumrind_1967


DIANA BAUMRIND

AND

ALLEN

E.

BLACK

Passini,

F.

T.,

&

Norman,

W.

T.

A

universal

conception

of

personaity

structure?

Journal

of

Personality

and social

Psychology,

1966, 4,

44-49.

Schaefer, E. S. Convergingconceptual models for maternalbehaviorand for child

behavior.

In

J.

C.

Glidewell

(Ed.),

Parental

attitudes

and

child

behavior.

Charles C

Thomas,

1961.

Sears,

R.

R.,

Maccoby,

E.

E.,

&

Levin,

H. Patterns

of

child

rearing.

Evanston,

Ill.:

Row,

Peterson,

1957.

Sears,

R.

R., Rau,

Lucy,

&

Alpert,

R.

Identification

and

child

rearing.

Stanford,

Calif.:

Stanford

University

Press,

1965.

Tryon,

R.

C.

Theory

of

the

BC

TRY

system. (Library

version

available

in

ditto

from

the

author),

1964.

Tryon,

R.

C.,

&

Bailey,

D. E.

The BC TRY

computersystem

of cluster

and

factor

analysis.

Multivariate behavior

Research,

1966,

1,

95-111.

Wolpe,

J.

Psychotherapy

by reciprocal

inhibition.

Stanford,

Calif.: Stanford

Uni-

versity

Press,

1958.

baumrind_1967

Documents