university of hawaiʻi...table of contents preface........................................... ii...

71-12,204

DIELMAN, Teddy Emerson, 1939-A MULTIVARIATE INVESTIGATION OF CORRELATESOF CHILD BEHAVIOR IN A HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY.

University of Hawaii, Ph.D., 1970Psycho~ogy, experimental

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company I Ann Arbor, Michigan C

--------------------------- - ----~---~-~----

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN_MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

A MULTIVARIATE INVESTIGATION OF

CORRELATES OF CHILD BEHAVIOR

IN A HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATEDIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII INPARTIAL FULFILL~ffiNT OF THE REQUIRENENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN PSYCHOLOGY

AUGUST 1970

By

Teddy Emerson Dielman

Dissertation Committee:

John M. Digman, ChairmanRonald GallimoreSetsu FurunoBarbara MoeleyErnst Reese

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE........................................... ii

ABSTRACT. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• iii

LI ST OF TABLES................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . vi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCHFamily Structure.................. 8Child Rearing Practices........... 8Rating Studies of Child

Personali ty. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13Childhood Behavior Problems....... 16

CHAPTER III. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

CHAPTER IV. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESESFamily Structure.................. 23Child Rearing Practices........... 24Ratings of Child Personality...... 24Behavior Problems................. 25Relationships among Domains....... 25

CHAPTER V. METHOD AND PROCEDURE

CHAPTER VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Household Demography Structure.... 46Child Rearing Practices structure. 51Child Personality Ratings

Structure. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 76Behavior Problems Ratings

Structure. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 86Interrelationships among the

Data Domains.................... 95

CHAPTER VII. CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER VIII. SmfJN~RY

APPEIIDIX A. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • •. • • • • . . 216

APPENDIX B.... . • • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

BIBLIOG·RAPHY. • • • • • •• • •• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • 390

PREFACE

The author is indebted to the people of Nanakuli,

Hawaii and to Bishop Museum, Honolulu, for making this

study possible.

ii

iii

ABSTRACT

The investigation was concerned with the prediction of

child personality and behavior problem factors from anteced

ent data sets of household demography and parental reports

of child rearing practices. The sample tested consisted of

88 families in the Nanakuli, Hawaii homestead area.

The household demography and child rearing practice

data were collected from the parents by trained inter

viewers. The behavior problems data were checked by the

children's teachers on an adaptation of the Quay Behavior

Problem Checklist, and the child personality data were

collected from the teachers on the Hawaii Behavior Ratings

Scales. The child rearing practices data were first

subdivided into three sets--male, female, and general--and

the resulting six data sets were factor analyzed separ

ately, with oblique factor rotation by the Harris-Kaiser

method.

The factor analyses of the six data sets resulted in

the extraction of eight household demography factors, nine

male and nine female child rearing practice factors,

twelve general child rearing practice factors, six teacher

ratings of child personality factors, and seven teacher

ratings of child behavior problem factors.

The factors were interpreted on the basis of results

of earlier studies and their loading patterns in the

current study. The six teacher ratings factors corresponded

iv

considerably to those found in earlier work, as did many

of the child rearing practice factors. The behavior prob

lem factors were more numerous than have been extracted

in any but very recent work. There are no studies in the

demography area with which the current results can be

compared.

Factor scores were computed for each data set and

stepwise multiple linear regression analyses conducted,

predicting from antecedent to subsequent data sets. A

large number of significant relationships were noted, but

space limits discussion to the increase of prediction with

the addition of entire data sets. In the case of child

.... 'person~li't;'fl' '7~:'ediction '61' the factor "aggression-dominance"

was increased significantly by addition of child rearing

practice factors to household demography factors in the

regression equation. This factor exhibited a significant

negative relationship to the general child rearing practice

factor "warmth of parent-child relationship," a negative

relationship to the female child rearing practice factor

"dislike of non-feminine behavior," and a positive rela

tionship to the female factor "dislike of intrusive be

havior."

In the prediction of behavior problems, the addition

of child rearing practices to demography factors resulted

in a significant increase in the prediction of the "imma

turity" factor, which bore positive relationships to the

v

female "achievement oriented discipline" and male "task

oriented discipline" factors. When the child personality

factors were added to demography and child rearing in

prediction of behavior problems, all criteria exhibited

a significant increase in accountable variance. The

child personality factor "aggression-dominance" was posi

tively related to "psychopathic-unsocialized," "verbal

overactivity," and "immaturity." The personality factor

of "compliance" was negatively related to "social with

drawal" and "inferiority-irresponsible." The behavior

problems factor of "sluggish-disinterested" was negatively

related to "creativity-divergent thinking," and "neurotic

disturbed" was positively related to "emotionality."

TABLE I.

TABLE II.

TABLE III.

TABLE IV.

TABLE V.

TABLE VI.

TABLE VII.

TABLE VIII.

TABLE IX.

TABLE X.

TABLE XI.

TABLE XII.

TABLE XIII.

TABLE XIV.

TABLE XV.

TABLE XVI.

TABLE XVII.

vi

LIST OF TABLES

SUMlf~RY OF THE HYPOTHESIZED INTER-DOMAIN RELATIONSHIPS.... • . • • • • . . • • 30

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLE LIST.. 32

CHILD REARING PRACTICES VARIABLELI ST . . . • • • . . • • • • • • . . . • • . • • • • • • • . • • 34

TEACHER RATINGS VARIABLE LIST....... 42

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS VARIABLE LIST..... 44

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR ISTEPMOTHER, ORIGIN OFF OAHU.. ••••• 47

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR IIHANAI. • • • • • . • • . • • • • . •• • • • . • • . . • . • • 48

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGP~PHY FACTOR IIISUBNUCLEAR, MOTHER ABSENT.... ••.•• 49

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR IVNUCLEAR-LATERAL, CONSANGUINE...... 49

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR VNANAKULI ORIGIN................... 50

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR VINUCLEAR FAMILy........... • • • • . • • • • 50

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR VIISUBNUCLEAR-EXTENDED, OLDER CHILD.. 51

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR VIIISPOUSE'S LINEAL............. 52

CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR I WARMTH OF PARENT-CHILDRELATIONSHIP. . • • . • . . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • 53

CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GE~ffiRAL)FACTOR II OBEDIENCE TRAINING...... 54

CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR III PERMISSIVENESS.... ••.•• 56

CHILD REARING PP~CTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR IV STRICTNESS OFDISCIPLINE ••••••••••..•••.••••.• • . 57

vii

TABLE XVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR V ACHIEVE~lliNT TRAINING ...••• 58

TABLE XIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR VI PREFERENCE FOR YOUNGERCHILDREN ••.•••••...•.•.••.•.......• 60

TABLE XX. CHILD REARING PP~CTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR VII DEfrJANDS FOR CO~i:PLIANCE .. 61

TABLE XXI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR VIII RESPONSIBILITYTRAI r~I I\IG ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 62

TABLE XXII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR IX UNINTERPRETED •.••.••.•••• 64

TABLE XXIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR X UNINTERPRETED .•.•.••.••••• 65

TABLE XXIV. CHILD REARING PP~CTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR XI UNINTERPRETED ••...•.•..•• 66

TABLE XXV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR XII UNINTERPRETED •••••••.••• 67

TABLE XXVI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALEANALYSIS) FACTOR I ACHIEVE1lliNT-ORIENTED DI SCI PLI NE ..•..••.••••.•.• 68

TABLE XXVII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALEANALYSIS) FACTOR II COMPLIANCE-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE •.•..••••••••••• 69

TABLE XXVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (h~LE

ANALYSIS) FACTOR III DISCIPLINEFOR PARENTAL AGGRESSION •••..••••••• 70

TABLE XXIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICE (N~LE

ANALYSIS) FACTOR IV PHYSICALPUNISHfJIENT . • . • • • • • • . • . •. • . •. • • • • . •• 71

TABLE XXX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (fMLEANALYSIS) FACTOR V TASK-ORIENTEDDISCIPLINE •••••••.•••.•••.•.••.•••• 72

TABLE XXXI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (fMLEANALYSIS) FACTOR VI PUNISH~ffiNTFOR AGGRESSION •••••.•••.•••••.•.••• 72

viii

TABLE XXXII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALEANALYSIS) FACTOR VII UNINTERPRETED. 73

TABLE XXXIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (1~LEANALYSIS) FACTOR VIII STRICTNESSOF DISCIPLINE ••..•.••....•••••••••. 74

TABLE XXXIV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (VALEANALYSIS) FACTOR IX UNINTERPRETED •• 74

TABLE XXXV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEWALEANALYSIS) FACTOR I LOW PHYSICALPUNI SHNIEN'r •••..•..•••..••.••••.•••• 75

TABLE XXXVI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEMALEANALYSIS) FACTOR II DISLIKE OFINTRUSIVE BEHAVIOR ••••.••..•••••••• 75

TABLE XXXVII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEr~LEANALYSIS) FACTOR III DISCIPLINEFOR PARENTAL AGGRESSION .••.•••••••• 77

TABLE XXXVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FE~~LEANALYSIS) FACTOR IV ACHIEVElf~NT-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE ••..••••••••••.• 78

TABLE XXXIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FElf~LE

ANALYSIS FACTOR V LATER AGE OFWORK ASSIGNMENTS •••.•••••..•••••••• 78

TABLE XL. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEW~LE

ANALYSIS) FACTOR VI DISLIKE OFNON-FEMININE BEHAVIOR •••••.•••••••• 79

TABLE XLI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEMALEANALYSIS) FACTOR VII COMPLIANCE-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE ••••.••••••••••• 79

TABLE XLII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEW~LE

ANALYSIS) FACTOR VIII LESSINDEPENDENCE ••••••••..•.••••••••••• 80

TABLE XLIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEMALEANALYSIS) FACTOR IX TASK-ORIENTEDDISCIPLINE •••.•••.••.•••.•.•••••••• 80

TABLE XLIV. TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR I M••.•••••••• 81

TABLE XLV. TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR II A-E ••.••••• 82

TABLE XLVI.

TABLE XLVII.

TABLE XLVIII.

TABLE XLIX.

TABLE L.

TABLE LI.

TABLE LII.

TABLE LIII.

TABLE LIV.

TABLE LV.

TABLE LVI.

TABLE LVII.

TABLE LVIII.

TABLE LIX.

TABLE LX.

TABLE LXI.

TABLE LXII.

ix

TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR III T••..•.••• 84

TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR IV K•••••••••. 85

TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR V C-D-H ••••••• 87

TEACHER RATINGS FACTOR VI I ••..••.••. 88

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR I SOCIALWITHDRAWAL (QUAy).................. 89

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR II SLUGGISH,DISINTERESTED (QUAy)............... 89

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR IIINEUROTIC-DISTURBED (QUAy) ••.••••••• 91

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR IVINFERIORITy-IRRESPONSIBLE .••...•••• 91

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR VPSYCHOPATHIC-UNSOCIALIZED (QUAY) ..• 92

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR VI VERBALOVERACTIVITY (QUAy)................ 93

BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS FACTOR VIIIlv11V'lATURrrl'Y (QUAy).................. 94

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG FACTORSCORES. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 96

LISTING OF VARIABLES EMPLOYED INREGRESSION ANALySES •••.•.•••••••••• 107

LIST OF PREDICTORS AND CRITERIA FORTHE STEPWISE MULTIPLE LINEARREGRESSION ANALYSES ••••.•••••••.••• III

PREDICTION OF NALE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACrrORS.. • . • • • • • • • • • • • •• 115

PREDICTION OF lf~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••••.••.•••••.•• 115

PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR III FROM HOUSE-HOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •..•••••..•• 116

x

TABLE LXIII. PREDICrrION OF l'.'JALE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ........••...•••. 116

TABLE LXIV. PREDICTION OF ~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ................. 117

TABLE LXV. PREDICTION OF ~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VI FROm HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •..••.•.••..••••• 117

TABLE LXVI. PREDICTION OF 1~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ................. 118

TABLE LXVII. PREDICTION OF ~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •..•.••••••..•••• 118

TABLE LXVIII. PREDICTION OF N~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IX FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS .•................ 119

TABLE LXIX. PREDICTION OF FE~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ..............•.. 119

TABLE LXX. PREDICTION OF FErMLE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR II FROM HOUSRBOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ••••••.•.•••.•••• 120

TABLE LXXI. PREDICTION OF FEDMLE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••••••.••••.•.•• 120

TABLE LXXII. PREDICTION OF FE1~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ................. 121

TABLE LXXIII. PREDICTION OF FEW~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •• •••..•••••.•..• 121

TABLE LXXIV. PREDICTION OF FEt~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VI FROM HOUSRBOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ••.•••.•••••..... 122

xi

TABLE LXXV. PREDICTION OF FE~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS .•..••.••.••••..• 122

TABLE LXXVI. PREDICTION OF FE~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEfl10GRAPHY FACTORS •••••....•.•.••.. 123

TABLE LXXVII. PREDICTION OF FE~~LE CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IX FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •.•.•.••...••.•.• 123

TABLE LXXVIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLDDEIiiOGRAPHY FACTORS •.•••.•.•.•.•.••• 124

TABLE LXXIX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •.••.•.••.•••.••• 124

TABLE LXXX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••••..•••••.•... 125

TABLE LXXXI. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••.••.••.•.•••.• 125

TABLE LXXXII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ••••.••••••.••••• 126

TABLE LXXXIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ••.•.•••••••• ',' •• 126

TABLE LXXXIV. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •.••.•.••.•••.••• 127

TABLE LXXXV. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••••••.•.••••.•• 127

TABLE LXXXVI. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••.•.•••.•••.•.• 128

TABLE LXXXVII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR X FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS •••••.••••••.•••• 128

xii

TABLE LXXXVIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR XI FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS........... . • • • .• 129

TABLE LXXXIX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR XII FROW HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS 129

TABLE XC. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 1.38

TABLE XCI. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGP~PHY

F\ACFJ.'ORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1.38

TABLE XCII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORIII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1.39

TABLE XCIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORIV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1.39

TABLE XCIV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 140

TABLE XCV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORVI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 140

TABLE XCVI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS. . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . •• 142

TABLE XCVII.

TABLE XCVIII.

TABLE XCIX.

TABLE C.

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS. • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • •• 142

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOG-RAPHY FACTORS.. • . • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • •• 14.3

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS. . . • • . • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • . • . • . •. 14.3

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOIJD DEMOGRAPHYFAC'I'ORS. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 144

xiii

TABLE CIa PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 144

TABLE CII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOG-RAPHY FACTORS .•....•.•..•••..•••••• 145

TABLE CIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ANDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS .•.•• 146

TABLE CIV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ArIDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS .•.•. 148

TABLE CV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORIII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ANDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS .•••• 150

TABLE CVI. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORIV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ANDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS .•.•. 152

TABLE CVII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ANDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS .•••• 154

~eABLE CVIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING FACTORVI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY ANDCHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS ••••• 156

TABLE CIX. COMPARISON OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCEIN TEACHER RATING FACTORS WHENPREDICTING FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ALONE VERSUSHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY PLUS CHILDREARING PRACTICES ••••.•.•.•••..•••• 160

TABLE CX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYAND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS. 161

TABLE CXI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYAND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS. 163

TABLE CXII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOG-RAPHY AND CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTORS •••.••••••••••••••••.••••••• 165

xiv

TABLE CXIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYAND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS. 167

TABLE CXIV. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR V FROl\1 HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYAND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS. 169

TABLE CXV. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEmOGP~PHY

AND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS. 171

TABLE CXVI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VII FR01\1 HOUSEHOLD DEMOG-RAPHY AND CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTORS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 173

TABLE CXVII. CON~ARISON OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCEIN BEHAVIOR PROBLEM FACTORS WHENPREDICTING FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOG-RAPHY FACTORS ALONE VERSUSHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY PLUS CHILDREARING PP~CTICES •.••••••..••..•... 178

TABLE CXVIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,CHILD REARING PRACTICES ANDTEACHER RATING FACTORS ............. 179

TABLE CXIX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY, CHILD REARINGPP~CTICES AND TEACHER RATINGFACTORS •••••• "••••••••••••••••••••• 181

TABLE CXX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLDDEr~OGRAPHY , CHILD REARINGPP~CTICES AND TEACHER RATINGFACTORS •••.•••.•••••••.•••••••••••• 183

TABLE CXXI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY, CHILD REARINGPRACTICES AND TEACHER RATINGFACTORS ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••• 18.5

TABLE CXXII.

TABLE CXXIII.

TABLE CXXIV.

TABLE CXXV.

xv

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY, CHILD REARINGPRACTICES AND TEACHER RATINGFACTORS. • . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • . . . . .. 187

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY, CHILD REARINGPRACTICES AND TEACHER RATINGFACTORS. . . . . . . . . • . . . • . • • • . . . . • . . . .. 189

PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYCHILD REARING PRACTICES AND TEACHERRATING FAC~ORS...... . • . . . • • • . . • . • •• 191

COMPARISON OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCEIN BEHAVIOR PROBLEM FACTORS WHENPREDICTING FROM TEACHER RATINGFACTORS IN ADDITION TO HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY AND CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTORS................... 194

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The research to be reported in the ensuing pages is

perhaps best described as a multivariate study of familial

antecedents of behavioral outcomes in children of a

Hawaiian homestead community. In this description, the

biases of the author are clear. The substantive biases

lie in the phrase "familial antecedents of behavioral

outcomes." It was the author's intent to study the eco

logical and child rearing factors of the families in this

community, their relationship to each other, and their

relationships to the factors which emerged in the analysis

of the behavior of the children of these families. The

methodological biases are evident in the term "multivar

iate." The current investigation is based on the factor

model, in which the focus is centered upon the variance

which several variables in a given domain share in common.

The important point here is that any particular antecedent

or subsequent factor in a given domain of human behavior

is regarded as multiply determined and cannot be ade

quately measured by simply operationally defining that

factor by a certain single variable, rather the factor

must be multivariately operationally defined as the common

parts of multiple variables aimed at measurement of the

factor.

2

Specifically, the current investigation is concerned

with the prediction of child behavior in the context of

an interlocking variable system proposed by Howard and

Gallimore (1968). In this interlocking variable model,

it is hypothesized that specific behaviors are a result

of, among other factors to be discussed in Chapter III,

the personality, or strategic orientation as Howard and

Gallimore have chosen to label this link in their model,

of the child. The personality of the child, in the con

text of the current study, is conceived of as the multi

dimensional configuration arising from the analysis of

teacher ratings of the child's behavior, and is to be

defined through multivariate analytic techniques. Child

hood behavior problems are operationally defined as the

dimensions arising from the analysis of teachers' ratings

of problem behavior variables. Following the interlocki.~

model further, the child personality factors are hypoth

esized to be a function of child rearing factors, also

conceived of here as multidimensional in nature. The

final step in the chain of interest in the current investi

gation is the hypothesis that child rearing factors are a

function of a set of domestic group factors. The problem

then, is to arrive at an estimate of the factors involved

in each link of the chain and subsequently to predict

from link to link in order to test the hypotheses of

relations among antecedent and subsequent factors.

3

In the context of the current scientific model,

which has enjoyed to date a considerable life span, we

assume that each event is related to a finite number of

antecedent events. Working from this assumption, it is

natural that behavioral scientists have characteristi

cally investigated the personality dimensions of the

child, which, if causality operates in any systematic

and continuous fashion, can be regarded as the best pre

dictors of the personality dimensions of the adult.

Working bacbvards in the chain of events, it is equally

natural to seek the antecedents of child personality in

the context of the familial envirol~nent. The American

Zeitgeist in psychology has been primarily environmental

istic in character, stemming perhaps most recentl;y from

the Watsonian "behaviorist revolution," which may offer

some explanation for the search for ~nteccdents of child

personality in environmental stimuli, such as family

structure and child rearing practices. G. S. Hall in

1891 was, as far as the present writer is aware, the

first to initiate a systematic and large scale investiga

tion of the antecedents of child behavior in his endeavor

to dete~mine the relationships among prior experience,

personality characteristics, and adjustment problems

(see also the account of Hall's work in Mussen, et al.,

1963)1 although earlier attempts at systematic observation

4

were made by child biographers (e.g., Pestalozzi, 1774;

Darwin, 1877).

It is precisely Hall's question which the current

research is attempting to investigate. That is, what

are the salient factors which determine child personality

and behavior? Several important methodological advances

have occurred since 1891 and, although the science of

psychology, still in infancy relative to some of the

physical sciences, is yet admittedly imperfect in terms

of measurement devices and analytic techniques, a large

amount of work has been accomplished during the last

seventy-odd years toward developing sophisticated opera

tional techniques aimed at answering Hall's question.

In the area of a:lalytic methodology, the development of

factor analysis during the last half century (see

Thurstone, 1931; Burt, 1941) has contributed to the

parsimonious description of child personality and hypoth

esized determinants thereof.

Initial attempts to delineate the major factors of

child personality have been made in the rating realm

by Cattell and Gruen (1953), Cattell and Coan (1957),

Peterson and Cattell (1959), Cattell (1963), Digman

(1963, 1965, 1970), and Emmerich (1966); in the question

naire realm by Cattell and Gruen (1954), Cattell and

Coan (1958a), Coan and Cattell (1958b, 1959), Cattell

and Dreger (1969), Cattell and Schaie (1969) and Dielman

5

and Cattell (1970), and in the objective test realm by

Cattell and Gruen (1955), Cattell and Coan (1959),

Cattell and Peterson (1959), Schuerger, Dielman, and

Cattell (1970), Dielman, Schuerger, and Cattell (1970a),

and Cattell and Schuerger (1970).

These researchers have proceeded from the logical

premise that prior to investigating the antecedents of

child personality we are first obligated to arrive at

some reliable estimate of the salient dimensions of

child personality structure. On the other side of the

coin--taking cognizance now of the "predictor problem"

rather than the "criterion problem," we must ask our

selves what the salient dimensions of the antecedents

are. In the realm of child rearing practices, initial

work has been done by Sewell, et ale (1955), Milton (1958),

Minturn, et ale (1964), and Dielman, et ale (1970b),

with earlier investigations offered by Baldwin, et ale

(1945, 1949), and Schaefer (1959, 1961), Schaefer and

Bayley (1960, 1963), Schaefer and Bell (1955, 1958),

and Schaefer, et ale (1959). In the area of adjustment

problems, the recent work has been done by Peterson

(1961), Quay (1965), Quay, et ale (1966a, 1966b), Quay

(1966), Pimm, et ale (1967), and Dielman, et ale (1970c).

In the area of family structure, no multivariate struc

tural investigations, which are of primary concern to

the present writer, have been accomplished, although

6

theories and bivariate analyses have been offered by a

number of investigators, including Glick (1957), and

Bell (1960, 1967).

Arriving now at the interrelationships among the

various hypothesized sets of antecedents and resultants,

we have much less work. In fact, there is of date no

investigation attempting to relate family structure

factors, child rearing practice factors, and child per

sonality and behavior problem factors. The work of

Sears and his associates (1957, 1965) should be mentioned

as the most intensive investigation into child rearing

antecedents of child personality. Here, however, the

researchers were working with a set of variables which

defined £ priori the personality and child rearing

factors thought to be viable. The present research was

intended to utilize a large number of variables within

each domain and determine the structural properties of

these variables prior to relating the various structured

sets of variables. In doing so, the investigator has

interested himself in, primarily, two sources of evidence.

The first is concerned with studies of the structure of

families, child rearing practices, child personaJity,

and behavior problems. The second is concerned with the

interrelationships among these structured variables,

where such evidence exists. A number of structural

7

studies were discovered in the domains of child rearing

practices, child personality, and behavior problems.

None were found in the area of family relations. In

predicting from one area to another, no studies were

found if the task set was one of finding prediction of

structure from structure. Any causal hypotheses offered

in subsequent sections are based on the findings of

bivariate research or the occasional inclusion of a few

questions in one area (e.g., child rearing practices)

in an analysis primarily aimed at another (e.g., child

personality). A brief review of research into these

areas now preceeds a statement of the purpose of the

current investigation and hypotheses to be tested. The

review will proceed in a logical procession of antecedent

to consequent events.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH

A. Family Structure. As has been stated, no evidence

of a nultivariate nature has been discovered concerning

family structure. A number of hypotheses have been offered

(see Glick, 1957) and (Bell, 1960, 1967), but these are

regarded as limited inasmuch as the current investigation

is concerned with evidence of structure and the relation of

this body of evidence to other domains. Hypotheses,

although largely based on intuition or minimal evidence,

will follow a presentation of evidence in other domains.

B. Child Rearing Practices. A great deal more has

been done in this area than in the area of family struc

ture in the way of systematic data gathering, and the

ensuing hypotheses are richer as a consequence.

Early investigations of the dimensions of child rear-

ing practices were conducted through the administration

and subsequent factor analysis of the Pels Parent Behavior

Rating Scales and, due to the crudeness of early factor

analytic methods and lack of adequate electronic computing

facilities, reached a two-dimensional solution of the

structure of child care practices (Baldwin, Kalhorn, and

Breese, 1945, 1949). Subsequent analyses (Roff, 1949; Lorr

and Jenkins, 1953) and discussion (Bell, 1956) indicated

that the structure may be somewhat more complex, but inade

quate methodology again led to what most present invest~tors

9

would regard as an underdetermination. Following in the

tradition of these earlier studies, Schaefer and Bell

(1958, 1959) developed a parental attitude research

instrument (PARI), standardization data for which has

been presented by Zuckerman, et ale (1958). Schaefer

(1959) proposed a circumplex model (Guttman, 1954) for

maternal behavior which proposed two major bipolar dimen

sions, autonomy vs. control and love vs. hostility, about

which maternal behavior could be organized. Subsequent

analyses of the PARI have been in terms of Schaefer's

circumplex model (Schaefer and Bayley, 1960, 1963; Bayley

and Schaefer, 1960). Becker and Krug's (1965) review of

the PARI research concludes that the PARI scores are

strongly influenced by acquiescent-response set and edu

cational level and do not serve any predictive function.

A further conclusion offered by Becker and Krug's (1964)

review is that difficulties in the PARI design and

structure "suggest that it would be more profitable to

work toward new approaches."

Becker and Krug (1964) pursued the circumplex model

in structuring ratings of child behavior made by parents

and teachers. The two major bipolar dimension (emo

tional stability vs. conduct problem and extraversion vs.

introversion) of the Becker and Krug (1964) analysis

approximate two of the second order factors found by

other investigators whose research designs meet to a

10

greater extent the technical requirements of such multi

variate analyses (Digman, 1963, 1965; Cattell, 1963).

Becker, et al. (1959) and Peterson, et al. (1959)

conducted multivariate analyses of parental behavior of

children receiving clinical treatment and juvenile

delinquents, respectively. The factors in these studies

were primarily concerned with maladjusted behavior and,

further, the technical aspects of the analyses did not

meet the borderline requirements of sound multivariate

analysis. The results are consequently not reproduced

here.

Emmerich (1964) attempted to investigate the struc

ture of child personality via free-play observation

ratings. Data were gathered on 38 children and 31

variables, once again rendering the resulting six ex

tracted factors (three of which were interpreted) suspect.

Additional investigations concerned with child

rearing practices and child behavior and which have met

the minimum requirements of multivariate research design,

are presented in summary form in Table AI, Appendix A.

These investigations will now be discussed in turn,

considering studies concerned with child rearing practices

first.

Sewell, et al. (1955) interviewed the mothers of

162 rural Wisconsin children of 5-6 years of age on 39

variables. Eight factors were extracted by theoontroid

II

method and "a few rather obvious" plots of pairs of

factors were visually rotated. The resulting factor

pattern values for each of the eight factors as labelled

by Sewell, et ale (1955) are presented for inspection as

Table II, Appendix A.

Milton's (1958) study was based on the Sears, et ale

(1957) data. In this study 379 suburban New England

mothers were interviewed and their responses coded

according to the system presented in Sears, et ale (1957).

Milton (1958) selected 44 of the Sears variables and

factored the resulting intercorrelation matrix by the

centroid method. Seven factors were extracted on the

basis of the criterion proposed by McNemar (1942) and

rotated to orthogonal simple structure. Table AlII,

Appendix A, presents in summary form the factor pattern

values of the variables loading Milton's seven factors

and the labels which Milton attached to the factors.

Minturn, et ale (1964) have conducted a cross

cultural study utilizing some of the same variables

which appeared in the Milton (1958) study. Minturn and

his colleagues collected data on 28 variables from 133

mothers of six cultures. The factoring was again carried

out by the centroid method and, although oblique rota

tions were conducted, Minturn, et' a1. favored the,

orthogonal solution and discussed their factors in terms

of an orthogonal seven factor solution. The factor

12

pattern values of the variables on the seven factors and

the associated factor labels are presented as Table AIV,

Appendix A.

Dielman, et ale (197Gb) have investigated the

structure of child rearing practices utilizing an en

larged set of the Sears, et ale (1957, 1965) variables,

including many of those analyzed by Milton (1958) and

Minturn, et ale (1964). In the Dielman, et ale study,

both fathers and mothers were interviewed. The two data

sets were separately intercorrelated and a decision

concerning the number of factors to extract arrived

at by the "scree test" (Cattell, 1966). Eighteen factors

were extracted from the matrix of intercorrelations

among the father variables and sixteen from the mothers'

intercorrelation matrix. Factor extraction was accom

plished by the principal axis method and factors rotated

by the Promax (Hendrickson and White, 1964) oblique

analytic method. The salient variables defining the

factors and their associated factor pattern values are

presented separately for the mothers and fathers as

Tables AV and AVI, Appendix A, respectively.

On the basis of the evidence provided by the studies

summarized above and in Tables All thru AVI of Appendix

A, it is concluded that at least seven first order

factors are to be expected in the child rearing practices

domain. It is possible that the number of factors is as

13

many as eighteen. These factors should include the

dimensions of parental strictness, faITily adjustment,

warmth of parent-child relationship, responsible child

training orientation, parental aggressiveness and puni

tiveness, patriarchal family structure, and mother's

concern for the child's well-being. As in any factor

analytic investigation, the replicability of the emergent

factors across samples and the usefulness of the factors

as predictors of behaviors of interest will determine

which are to be retained in the researcher's lexicon.

C. Rating Studies of Child Personality. Turning

from studies concerned with parental behavior to those

concerned with child behavior, Cattell and Gruen (1953)

analyzed the ratings on 30 variables by peers of 173

children 9-14 years of age. Six factors were extracted

by the centroid method and rotated to oblique simple

structure. The resulting factor loadings and the labels

attached by Cattell and Gruen (1953) are presented as

Table AVII, Appendix A.

Cattell and Coan (1957) analyzed teacher ratings of

198 children 6-10 years of age on 39 variables. Thirteen

factors were extracted by the centroid method and rotated

to oblique simple structure. The resulting reference

vector structure values and labels are presented as

Table AVIII, Appendix A.

14

Digman's (1965) reanalysis of the Peterson and Cattell

(1959) data (80 subjects and 36 variables), in which nine

factors were extracted, suggested, by the Kaiser (1965)

criterion, 7 factors. The eighth latent root was near

the Kaiser 1.0 cutoff value and, as previous studies

had implied 8 factors, 8 were extracted, initially ro

tated by the varimax method (Kaiser, 1959), and carried

to oblique simple structure by an adaptation of Cattell's

(1960) Rotoplot method. Hyperplane width was set at .20,

and reference vector structure values exceeding this

value, along with factor labels, are presented as Table

AIX, Appendix A.

In an earlier study, Digman (1963) utilizing the

variable list of Cattell and Coan (1957) consisting of

39 variables, and with an N=102 found, with principal

axis solution and oblique rotation, that the Kaiser

criterion suggested seven factors. The eighth and ninth

latent roots approached the 1.0 cutoff value (.95 and

.93, respectively) and, to allow comparison with the

Cattell and Coan (1957) investigation, eleven factors

were extracted and rotated to oblique simple structure

by Thurstone's (1947) criterion, taking the hyperplane

width as + .15. Digman's 1963 factors and the associated

reference vector structure values are presented as Table

AX, Appendix A.

15

Cattell (1963) reanalyzed the Digman (1963) data

(N=102, NVAR1=39) and extracted, on the basis of three

criteria for the number of factors to be extracted

(Tucker, 1938; Sokal, 1959; Kaiser, 1965), 12 factors

which were subsequently sUbjected to oblique rotation

to simple structure with the hyperplane width set at

± .10. Cattell's 12 factors and the primary factor

pattern values of the variables which were associated

with them are presented as Table AXI, Appendix A.

Emmerich's (1966) study focused upon teacher ratings

on 24 variables of the behavior of 53 nursery school

children. The correlation matrix was factored by the

principal axis method and the three extracted factors

were rotated to an oblique resolution by means of the

biquartimin method. The resulting factor pattern matrix

is presented as Table AXIl, Appendix A.

Slater (1962) notes that while there have been

several factor analytic studies of the parental behavior

and child behavior domains, few studies have been con

cerned with relationships between the child rearing

antecedent factors and the subsequent child behavior

factors. The few studies which have been concerned with

such relationships have either concentrated on abnormal

behavior or have been methodologically inadequate, or

INVAR= number of variables

16

both (Hewitt and Jenkins, 1946; Shoben, 1949; Peck,

1958). Slater (1962) aimed his investigation at a closing

of this research gap, but provided little conclusive

information due to the fact that his parental behavior

data were collected by means of administering a "parental

role patterns" questionnaire to 138 male college sopho

mores. The factors resulting from the questionnaire

responses were then related to factors resulting from

the scores of the subjects on 32 MMPI scales, many of

which had overlapping items.

The above studies indicate that six to twelve factors

are to be expected in the analysis of ratings of child

behavior. These factors should include those identified

most recently by Digman (1970) as intellect (creativity/

divergent thinking), sociality, aggression-dominance,

emotionali ty, industriousness, and compliance. There is in

adequate evidence relating child personality to child

rearing practices.

D. Childhood Behavior Problems. The principal

studies in this area stem from an early analysis and a

consequent checklist developed by Peterson (1961), which

has been tested on samples of normal, delinquent, and

counselling clinic children by Quay and his associates

(Quay and Quay, 1965; Quay, et al., 1966a, 1966b; Quay,

1966; Pimm, et al., 1967). Peterson's results (primary

factor pattern values) are presented as Table AXIII,

17

Appendix A. A summary of the results (primary factor

pattern values) of Quay and his associates are presented

as Table AXIV, Appendix A. Dielman, et ale (1970c)

have provided an oblique analysis of the behavior prob

lems variables, rather than the Varimax rotation provided

by Peterson and Quay and his associates. The analysis

in the Dielman, et ale study consisted of a principal

axis factor extraction of 8 factors, based on the scree

test (which indicated fewer factors in this case than

the Kaiser-Guttman unity rule) and a Promax rotation.

The results (primary factor pattern values) of the Dielman

et ale study are presented as Table AXV, Appendix A.

The studies just cited indicate that from four to

seven factors are to be expected in the analysis of

childhood behavior problems. These factors should

include those identified by Quay and his associates in

their several investigations as verbal activity, imma

turity, conduct problem, and personality problem.

Dielman, et ale (1970c) in a more recent analysis have

suggested the substitution of psychopathic-unsocialized

and neurotic-disturbed for the latter two terms, respec

tively.

CHAPTER III

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH

The need in multivariate research concerning the

antecedents of child personality are seen by the writer

as:

1. The establishment of a theoretical model from

which to derive predictions, rather than relating avail

able scales which bear no theoretical relationship to

family practices.

2. Independent factoring of each data domain in

order to arrive at the best estimate of common factors

within each.

J. Systematic investigation of the predictive

efficiency of common factors in antecedent to sUbsequent

data domains.

The theoretical framework for the current investiga

tion has been provided by Sears, et ale (1957, 1965),

Milton (1958), Minturn, et ale (1964) and Dielman, et ale

(1970b) in the child rearing domain; by Digman (196J,

1965) and Cattell and his associates (1953, 1957, 196J)

in the child behavior domain; and by Peterson (1961),

Quay and his associates (e.g. 1965, 1966a, 1966b), and

Dielman, et ale (1970c) in the behavior problems domain.

An interlocking variable systom proposed by Howard and

Gallimore (1968), Howard (1967), and Gallimore, et ale

19

(1967), and recently revised (Gallimore, 1969) provides

the integrating model for the current investigation.

The most recent form of the Howard and Gallimore model iSI

ECOLOGICAL~DOMESTIC CHILD STRATEGIC XFACTORS --~ GROUP ---)~REARING---)~ORIENTATION

FACTORS FACTORS FACTORS

SITUATIONAL , BEHAVIORALFACTORS ----~7 TACTIC

FACTORS

The above model, in a more descriptive form, starting

with the extreme right term and working backwards, con

siders behavioral tactics, or specific behavioral out-

comes, to be a function of an interaction of situa'cional

and personality, or strategic orientation factors as the

Howard and Gallimore model has it, the latter of which

is a function of child rearing factors, which in turn

is a function of domestic group factors, which is in

turn a function of ecological factors. At the variable

level of description, ecological factors would be defined

by such things as family income, size of dwelling, size

of community, etc.; domestic group factors by variables

such as role of father in family, socialization group,

size of family, etc.; child rearing factors by variables

such as those in the list presented in Tables All thru

AVI; strategic orientation factors by variables such as

those in Tables AVII thru AXIl; situational factors by

variables such as types of models encountered outside the

20

home and types and frequencies of problems encountered;

and behavioral tactic factors by variables such as those

listed in Tables AXIII thru XV.

In terms of a factor model, the above theoretical

framework can be expressed aSI

BT j = bsolSOl + bso2S02 + ••• + bsonSOn,

where BTj is the factor score on behavior tactic j. SOl

thru SOn are factor scores on strategic orientation

factors and the bso's are the accompanying weights.

For the purpose of the present investigation the situa

tional factors are assumed to be constant and the model

is consequently a linear, non-interactive one.

The strategic orientation factor scores can in

the same manner be expressed as a weighted composite of

child rearing factorsl

SOj =bcrlCRI + bcrZCRZ + ••• + bcrnCRn ,

and the child rearing factor scores in terms of a weighted

composite of domestic group factorsl

CR j =bdglDGI + bdgZDGZ + ••• + bdgnDGn •

All of the above have omitted specific factors and

error variance which do not contribute to the prediction

of some criterion.

As the above model is still open to revision, the

current investigation will, in addition to testing the

21

above relationships, determine the predictive efficiency

of each antecedent set of factors in relation to subse-

quent sets of factors, whether immediately subsequent or

not. Tests of all of the above are amenable to standard

multiple regression procedures. The main emphasis in

the present study will be on child rearing practices

and behavior tactics. The other data domains, with the

exception of situational factors which must be regarded

as constant, will be included in order to assess the

degree of independent prediction of behavior tactics

which is possible from child rearing factors. As an

example of the hypothesis testing procedures to be

employed, omitting subscripts for the various factors

within each data domain, the criterion (Yl) of behavior

tactics would be predicted by the three antecedents:

Yl = blXl + b2X2 + bJXJ + el

Where the b's are the regression weights accompanying

the variables Xl thru XJ

' domestic group, child rearing,

and personality (strategic orientation). In practice,

each X term would be increased by the multiple of the

number of common factors within that domain, and separate

prediction equations would be calculated for each cri

terion factor.

The hypothesis that the ecological factor in the

example is not of significant predictive power to be

22

included in the model could then be posed: HI: bl = 0,

and the reduced model prediction equation is Y2 = b2X2 +

b3X3 + e2 - The increase in error variance (or decrease

in predicted variance) is then calculated by the ratio

F = (R2f - R2r ) / dfr - dfr , where(1 - R2 f ) 7 N - dff

R2 r = the full prediction model multiple correlation

of the dependent variable with all independent

variables considered

R2 r = the reduced prediction model multiple correla

tion of the dependent variable with all but

the eliminated independent variable or vari-

abIes considered

dff = the degrees of freedom in the full prediction

model

dfr = the degrees of freedom in the reduced predic

tion model

N = the number of observations;

detailed descriptions of the multiple regression model

in hypothesis testing may be found in Bottenberg and

Ward (1963) or Hays (1965)-

CHAPTER IV

STATE~ffiNT OF HYPOTHESES

The hypotheses to be examined in the current investi

gation are on two levels. The first level of hypotheses

consists of those which are concerned with the structure

of the various domains. An attempt is made to base

these hypotheses on existinG evidence when possible. The

second level consists of the interrelationships among

the various structural domains. Here again, an attempt

is made to utilize existing data, although here the writer

has been unable to find data relating structured sets of

data and has been forced to rely upon essentially bivar

iate data.

A. structural Hypotheses

1. Family Structure. Within the area of family

structure, no hypotheses can be offered concerning the

dimensionality on the basis of previous evidence. On

the basis of previous variables of interest to students

of household demography (e.g., Glick, 1957; Bell, 1960,

1967), some variables of importance might be postulated.

These are: family type (e.g., nuclear vs. lineal),

family size, family origin, educational level of parents,

relation of children to the head of the household (e.g.,

natural child, stepchild, adopted child, grandchild),

presence or absence of mother, presence or absence of

father, birth order of child, number of siblings of

24

same sex, and number of siblings of opposite sex. The

number of factors which may emerge from a structural

analysis of such variables is open to question and no

hypotheses are offered here.

2. Child Rearing Practices. On the basis of

existing evidence (Sewell, et al., 1955; Milton, 1958;

Minturn, et al., 1964; Dielman, et al., 1970b), it is

hypothesized that at least 7 factors will be identifi

able in the child rearing practices domain. These should

include factors identifying permissiveness, strictness

of discipline, warmth of parent-child relationship,

promotion of independence, high use of sanctions in

controlling child behavior, patriarchal family, and

aggression training.

3. Ratings of Child Personality. Prior work in

this area (Cattell and Gruen, 1953; Cattell and Coan,

1957; Peterson and Cattell, 1959; Cattell, 1963; Digman,

1963, 1965, 1970) indicates at least 6 factors and

possibly as many as 11. The current study utilized

variables focusing on the factors found by Digman (1963,

1965, and 1970). Digman's (1970) most recent evidence

is that 6 factors can be reliably reproduced across

samples, and such is the hypothesis here. The hypoth

esized factors include: intellect (creativity/divergent

thinking), sociality, aggression-dominance, emotionality,

industriousness, and complianceo

25

4. Behavior Problems. The evidence of Peterson

(1961), Quay and his associates (Quay and Quay, 1965;

Quay et al., 1966a, 1966b; Pimm, et al., 1967; Quay,

1966), and Dielman, et ale (1970c) suggests that perhaps

four to seven factors will emerge from the analysis of

the behavior problems data, including immaturity, verbal

overactivity, conduct problem, and personality problem.

B. Relationships Arnone Domains

Once again, a lack of evidence concerning the struc

ture of the family demography variables precludes any

systematic hypothesis formation. It might be postulated

that parental education is positively related to the

child rearing practice factar of permissiveness and

negatively related to the strictness of discipline factor.

A demographic factor primarily marked by size of family,

which would not necessarily be highly correlated with the

factor marked by parental education but may be positively

correlated to some extent, could be hypothesized to bear

a negative relationship to the parent-child warmth of

relationship factor and a negative relationship to the

independence training factor. The parental education

factor, if such emerges, could further be hypothesized

to relate positively to parental demands and praise for

achievement, as well as the use of sanctions in controlling

child behavior. A family-type factor (e.g., nuclear,

extended) could well be hypothesized to relate positively

26

to a family size factor, if a high score on the family

type factor indicates an extended family type, and con

sequently negatively to the child rearing factor of

independence training.

In the area of child rearing practices, Digman's

(1965) finding that teachers' ratings of parental per

missiveness added significantly to the prediction of

child personality factors D, E, and H, enables the

hypothesis to be posed here that the child rearing

practice permissiveness factor will bear a positive

relationship to these three child personality factors.

Further, also based on Digman's (1965) results, parental

acceptance, or the warmth of the parent-child relation

ship, is hypothesized to relate positively to child

personality factors A, I, and C, and negatively to factor

T. The child rearing practices factor of responsibility,

or independence, training and the child personality E

factor should exhibit a positive relationship, as negative

attention-seeking has been found by Sears, et ale (1965)

to be positively related to a lack of standards or demands

for mature behavior. The child rearing punitiveness,

or strictness of discipline factor is hypothesized to

relate positively to child personality factors A and K

and negatively to child personality factor H. This hypot~

esis is derived from the finding of Sears, et ale (1965)

that variables which were included in the Milton (1958)

27

punitiveness factor resulted in a greater degree of

feminine behavior for both male and female children,

coupled with Digman's (1963) finding that males tend to

obtain lower scores on the child personality factors A

and K and higher scores on H.

Relating the child personality dimensions to the

hypothesized behavior problems factors is once again

primarily a matter of speculation. Quay, et ale (1966b)

have found that, within a sample of children referred

to a child guidance clinic, female children were more

apt to exhibit higher scores on the personality problem

dimension than male children, while scores on the conduct

problem dimension were positively related to lower in

telligence, younger age, non-white race, and lower

socioeconomic status. This is of little aid in the

formulation of hypotheses concerning the relationships

among child personality dimensions and behavior problems

dimensions. On the basis of item content, the behavior

problems factor of immaturity is hypothesized to bear

a negative relationship to child personality factors E,

G, r, and a positive relationship to factor T. The be

havior problem factor of verbal overactivity should

relate positively to D and E, and negatively to K. The

conduct problems dimension should relate negatively to

A and K, and positively to D. The personality problem

dimension is hypothesized to bear a negative relation

ship to C, H, and I, and a positive relationship to T.

The above hypothesized relationships among the four

domains are presented in summary form in Table I.

28

CHAPTER V

I'.JETHOD AND PROCEDURE

All data were collected in the Nanakuli Homestead

area on the Waianae Coast of Oahu, Hawaii. The household

demography data were collected by a trained interviewer

during the summer of 1967. 'Ehere Vlere originally 35

variables in this set of data, three of which were elim

inated due to their exact or nearly exact correspondence

or inverse relationship to another variable (individual

female unit correlated -1.0 with individual male unit,

grandchild of household head correlated -1.0 with child

of household head, and age in years correlated .97 with

number of years of completed education). The remaining

32 variables are listed as Table II.

The child rearing practices data were gathered during

the same period, also by a trained interviewer. There

were originally 262 variables in this set of data. The

variables were first divided into three sets--those

having to do with general child rearing practices, those

having to do with practices in raising male children,

and those bearing on practices in the rearing of female

children. Variables were eliminated from each set which

did not show at least a 20~.0 response rate, leaving 53

variables in the general practices set, 29 in the male

practices set, and 27 in the female practices seto These

three sets of variables are presented as Table III.

30

TABLE I. SUMMARY OF THE HYPOTHESIZEDINTER-DOMAIN RELATIONSHIPS

Family Child Rearing Child BehaviorDemography Practices Personality Problems

Family Size Warmth of Parent A- High ConductChild Relation- Problem

(Greater) ship

(Lower) I- High Personal-ity Problem,High Immaturity

C- High Personal-ity Problem

T+ High Immatur-ity, HighPersonalityProblem

Independence E- Low VerbalTraining Activity,(Lower) High Immatur-

ityExtended IndependenceFamily Type Training E- Low Verbal

(Lower) ActivityHigh Immatur-ity

Parental Permissiveness D+ High ConductEducation (Greater) Problem, High(Greater) Verbal Activ-

ity

E+ High VerbalActivity, LowImmaturity

H+

Strictness of A- High ConductDiscipline Problem(Lower)

31

TABLE I. (Continued) SUMMARY OF THE HYPOTHESIZEDINTER-DOMAIN RELATIONSHIPS

FamilyDemography

ParentalEducation(Greater)

Child RearingPractices

Strictness o:fDiscipline(Lower)

Use o:f Sanctionsin Control o:fChild Behavior(Greater)

Demands :forAchievement(Greater)

Child BehaviorPersonality Problems

K- High VerbalActivity,High ConductProblem

H+

32

TABLE II. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

VARIABLE LIST

VariableNumber Variable Description

1 Nuclear family type (l=yes, O=no)

2 Nuclear family type with lateral extensions(l=yes, O=no)

3 Lineal extended grandparental family type(l=yes, O=no)

4 Lineal extended superordinate family type(l=yes, O=no)

5 Subnuclear extended family type (l=yes, O=no)

6 Subnuclear unextended family type (l=yes, O=no)

7 Individual female unit (l=yes, O=no)

8 Origin in Nanakuli (l=yes, O=no)

9 Origin in other Waianae coast areas (l=yes, O=no)

10 Origin in Honolulu or immediate environs(l=yes, O=no)

11 Origin elsewhere on Oahu (l=yes, O=no)

12 Origin in other island in Hawaii (l=yes, O=no)

13 Origin on Mainland (l=yes, O=no)

14 Number of years of completed education

15 Lessee (l=yes, O=no)

16 Lineal relation to household head (l=yes, O=no)

17 Consanguinal relation to household head(l=yes, O=no)

18 Spouse's consanguine (l=yes, O=no)

19 Spouse's lineal (l=yes, O=no)

20 Other affinals (l=yes, O=no)

33

TABLE II. (Continued) HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYVARIABLE LIST


21 Hanai or adopted (l=yes, O=no)

22 Not related (l=yes, O=no)

23 Child of household head (l=yes, O=no)

24 Percentage Hawaiian ancestry

25 Presence of female sibling 8 years or older(l=yes, O=no)

26 Birth order among all siblings

27 Total number of all children belonging to parents

28 Total number of children under 21 living athome with no children of their own

29 Both parents natural in household (l=yes, O=no)

30 Natural father, stepmother in household(l=yes, O=no)

31 Natural mother, stepfather in household(l=yes, O=no)

32 Child is Hanai, foster, adopted child, includinggrandchild whose parent is not in the household

TABLE III. CHILD REARINGPRACTICES VARIABLE LIST

A. General Child Rearing Practices and Attitudes(NVAR=53)

Variable Description

1. Age at which things and privileges should be takenaway as punishment

2. Youngest age children should be spanked

3. Oldest age children should be spanked

4. Parental response to child's request for delay ofrequirement (l=will allow exceptions, O=will notallow exceptions)

Parental reasons for requiring chores

5. Teach responsibility, character building

6. Teach skills needed for life, prepares child foradulthood

7. Help family, share work, remove burden from others

8. Control of child

Parental response to child's request for change in job

9. Let them do it, no qualifications

10. Let them do it, depending on nature of request

11. Will not allow, but will explain

12. Will not allow, no explanation

13. Children never ask

Most important thing in raising children, first mentioned

14. Obedience, compliance, not spoiling, respect

15. Teach right and wrong

16. Help them make good life, get ahead

17. Give love and affection

TABLE III. (Continued) CHILD REARINGPRACTICES VARIABLE LIST

A. General Child Rearing Practices and Attitudes(NVAR=53) Continued


18. Teach to be responsible, independent, mature

19. Physical care

35

Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned

20. Obedience, compliance, Y'.ot spoiling, respect

21. Teach right and wrong

22. Help them make good life, get ahead

23· Give love and affection

24. Teach to be responsible, independent, mature

25. Physical care

What makes you proud of your children?

26. Obedience and compliance

27. Personal accomplishment, school sports, popularity,musical or artisttc talent

28. Vague reference to "being good"

29. Preferred age of children (youngest age given)

Reasons for preferred age of children

30. Less trouble

31. Learning things

32. More loving, an object of affection

33. Can talk with you

34. Need you more, more dependent

35. Cute, sweet, source of amusement

36. Least liked age of children (youngest age given)




Reasons for least liked age of children

37. Too independent, don't need you

36

38. Gets into difficulty, unspecified trouble

39. Too headstrong, "hard headed," talks back, hard·tohandle

40. Fussy, nags, complains, intrusive

41. Unruliness, silly, wild play

42. Reaction to teenagers' arguments with parent(l=will allow, O=will not allow)

Preferred child's behavior

43. Does things on his own

44. Does what he is told

45. Both

Most important value in child's behavior

46. Learn a lot from books

47. Do what parents say

48. Both

49. Reaction to children staying at home (O=stay,l=leave)

Anything a teenager could do that would make you want himor her to leave your home

50~ Commit crime, disgrace family

51. Disrespect, defiance, disobedience, hits parent

37



52. Drunkeness, dope, etc.

53. Nothing

B. Male Children (NVAR=29)

1. Age at which boys should be given a regular jobaround the house

2. Age at which boys should be given a really important job

Boy behavior which angers parent (first mentioned)

3. Doesn't complete tasks or does them in an unsatisfactory manner

4. Disobedience (unspecified)

5. Fights with siblings

6. Nagging, demanding attention, cry-baby, won't dothings for himself, intrusions, interruptions, etc.

7. Talks back, aggression against parents

Initial parental response to boy misbehavior

8. Threaten to take away privilege or freedom

9. Act to take away privilege or freedom

10. Threaten physical punishment

11. Physical punishment

12. Scold, lecture, nag, shame, ridicule

Ultimate parental response to boy misbehavior




B. Male Children (NVAR=29)

15. Report to other parent for action

16. No need to do anything

17. Scold, lecture, naG' sJ:ta;lle, ridicule

Physical punishment of boys

18. Yes, all boys in family

19. Yes, some boys in family

20. No

Reasons for spanking boys



23. Fights with siblings

Boy behavior which makes parent happy

24. Does work, does work without being told

25. Acts nice, shows affection, is sweet

26. Vague reference to being good, obedient

27. Does well in school or in an activity

28. Nothing

29. Age at which boys can go out pretty much as theylike

C. Female Children (NVAR=27)

1. Age at which girls should be given a regular jobaround the house

2. Age at which girls should be given a reallyimportant job

38

39


C. Female Children (NVAR=27)

Girls' behavior which angers parent (first mentioned)



5. Wil~ plaYt noisy, destructive, etc.

6. Nagging, demanding attention, cry-baby, won't dothings for herself, intrusions, interruptions, etc.

7. Talks back, aggression against parents

Initial parental response to girl misbehavior




Ultimate parental response to girl misbehavior




14. No need to do anything

Physical punishment of girls

15. Yes, all girls in family

16. Yes, some girls in family

17. No

18. Does work without being told

Girl behavior which makes parent happy

19. Acts nice, shows affection, is sweet

40


Co Female Children (NVAR=27)

20. Vague reference to being good, obedient

21. Does well in school or in an activity

Method of letting girl know parents are happy with her

22. Tell, thank, praise

23. By expression, behavior; by smiling or joking

240 Never do anything

25. Age at which girls would be allowed to go out witha group of girls in the evening

26. Age at which girls would be allowed to go out witha mixed group of boys and girls in the evening

27. Age at which girl would be allowed to go out witha boy

41

The teacher ratings and behavior problems ratings

were collected during the 1967-68 school year. The 20

teacher rating variables were constructed in a seven

point scale format and are presented as Table IV. The

raw scores were subsequently converted to T-scores. The

behavior problems variables were dichotomous, as in the

analyses by Quay and his associates. Variables not re

ceiving at least a 20% response rate were eliminated. The

remaining 29 of the original 55 variables are presented

in Table V.

Each set of data was first intercorrelated and eigen

values were obtained from the resulting correlation

matrices. Subsequent to the decision of the number of

factors which were to be extracted, communalities were

obtained by an iterative procedure and inserted in the

diagonal elements: Factoring was completed by the prin

cipal axis method of extraction and each of the resulting

principal axis factor matrices rotated by the Harris

Kaiser (1964) oblique analytic method.

VariableNumber

1

2

:3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

42

IfABLE IV. TEACHER RATINGSVARIABLE LIST


Neat in appearance; careful about clothes andappearance; dislikes being dirty or disheveled;is usually well-groomed

Touchy; very sensitive to criticism; cries,pouts or sulks when criticized; does not takewell to jokes or pranks on him (her)

Seclusive: dislikes group activities and games,prefers to be by self or in company of one ortwo others; dislikes being in a crowd

Perservering: keeps at his (her) work until itis completed; sees a job through despite difficulties; painstaking and thorough

Assertive: bossy; usually attempts to directthe actions of others; is convinced his (her)way is the best way of doing things; showsothers "how things should be done"

Energetic: active; full of pep; vigorous;movements are quick, darting

Fearful: has many fears and worries, some ofwhich are unreasonHble; easily becomes alarmedor frightened

Spiteful: deliberately does or says thingswhich may annoy or hurt others; says hatefulthings about others; belittles others

Nervous Habits: has a great variety of nervoushabi ts (e .g., nailbi ting" grimacing, tics, hairtwisting, pencil chewing, etc.)

Imaginative: has an active, vivid imagination;very fanciful; sees poss~bilities overlook~d

by others

Careful of personal belongings: takes good careof things which belong to him (her); becomes concerned when possessions are missing and searchesfor them; keeps his (her) own things neat, clean,and in order

43

TABLE IV. (Continued) TEACHER RATINGSVARIABLE LIST


12 Concerned about acceptance: expresses concernabout real or imagined rebuffs and slights fromothers; unable to take his (her) relationshipwith others for granted; worries that he (she)may lose friends or that others will not likehim (her)

13 Gregarious: likes to be vlith others and seekstheir company; spends as much time with othersas possible; dislikes being alone

14 Fickle: changes frequently in interests, opinions, and pursuits; "flighty," starts one thingand shifts to another

15 Self-minimizing: tends to minimize own importance; humble; never brags or shows off; seeksout or is content with less important tasksor positions

16 Lethargic: slow moving; seldom or never runs orhurries; unresponsive or slow to react; worksslowly

17 Adaptable: copes easily and successfully withnew and strange situations; bravely faces up touncertainty

18 Considerate: thoughtful of others; sensitive toothers' feelings; cannot do things which hurtothers' feelings; sympathetic when others arein trouble and tries to help

19 Restless: constantly or frequently moves aboutthe room; unable to settle down after activityperiod or recess

20 Original: has remarkably novel and differentideas and/or solutions to problems; thinkingand behavior are characterized by unusualapproaches

VariableNumber

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 .

21

22

44TABLE V. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

VARIABLE LIST

Descriptionof Variable

Restlessness, inability to sit still~

Doesn't know how to have fun; behaves likelittle adult

Self-conscious; easily embarrassed

Disruptive; tendency to annoy other~

Feelings of inferiority

Steals in company with others

Boisterousness; rowdiness

Preoccupation; "in·a world of his own"

Social witpdrawal; preference for solitaryactivities

Lack. of self confidence

Inattentiveness to what others say

Easily flustered and confused

Loyal to delinquent friends

Reticence, secretiveness

Truancy from school

Laziness in school and in performance of othertasks

Irresponsibility; undependability

Excessive daydreaming

Has bad companions

Disobedience, difficulty in discipl~nary control

Uncooperativeness in group situations

Aloofness, social reserve

TABLE V. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSVARIABLE LIST

Variable DescriptionNumber of Variable

45

23 Passivity, suggestibility, easily led by others

2L~ Clumsiness, awkwardness, poor muscular coordination

25 Destructiveness in regard to his own or others'property

26 Impertinence, sauciness

27 Sluggishness, lethargy

28 Profane language

29 Irritability, hot tempered, easily aroused toanger

CHAPTER VI

RESULTS ArID DISCUSSION

The correlation matrices resulting from the demog

raphy, child rearing practices, child personality, and

behavior problems are presented as Tables BI, 5II, BIII,

and BIV, respectively, in Appendix B. The resulting

eigenvalues and cumulative proportion of accountable vari

ance for the four data sets are presented, respectively,

as Tables BV thru BVIII in Appendix B, the unrotated

principal axis factor matrices as Tables BIX thru EXII,

the obliquely rotated (Harris-Kaiser) primary factor

pattern matrices as Tables BXIII thru BXVI, and the re

sulting primary factor intercorrelations as Tables BXVII

thru BXX.

A. Household Demography Structure. Sixteen of the

household demography eigenvalues exceeded unity. A plot

of the eigenvalues and the application of the "scree test"

(Cattell, 1966) recommended the extraction of eight

factors. As the dimensionality of this area is unexplored

and due to the difficulty of replication of factors across

samples when a greater number is extracted (Peterson, 1965)

the decision was made to extract the smaller number. The

first factor (see Table VI) receives its highest loadings

from the variables "natural father, stepmother in house

hold" and "origin on another island in Hawaii." There

are also moderate loadings from higher percentage of

47

Hawaiian ancestry, number of years of completed education,

presence of a female sibling 8 years or older, and, nat

urally enough, a negative loading from "both parents

in the household. II Thi s high score on thi s factor, con

sequently, would indicate a child who lives with his

father and stepmother in a family which is from an island

other than Oahu. The percentage of Hawaiian ancestry is

relatively high, as is the number of years of education

and the probability of having a sister over 8 years of

age living at home.

TABLE VI. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTOR I STEPMOTHER, ORIGIN OFF OAHU

Variable Loading Description

12 .61 Origin on other island in Hawaii

14 .24 Number of years of completed education

24 .38 Percentage of Hawaiian ancestry

25 .26 Presence of female sibling 8 yearsor older

29 -·32 Both parents natural in household

30 .67 Natural father, stepmother in house-hold

Factor II of the household demography analysis (see

Table VII) could be called the "Hanai" factor. The highest

loading here indicates that the child is either a foster

child or a grandchild whose parents are not in the home.

The family tends to be from another island in Hawaii,

although here the percentage of Hawaiian ancestry tends

48

to be lower. Birth order is relatively high, the prob-

ability of female siblings 8 years of age or older in

the household is relatively low, and there are relatively

few children under 21 living at home.

TABLE VII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

FACTOR II HANAI

Variable Loading

12 .25

18 .27

19 -.21

21 ·39

24 -.23

25 -.34

26 .27

28 -.29

Description

Origin on other island in Hawaii

Spouse's consanguine

Spouse's lineal

Hanai or adopted

Percentage Hawaiian ancestry

Presence of female sibling 8 yearsor older

Birth order among all siblings

Total number of children under 21living at home with no children oftheir own

29

32

-.37

.77

Both parents natural in household

Child is Hanai, foster, adopted child,including grandchild whose parent isnot in the household

Household demography factor III (see Table VIII) is

simply interpreted as a subnuclear family in which the

child's natural mother is not present. The family origin

tends to be from a Waianae coast area other than Nanakuli.

Factor IV of the house demography data (see Table IX)

is interpreted as one in which the child is relatively

49

likely to bear a consanguinal relationship to both parents.

The family tends to be nuclear with lateral extensions.

TABLE VIII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

FACTOR III SUBNUCLEAR, MOTHER ABSENT

Variable Loading

1 -.20

5 .23

6 .34

9 .22

29 -·59

31 -.82

Description

Nuclear family type

Subnuclear extended family type

Subnuclear unextended family type

Origin in other Waianae coast areas


Natural mother, stepfather in household

TABLE IX. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR IV

NUCLEAR-LATERAL, CONSANGUINE


1 -·59 Nuclear family type

2 .68 Nuclear family type with lateralextensions

16 -·32 Lineal relation to household head

17 .44- Consanguinal relation to householdhead

18 • 2L~ Spouse's consanguine

Factor V is best interpreted as a "specific" and is of

little structural interpretative value, having two large

"origin" loadings and nothing else of importance. The

origin is Nanakuli, as indicated in Table X.

50

TABLE X. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

FACTOR V NANAKULI ORIGIN

Variable

8

10

Loading

.92

-.89

Description

Origin in Nanakuli

Origin in Honolulu or immediateenvirons

Factor VI (see Table XI) is marked by nuclear family

type and the child of the household head. There tend to

be more children under 21 at home.

TABLE XI. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

FACTOR VI NUCLEAR FAMILY

Variable Loading

1 .61

4 -.79

19 -.20

23 .68

28 .28

Description

Nuclear family type

Lineal extended superordinate familytype

Spouse's lineal

Child of household head


32 -.22 Child is Hanai, foster, adoptedchild, including grandchild whoseparent is not in the household

Factor VII (see Table XII) is marked by a large number

of children belonging to the parents, many of the children

being under 21 years of age, high birth order of the child,

subnuclear extended family type, relatively high percentage

51

of Hawaiian ancestry, and less likelihood of a female

sibling 8 years of age or older in the household.

TABLE XII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTOR VIISUBNUCLEAR-EXTENDED, OLDER CHILD

Birth order among all siblings

Total number of all children belonging to parents

Presence of female sibling 8 yearsor older

Percentage Hawaiian Ancestry

Nuclear family type


Description


Variable Loading

1 -.34

5 .56

24 .37

25 -·50

26 ·75

27 .94

28 .68

The final factor to be considered in the household

demography analysis (see Table XIII) is marked primarily

by the child's lineal relationship to the spouse of the

household head rather than to the household head himself.

The family type tends to be nuclear, and there is a

tendency for one parent to be other than the natural

parent of the child.

B. Child Rearing Practices Structure

1. General Child Rearing Practices. Twenty-three

of the eigenvalues in the general child rearing practices

analysis exceeded unity. The "scree test" indicated 12

52

TABLE XIII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFACTOR VIII SPOUSE'S LINEAL

Variable

1

5

12

16

19

29

Loading

.)6

-.26

-.20

-.8)

.81

-.21

Description

Nuclear family type


Origin in other island in Hawaii

Lineal relation to household head

Spouse's lineal


factors and, for the reasons discussed in the preceeding

section, 12 were extracted and rotated. The first factor

in this analysis (see Table XIV) is marked primarily by

an affectionate attitude on the part of the parents.

Love and affection are more important than helping the

child to "get ahead," and the parent willingly responds

to the childs' requests, but the child seems to make fewer

of them. There also appears to be a tendency for the

parent to prefer children as companions rather than sources

of amusement. This factor has been termed "warmth of

parent-child relationship.

The second general child rearing practices factor

(see Table XV) is marked by an unwillingness to allow

changes but a willingness to explain that unwillingness

to the child. The most important things in the raising

of children are physical care and moral instruction. The

child seems to be regarded as a necessary cog in the family

53

TABLE XIV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR I WARMTH OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

Variable

9

13

16

Loading

.64

-.28

Description

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: let them do it,no qualifications

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: they never ask

Most important thing in raisingchildren: help them make good life,get ahead

17 .44

25 ·30

33 ·32

35 -.21

LH - .. 22

53 .25

Most important thing in raisingchildren: give love and affection

Most important thing in ralsln~

children: physical care

Reasons for preferred age of children:they can talk with you

Reasons for preferred age of children:cute, source of amusement

Reasons for least liked age of children: unruliness, silly, wild play

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him to leaveyour home: nothing

54

TABLE XV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR II OBEDIENCE TRAINING

Variable

7

11

13

19

21

53

Loading

-.21

.21

.68

-.28

.J8

.21

.20

-.JO

Description

Parental response to child's requestfor delay of requirement (l=willallow exceptions, O=will not allowexceptions)

Parental reasons for requiringchores: help family, share work,remove burden from others

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: will not allow,but will explain

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: children neverask

Most important thing in raisingchildren, first mentioned: physicalcare

Most important thing in raisingchildren, second mentioned: teachright and wrong

Reaction to children staying at home(O=stay, l=leave)

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: nothing

55

wheel ("help the family, share the work") but one which

should "get out on his own" sooner or later (variables

49 and 53). This factor has been termed "obedience train-

ing."

Factor III in the general analysis of child rearing

problems (see Table XVI) is marked primarily by the atti

tudes of preferring children as objects of affection and

regarding physical care, love, and affection, rather than

obedience training, as important in rearing children.

Intrusive behavior on the part of the child is not cared

for, although arguments may be allowed. Control of the

child, rather than sharing the burden, tends to be the

reason for requiring the child to perform some duties.

The parent seems not to become unduly ruffled if the child

gets into some difficulty or exhibits some aggression

toward them. This factor has been labelled "permissive-

ness."

The fourth factor in this analysis (see Table XVII) is

marked primarily by variables indicating a high value

placed on character and moral training as well as an un

willingness to reason with the child and a willingness to

administer harsh discipline at earlier ages. The factor

has been labelled "strictness of discipline."

Factor V (Table XVIII) is marked by a wish to see the

child "get ahead" and a pride in the child's accomplishments.

56

TABLE XVI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR III PERMISSIVENESS

Variable

7

8

14

19

23

32

38

40

42

51

Loading

-.20

.27

-.29

.38

.35

.47

-.28

.48

.22

-.25

Description

Parental reasons for requ1r1ng chores:help family, share work, remove burdenfrom others

Parental reasons for requiring chores:control of child

Most important thing in ra1s1ng children, first mentioned: obedience,compliance, not spoiling, respect

Most important thing in raising children, first mentioned: physical care

Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned: give love andaffection

Reasons for preferred age of children:more loving, an object of affection

Reasons for least liked age of children: gets into difficulty, unspecified trouble

Reasons for least liked age of children: fUssy, nags, complains, intrusive

Reaction to teenagers' arguments withparent. (l=will allow, O=will notallow)

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: disrespect, defiance, disobedience, hits parent

57

TABLE XVII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR IV STRICTNESS OF DISCIPLINE

Variable

1

2

5

7

12

18

28

50

53

Loading

-·39

-.22

.58

-·31

.46

.26

.27

.46

-.41

Description

Age at which things and privilegesshould be taken away as punishment

Youngest age children should bespanked

Parental reasons for requiring chores:teach responsibility, character building

Parental reasons for requiring chores:help family, share work, removeburden from others

Parental response to ohild's requestfor change in job: will not allow,no explanation

Most important thing in raising children, first mentioned: teach to beresponsible, independent, mature

What makes you proud of your children?:vague reference to "being good"

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: commit crime,disgrace family


58

TABLE XVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR V ACHIEVEMENT TRAINING

Variable

2

15

16

26

27

41

Loading

·31

-.20

.3.5

-.70

.62

.23

Description


Most important thing in raisingchildren, first mentioned: teachright and wrong

Most important thing in ralslngchildren, first mentioned: helpthem make good life, get ahead

What makes you proud of your children?: obedience and compliance

What makes you proud of your children?: personal accomplishment,school sports, popularity, musicalor artistic talent

Reasons for least liked age of children: unruliness, silly, wild play

59

as well as a tendency not to spank younger children and

a dislike of unruly, silly, or wild play. The label which

has been 2.ttached here is "achievement training."

Factor VI (Table XIX) is marked by a willingness to·

grant the requests of the child, coupled with a tendency

of the child not to ask, as in Factor I, along with the

attitude that obedience training is the most important

thing in child rearing and a preference for the age of the

child which is characterized by cuteness and learning new

things. Physical care is not regarded as an important

aspect of child rearing and there appear to be some things,

although there is no clear indication of what they are,

which would make the parent want the child to leave home.

This factor has very tentatively been labelled "preference

for younger children."

Factor VII (see Table XX) appears to be another speci

fic, marked primarily by the parent's desire that the

child do what he is told rather than do things on his own.

There are moderate loadings from variables indicating the

child is not a source of amusement and children are not

spanked at quite as young an age. This has been labelled

"demands for compliance."

Factor VIII (see Table XXI) is a difficult one to in

terpret. It could at once be either characteristic of the

parent who has no well defined attitudinal system guiding

his child training practices or of the parent who regards

60

TABLE XIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR VI PREFERENCE FOR YOUNGER CHILDREN

Variable

10

13

14

19

30

31

35

53

Loading

.67

-.47

.27

-.27

-.46

.22

.20

-.30

Description

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: let them do it,depending on nature of request

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: children neverask

Most important thing in raising children, first mentioned: obedience,compliance, not spoiling, respect


Reasons for preferred age of children:less trouble

Reasons for preferred age of children:learning things

Reasons for preferred age of children:cute, sweet, source of amusement


61

TABLE XX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR VII DEMANDS FOR COMPLIANCE

Variable

2

35

44

Loading

.28

-.23

-.94

.92

Description


Reasons for preferred age of children:cute, sweet, source of amusement

Preferred child's behavior: doesthings on his own

Preferred child's behavior: does whathe is told

child training as a complex endeavor which cannot readily

be compartmentalized. High loadings are received both

from the importance of love and affection and teaching

responsibility (variables 17 and 24), and also from valuing

the child's learning on his own as well as doing what the

parents say (variable 48) and a tendency not to subscribe

to either of these values alone (variables 46 and 47).

There is a slight loading from a preference for younger

children (variable 29). Moderate loadings from variables

52 and 53 indicate that the parent would prefer the child

to leave the household if problems with alcohol, drugs,

etc. ensued. This factor does not readily match any of

those identified by previous investigators and is conse-

quently tentatively interpreted as "responsibility train

ing" due to the highest loadings from variables 24 and 48.

62

TABLE XXI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAIJ)FACTOR VIII RESPONSIBILITY TRAINING

Variable

17

24

Loading

.61

Description

Most important thing in ralslng children, first mentioned: give love andaffection

Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned: teach to beresponsible, indep~ndent, mature

29 -.26

45 .30

46 -·31

47 -.25

48 .63

52 ·37

Preferred age of children (youngestage given)

Preferred child's behavior: both

~ost important value in child'sbehavior: learn a lot from books

Most important value in child'sbehavior: do what parents say

Most important value in child'sbehavior: both

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave home: drunkeness, dope, etc.

53 -.34 Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: nothing

63

Factors IX thru XII are not interpreted in the current

investigation due to a lack of systematic relationship to

previously interpreted factors as well as a sometimes

confusing pattern of loadings. Replication will serve to

test the invariance of these factors, and upon consistent

appearance future investigators will be motivated to attach

labels. The factors are defined in terms of their salient

variables in Tables XXII thru XXV.

2. Male Child Rearing Practices. Twelve of the eigen

values in this domain exceeded unity. Nine factors were

indicated by the scree test and were extracted and rotated.

The variables in this domain and in the domain of female

child rearing practices, to follow, do not overlap with

the variables in previous factor analyses of child rearing

practices (e.g., Sewell, et al., 1955; Milton, 1958;

Minturn, et al., 1964), as do the general child rearing

practices variables. Consequently, interpretation of the

male and female child rearing practices factors are guided

by the structure emerging from the present study rather

than the results of previous structural studies.

The first male child rearing practice factor (see

Table XXVI) is marked primarily by variables indicating that

success in a task pleases the parent (variable 27) and non

completion of tasks displeases the parent (variables 3 and

21). Additional loadings indicate that the parent is

angered by aggression directed against the parents and

TABLE XXII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR IX UNINTERPRETED

64

Variable Loading

I .22

46 .83

47 -.87

50 ·35

Description

Age at which things and privilegesshould be taken away as punishment

Most important value in child'sbehavior: learn a lot from books

Most important value in child'sbehavior: do what parents say

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: commit crime,disgrace family

53 -.20 Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: nothing

65

TABLE XXIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR X UNINTERPRETED

Variable

3

12

19

22

29

30

33

34

36

37

38

39

Loading

.23

-.21

.24

.21

.63

-.24

.41

-.81

.48

.68

-.22

-.22

Description

Oldest age children should be spanked

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: will not allow,no explanation


Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned: help themmake good life, get ahead

Preferred age of children (youngestage given)

Reasons for preferred age of children:less trouble

Reasons for preferred age of children:can talk with you

Reasons for preferred age of children:need you more, more dependent

Least liked age of children (youngestage given)

Reasons for least liked age of children: too independent, don't need you


Reasons for least liked age of children: too headstrong, "hard headed,"talks back, hard to handle

66

TABLE XXIV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR XI UNINTERPRETED

Variable Loading

2 .32

3 -.36

4 .45

Description

Youngest age children should be spank~

Oldest age children should be spanked

Parental response to child's requestfor delay of requirement (l=willallow exceptions, O=will not allowexceptions)

8

22

28

37

51

-.30

.29

-.26

·32

.22

·35

-.25

Parental reasons for requiring chores:control of child

Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned: help themmake good life, get ahead

What makes you proud of your children?: vague reference to "being good"

Reasons for preferred age of children:need you more, more dependent

Reasons for least liked age of children: too independent, don't need you

Most important value in child'sbehavior: reaction to childrenstaying at home (O=stay, l=leave)

Anything a teenager could do thatwould make you want him or her toleave your home: disrespect, defiance, disobedience, hits parent

67

TABLE XXV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (GENERAL)FACTOR XII UNINTERPRETED

Variable

6

7

8

12

20

36

38

39

Loading

.22

- .49

.31

.21

.24

.38

·39

-.51

.68

Description

Youngest age children should be spanked

Parental reasons for requiring chores:teach skills needed for life, prepareschild for adulthood

Parental reasons for requiring chores:help family, share work, remove burdenfrom others

Parental reasons for requiring chores:child control

Parental response to child's requestfor change in job: will not allow,no explanation

Most important thing in raising children, second mentioned: obedience,compliance, not spoiling, respect

Reasons for preferred age of children:least liked age of children (youngestage given)


Reasons for least liked age of children: too headstrong, "hard headed,"talks back, hard to handle

68

that the initial parental response to misbehavior is a

threat to deny privileges or freedom. This factor has been

labelled "achievement-oriented discipline."

TABLE XXVI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (~MLE ANALYSIS)FACTOR I ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

._- - _:~.

Variable

:3

7

8

21

27

Loading

.22

.26

.58

.42

Description

Boy behavior which angers parent,first mentioned: doesn't complete tasksor does them in an unsatisfactorymanner

Boy behavior which angers parent,first mention~d: talks back, aggression against parents

Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: threaten to take awayprivilege or freedom

Reasons for spanking boys: doesn'tcomplete tasks or does them in anunsatisfactory manner

Boy behavior which makes parenthappy: does well in school or in anactivity

Factor II in the male analysis (see Table XXVII)

receives its largest loading from the parental propensity

to respond to misbehavior by nagging, shaming, or ridicul-

ing (variable 12). Other loadings are small, however,

variables 25 and 27 provide some consistency in their indi-

cation of parental pleasure deriving from compliance.

This factor has consequently been labelled "compliance-

oriented discipline."

TABLE XXVII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (~~LE ANALYSIS)FACTOR II COMPLIANCE-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

69

Variable

4

7

12

17

20

21

25

27

Loading

.25

-.22

.62

.24

.21

-.44

.24

.23

Description

Boy behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): disobedience(unspecified)

Boy behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): talks back,aggression against parents

Initial parental response to boymisbehavior: scold, lecture, nag,shame, ridicule

Ultimate parental response to boymisbehavior: scold, lecture, nag,shame, ridicule

Physical punishment of boys: no

Reasons for spanking boys: doesn'tcomplete tasks or does them in anunsatisfactory manner

Boy behavior which makes parenthappy: acts nice, shows affection,is sweet

Boy behavior which makes parenthappy: does well in school or inan activity

70

Factor III (see Table XXVIII) is marked primarily by

the initial parental response of threatening to deny

privileges or freedom, but an ultimate response of doing

nothing. The boy's behavior evoking these responses tends

to be aggression directed toward the parents. There is a

slight positive loading from the preference for the boy to

show affection and a negative loading from the preference

for the boy to work. This factor is tentatively labelled

"discipline for parental aggression."

TABLE XXVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR III DISCIPLINE FOR PARENTAL AGGRESSION

Variable

7

9

16

25

Loading

.25

·53

-·32

.20

Description


Initial parental response to boymisbehavior: act to take awayprivilege or freedom

Ultimate parental response to boymisbehavior: no need to do anything

Boy behavior which makes parent happy:does work, does work without beingtold

Boy behavior which makes parent happy:acts nice, shows affection, is sweet

Factor IV (see Table XXIX) is primarily marked by the

physical punishment variable and has been labelled as sucho

Additional loadings are received from variables indicating

that the boy exhibits no behavior which pleases the parent,

71

and behaviors such as disobedience and parental aggression

which anger the parents.

TABLE XXIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICE (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR IV PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT

Variable

4

7

11

28

Loading

.22

.21

.90

Description



Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: physical punishment

Boy behavior which makes parenthappy: nothing

Factor V (see Table XXX) contains two markers being

concerned with parental pleasure and displeasure centered

about task completion. Additional markers indicate

that the initial parental response to misbehavior is to

threaten to deny privileges or freedom, while the ultimate

response is to report the misbehavior to the other parent

for action. Physical punishment is not the usual mode of

response.

Factor VI (see Table XXXI) contains primarily marker

variables which are concerned with displeasure for aggres

sion directed towards peers or parents and physical pun

ishment for such aggression, and has been labelled

"punishment for aggression."

72

TABLE XXX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (W~LE ANALYSIS)FACTOR V TASK ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

Variable

3

Loading

.55

Description

Boy behavior which(first mentioned):tasks or does themtory manner

angers parentdoesn't complete

in an unsatisfac-

9

15

20

24

.33

.~·6

.69

Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: act to take away privilegeor freedom

Ultimate parental response to boymisbehavior: report to other parentfor action


Boy behavior which makes parent happy:does work, does work without beingtold

TABLE XXXI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VI PUNISHMENT FOR AGGRESSION

Variable

5

7

10

12

14

20

24

Loading

.33

.20

.33

.75

-.24

.47

Description

Boy behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): fights with siblings


Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: threaten physical punishment

Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: scold, lecture, nag, shame,ridicule

Ultimate parental response to boy misbehavior: physical punishment


Boy behavior which makes parent happy:does work, does work without being told

73

Factors VII and IX (see Tables XXXII and XXXIV, re

spectively) have been left uninterpreted. Factor VIII

(see Table XXXIII) contains primarily disciplinary vari-

ables and has been labelled "strictness of discipline."

TABLE XXXII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VII UNINTERPRETED


1 .63 Age at which boys should be given aregular job around the house

2 .69 Age at which boys should be given areally important job

4 .20 Boy behavior which angers parent(first mentioned). talks back,aggression against parents

7 -021 Boy behavior which angers parent(first mentioned). talks back,aggression against parents

17 .22 Ultimate parental response to boymisbehavior. scold,lecture, nag,shame, ridicule

21 .24 Reasons for spanking boys. doesn'tcomplete tasks or does them in anunsatisfactory manner

3. Female Child Rearing Practices. In this domain

also 12 of the eigenvalues were equal to or greater than

1.0, and the "scree" test again indicated 9 factors, which

were extracted and rotated. Factor I (see Table XXXV)

has been labelled "low physical punishment" due to the

loadings from variables 9, 17, 22, and 24.

Factor II (see Table XXXVI) has been termed "dislike

of intrusive behavior," Factor III (see Table XXXVII)

"discipline for parental aggression," Factor IV (Table

74

TABLE XXXIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VIII STRICTNESS OF DISCIPLINE

Variable

9

13

16

17

18

20

22

25

Loading

.44

.38

-.26

.21

.59

-.23

.86

.23

Description

Initial parental response to boy misbehavior: act to take away privilegeor freedom

Ultimate parental response to boy misbehavior: act to take away privilegeor freedom

Ultimate parental response to boy misbehavior: no need to do anything

Ultimate parental response to boy misbehavior: scold, lecture, nag, shame,ridicule

Physical punishment of boys: yes, allboys in family


Reasons for spanking boys: disobedience (unspecified)

Boy behavior which makes parent happy:acts nice, shows affection, is sweet

TABLE XXXIV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (MALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR IX UNINTERPRETED

Variable

4

19

23

24

Loading

.42

.61

.70

.26

Description


Physical punishment of boys: yes,some boys in family

Reasons for spanking boys: fightswith siblings

Boy behavior which makes parent happy:does work, does work without being told

75

TABLE XXXV. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FErMLE ANALYSIS)FACTOR I LOW PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT

Variable

5

8

9

13

14

17

23

Loading

-.20

.22

-·51

·55

.24

.62

-.25

Description

Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): wild play, noisy,destructive, etc.

Initial parental response to girl misbehavior: act to take away privilegeor freedom

Initial parental response to girl misbehavior: physical punishment

Ultimate parental response to girl mi~

behavior:- scold, lecture, nag, shame,ridicule

Ultimate parental response to girl misbehavior: no need to do anything

Physical punishment of girls: no

Method of letting girl know parents arehappy with her: by expression, behavior; by smiling or joking

TABLE XXXVI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FE~MLE ANALYSIS)FACTOR II DISLIKE OF INTRUSIVE BEHAVIOR

Variable

6

12

16

20

22

Loading

.61

·30

.48

.39

Description

Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): nagging, demanding,a~tention, cry-baby, won't do thingsfor herself, intrusions, interruptions,etc.

Ultimate parental response to girlmisbehavior: physical punishment

Physical punishment of girls: yes,some girls in family

Girl behavior which makes parent happy:vague reference to being good, obedient

Method of letting girl know parents arehappy with her: tell, thank, praise

76

XXXVIII) "achievement-oriented discipline," Factor V (Table

XXXIX) "later age of work assignments," Factor VI (rrable

XL) "dislike of non-feminine behavior," Factor VII (Table

XLI) "compliance-oriented discipline," Factor VIII (Table

XLII) "less independence," and Factor IX (Table XLIII

"task-oriented discipline." Factor I of the female child

rearing practices analysis corresponds to a large extent

to the reverse of factor IV in the male child rearing

practices analysis. Factor III of the female analysis

resembles factor III of the male analysis. Additional

factors bearing some resemblence between the two analyses

are factor IV in the female analysis and factor I in the

male analysis, factor VII in the female analysis and factor

II in the male analysis, and factor IX in the female

analysis and factor V in the male analysis. It could

reasonably be expected that, within the realm of parental

attitudes concerning child rearing practices, there are

some dimensions common to the rearing of both male and

female children and some which apply specifically to one

sex.

C. Child Personality Ratings structure

There were five eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 in this domain,

the sixth being .90. The "scree" indicated six factors

and, to be consistent with the criterion applied in pre

vious analyses, six factors were extracted and rotated.

77

TABLE XXXVII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FE~ALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR III DISCIPLINE FOR PARENTAL AGGRESSION

Variable

7

9

17

19

2J

24

Loading

.69

.40

.22

·39

.40

Description

Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): talks back,aggression against parents

Initial parental response to girlmisbehavior: physical punishment

Ultimate parental response to girlmisbehavior: no need to do anything

Physical punishment of girls: no

Girl behavior which makes parenthappy: acts nice, shows affection,is sweet

Method of letting girl know parentsare happy with her: by expression,behavior; by smiling or joking

Method of letting girl know parentsare happy with her: never do anything

78

TABLE XXXVIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FE~~LE ANALYSIS)FACTOR IV ACHIEVE~ffiNT-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

Variable

3

9

10

21

22

Loading

.61

.41

.32

·59

.52

Description

Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): doesn't completetasks or does them in an unsatisfactory manner


Initial parental response to girlmisbehavior: scold, lecture, nag,shame, ridicule

Girl behavior which makes parenthappy: does well in schooi or in anactivity

Method of letting girl know parentsare happy with her: tell, thank,praise

TABLE XXXIX. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FElf~LE ANALYSIS)FACTOR V LATER AGE OF WORK ASSIGNMENTS

Variable

1

2

15

Loading

.66

.21

Description

Age at which girls should be givena regular job around the house

Age at which girls should be givena really important job

Physical punishment of girls: yes,all girls in family

79

TABLE XL. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEMALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VI DISLIKE OF NON-FEMININE BEHAVIOR

Variable

5

9

10

12

23

Loading

.48

-.39

.86

.63

.25

Description

Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): wild play, noisy,destructive, etc.



Ultimate parental response to girlmisbehavior: physical punishment

Method of letting girl know parentsare happy with her: by expression,behavior; by smiling or _joking

TABLE XLI. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEMALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VII COMPLIANCE-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

Variable

3

4

9

11

18

Loading

-.31

.86

.35

-.28

.25

Des~ription


Girls' behavior which angers parent(first mentioned): disobedience(unspecified)


Ultimate parental response to girlmisbehavior: act to take awayprivilege or freedom

Girl behavior which makes parenthappy: does work, does work withoutbeing told

80

TABLE XLII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FENALE ANALYSIS)FACTOR VIII LESS INDEPENDENCE

Variable

25

26

Loading

.6J

Description

Age at which girls would be allowedto go out with a group of girls inthe evening

Age at which girls would be allowedto go out with a mixed group of boysand girls in the evening

TABLE XLIII. CHILD REARING PRACTICES (FEN~LE ANALYSIS)FACTOR IX TASK-ORIENTED DISCIPLINE

Variable

J

8

10

11

16

18

2J

Loading

·51

.66

-.21

.66

.21

.61

.27

Description


Initial parental response to girlmisbehavior: act to take awayprivilege or freedom


Ultimate parental response to girlmisbehavior: act to take awayprivilege or freedom

Physical punishment of girls: yes,some girls in family

Girl behavior which makes parenthappy: does work, does work withoutbeing told

Method of letting girl know parentsare happy with her: by expression,behavior, by smiling or- joking

81

Factor I (see Table XLIV) was marked by variables 10

(imaginative) and 20 (originality), both of which were

employed as markers for the previously defined factor M

(creativity) in this area, as well as variable 17 (adapt-

able) which was a marker aimed at the previously defined

factor C (ego strength). The loadings by the M variables

far exceed the loading received from the C variables, and

the identification of this factor has been retained as M,

or "creativity."

TABLE XLIV. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR I M

Variable

10

17

20

Loading

.87

·37

.91

Description

Imaginative: has an active, vividimagination; very fanciful; seespossibilities overlooked by others

Adaptable: copes easily and successfully with new and strange situations;bravely faces up to uncertainty

Original: has remarkably novel anddifferent ideas and/or solutions toproblems; thinking and behaviorare characterized by unusual approaches

Factor II (see Table XLV) receives its highest loadings

from variables intended to mark factors A (friendliness

hostility) and E (dominance-submissiveness). These are

variables 5 (assertive) and 15 (self-minimizing) for

dominance (note that the signs of the loadings are in the

hypothesized direction), and variables 8 (spiteful) and 18

(considerate) for the factor of friendliness. The ratings

82

TABLE XLV. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR II A-E

Variable

1

5

8

10

13

15

18

Loading

022

.46

.83

.20

-.22

-.55

-.41

Description

Neat in appearance; careful aboutclothes and appearance; dislikesbeing dirty or disheveled; is usuallywell-groomed

Assertive: bossy; usually attemptsto direct the actions of others; isconvinced his (her) way is the bestway of doing things; shows others"how things should be done."

Spiteful: deliberately does or saysthings which may annoy or hurt others;says hateful things about others;belittles others

Imaginative: has an active, vividimagination; very fanciful; seespossibilities overlooked by others

Gregarious: likes to be with othersand seeks their company; spends asmuch time with others as possible;dislikes being alone.

Self-minimizing: tends to minimizeown importance; humble; never bragsor shows off; seeks out or is contentwith less important tasks or positions

Considerate: thoughtful of others;sensitive of others' feelings; cannotdo things which hurt others' feelings;sympathetic when others are in troubleand tries to help

83

by teachers, at this age, on higher assertiveness and spite

fulness, as well as lower self-minimization and consider

ateness, coupled with the moderate loadings from higher

neatness of appearance (variable 1) and imaginativeness

(variable 10), and lower gregariousness (variable 13)

tempts one to label this factor "dominance" or perhaps

"self-sufficiency." The temptation, however, will be

avoided in view of previous investigations in the area and

the factor will be labelled simply A-E.

Factor III (see Table XLVI) in the teacher ratings of

child personality domain does not readily correspond to

any of the previously discovered first-order factor of

"general emotionality," receiving loadings from the vari

ables of nervous habits, fearful, fickle, self-minimizing,

lethargic, and touchy. The writer is again tempted to

apply the label "personality problem," but defers to the

highest loading and will attach the label T to the factor.

Factor IV (see Table XLVII) receives its highest

loadings from variables 1 (neat in appearance) and 11

(careful of personal belongings), both of which have

previously defined factor K (compliance). A high loading

is also contributed by variable 4 (persevering) which was

included as a marker for factor G (work competence), as

well as moderate loadings from the variables of higher

self-minimization, considerateness and lower restlessness.

84

TABLE XLVI. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR III T

Variable

2

7

9

14

15

16

Loading

- • 2L~

·57

.72

.JO

.25

Description

Touchy; very sensitive to criticism;cries, pouts or sulks when criticized;does not take well to jokes or prankson him (her)

Fearful: has many fears and worries,some of which are unreasonable;easily becomes alarmed or frightened

Nervous habits: has a great varietyof nervous habits (e.g., nailbiting,grimacing, tics, hairtwisting,pencil chewing, etc.)

Fickle: changes frequently ininterests, opinions, and pursuits;"flighty," starts one t:h.ing andshifts to another

Self-minimizing: tends to minimizeown importance; humble; never bragsor shows off; seeks out or is contentwith less important tasks or positions

Lethargic: slow moving; seldom ornever runs or hurries; unresponsiveor slow to react; works slowly

85

TABLE XLVII. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR IV K

Variable

1

4

11

15

18

19

Loading

.79

.80

.25

.32

-.33

Description

Neat in appearance; careful aboutclothes and appearance; dislikesbeing dirty or disheveled; is usuallywell-groomed

Persevering: keeps at his (her)work until it is completed; seesa job through despite difficulties;painstaking and thorough

Careful of personal belongings:takes good care of things which belongto him (her); becomes concerned whenpossessions are missing and searchesfor them; keeps his (her) own thingsneat, clean, and in order

Self-minimizing: tends to minimizeown importance; humble; never bragsor shows off; seeks out or is content with less important tasks orpositions

Considerate: thoughtful of others;sensitive to others' feelings;cannot do things which hurt others'feelings; sympathetic when othersare in trouble and tries to help

Restless: constantly or frequentlymoves about the room; unable tosettle down after activity periodor recess

86

The factor has, in conju~ction with previous research and

the consistency of the two highest loadings, been labelled

K.

Factor V (see Table XLVIII) is characterized by load

ings from both variables which have previously marked low

H (low social confidence), variables 3 and 13, high D

(high activity level), variables 6 and 16, and moderately,

higher C (high ego strength). The factor has been labelled

as a combination of C-D-H, perhaps resembling the second

order factor of "freedom of movement vs. restraint" which

has previously been defined.

Factor VI (see Table XLIX) is primarily defined by the

previous markers of factor I (relational security)--vari

abIes 2 (touchy) and 12 (concerned about acceptance).

It is also marked moderately by higher assertiveness,

fickleness, restlessness, carefulness of personal belong

ings, and lower adaptability. The label attached is I.

D. Behavior Problems Ratings structure. Seven eigen

values were equal to or greater than 1.0 in this set of

data, and the "scree test" also indicated seven factors,

which were extracted and rotated. The first factor in

this domain (see Table L) is marked primarily by the vari

ables defining Quay's (1966) "social withdrawal" factor,

and has been so labelled. The second factor (see Table

LI) receives its largest loadings from the variables

marking Quay's (1966) factor of "sluggish-disinterested,"

87

TABLE XLVIII. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR V C-D-H

Variable

3

5

6

7

13

14

16

17

19

Loading

-·75

·32

.70

-·33

.65

.25

-.54

.20

.20

Description

Seclusive: dislikes group activities and games, prefers to be by selfor in company of one or two others;dislikes being in a crowd

Assertive: bossy; usually attemptsto direct the actions of others; isconvinced his (her) way is the bestway of doing things; shows others"how things should be done"

Energetic: active; full of pep;vigorous; movements are quick, darting

Fearful: has many fears and worries,some of which are unreasonable; easilybecomes alarmed or frightened

Gregarious: likes to be with othersand seeks their company; spends asmuch time with others as possible;dislikes being alone

Fickle: changes frequently in interests, opinions, and pursuits; "flighty"starts one thing and shifts to another

Lethargic: slow moving; seldom ornever runs or hurries; unresponsiveor slow to react; works slowly


Restless: constantly or frequentlymoves about the room; unable to settledown after activity period or recess

88

TABLE XLIX. TEACHER RATINGSFACTOR VI I

Variable

2

5

11

12

14

17

19

Loading

.30

.20

.64

.28

-.36

.26

Description

Touchy; very sensitive to criticism;cries, pouts or sulks when criticized;does not take well to jokes or prankson him (her)

Assertive: bossy; usually attemptsto direct the actions of others; isconvinced his (her) way is the bestway of doing things; shows others"how things should be done"

Careful of personal belongings: takesgood care of things which belong tohim (her); becomes concerned whenpossessions are missing and searchesfor them; keeps his (her) own thingsneat, clean, and in order

Concerned about acceptance: expressesconcern about real or imagined rebuffsand slights from others; unable totake his (her) relationship with othersfor granted; worries that he (she)may lose friends or that others willnot like him (her)

Fickle: changes frequently in interests, opinions, and pursuits; "flighty"starts one thing and shifts to another


Restless: constantly or frequentlymoves about the room; unable to settledown after activity period or recess

89

TABLE L. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR I SOCIAL WITHDRAWAL (QUAY)

Variable Loading

6 .23

9 .89

10 -.22

11 042

17 -.24

20 ·31

Description


Social withdrawal; preference forsolitary activities

Lack of self-confidence



Disobedience, difficulty in disciplinary control

TABLE LI. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR II SLUGGISH, DISINTERESTED (QUAY)

Variable

4

5

10

14

15

18

19

20

22

23

25

27

Loading

-·30

-.20

.27

-.22

.54

·35

.22

-.24

.55

.41

-.21

.83

Description

Disruptive; tendency to annoy andbother others




Truancy from school


Has bad companions

Disobedience, difficulty in disciplincontrol

Aloofness, social reserve

Passivity, suggestibility, easily ledby others

Destructivenss in regard to his ownor others' property

Sluggishness, lethargy

90

and has been labelled accordingly. The third factor in tm

behavior problems domain resembles Quay's (1966) "neurotic

disturbed" factor and has been labelled as such (see Table

LII) •

Factor IV (see Table LIII) in the domain of teacher

ratings of behavior problems is not readily aligned with

any of the factors previously identified by Quay and his

associates, and has, on the basis of high loadings from

variables 5, 6, and 17 ("feelings of inferiority;" "irre

sponsibility, undependability." "steals in company with

others") has been labelled as "inferiority-irresponsible."

Factor V (see Table LIV) bears a strong resemblance

to Quay's (1966) "psychopathic-unsocialized" as well as

the Pimm, et ale (1967) "conduct problem" factor--both

factors being marked essentially by the same variables.

The label of the earlier defined factor "has been applied

here.

Factor VI (see Table LV) is, with its primary markers

of "disruptiveness," "boisterousness," and "rowdiness,"

very similar to the factor termed by Pimm, Quay, and

Werry (1967) as elverbal overactivi ty," and has been label

led as such. Factor VII (see Table LVI) carries the high

est loadings from the factor which Pimm, et ale (1967) have

labelled "immaturity"--i.e., destructiveness, disobedience,

uncooperativeness, and irritability--and has been so termed.

91

TABLE LII. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR III NEUROTIC-DISTURBED (QUAY)

Variable Loading

3 ·31

7 -·35

10 .85

11 .29

12 .86

16 .82

Description





Easily flustered and confused

Laziness in school and in performanceof other tasks

17 .26 Irresponsibility; undependability

18 -.35 Excessive daydreaming

22 -.22 Aloofness, social reserve

23 • 2L~ Passivity, suggestibility, easily ledby others

25 .23 Destructiveness in regard to his ownor others' property

TABLE LIII. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR IV INFERIORITY-IRRESPONSIBLE

Variable

1

2

5

6

9

17

26

Loading

.42

·37

·71

.76

.28

Description

Restlessness, inability to sit still

Doesn't know how to have fun; behaveslike little adult





Impertinence, sauciness

92

TABLE LIV. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR V PSYCHOPATHIC-UNSOCIALIZED (QUAY)

Variable

1

2

4

6

7

13

15

17

18

20

23

24

26

Loading

-·34

-.20

.28

-.22

-.21

.86

·55

.62

-.21

.77

Description






Loyal to delinquent friends

Truancy from school



~~s~~iz~ce, difficulty in disciplinary control

Passivity, suggestibility, easilyled by others

Clumsiness, awkwardness, poor muscularcoordination


93

TABLE LV. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR VI VERBAL OVERACTIVITY (QUAY)

Variable Loading

1 .38

2 ·51

3 ·71

4 .90

7 .85

8 .74

Description






Preoccupation; "in a world of hisown"

TABLE LVI. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSFACTOR VII IMN~TURITY (QUAY)

Variable

2

3

7

8

9

11

14

19

20

21

23

25

26

28

29

Loading

.21

-·39

.49

-·37

-.38

.31

.31

.47

.50

·77

·30

.82

·30

.88

.75

Description

DoesnOt know how to have fun; behaveslike little adult



Preoccupation; "in a world of his own"




Has bad companions

Disobedience, difficulty in disciplinary control

Uncooperativeness in group situations

Passivity, suggestibility, easilyled by others

Destructiveness in regard to his ownor others' property


Profane language

Irritability, hot tempered, easilyaroused to anger

95

E. Interrelationships among the Data Domains. The

factor scores from the 51 obliquely rotated factors which

resulted from the factor analyses of the four sets of data

were obtained by the formula Zf =ZvV'fe' where Zf is the

factor score matrix, Zv the standardized variable score

matrix, and V'fe the transpose of the factor estimation

matrix. In turn, Vfe =RfV'fpRv-l, where Rf is the matrix. ,

of primary factor correlations, V fp the transpose of the

primary factor pattern matrix, and Ry-l the inverse of the

matrix of intercorrelations among the variables.

The intercorrelations among these 51 scores were then

obtained. The 51 variable matrix of intercorrelations is

presented as Table LVII. The hypothesis testing phase

of the study was subsequently based on the scores on

these 51 variables, which are listed in Table LVIII, pre

dicting to each variable in a sUbsequent domain from all

variables in antecedent domains by stepwise multiple linear

regression analyses. In all, 63 such stepwise analyses

were carried out, with the predictors and the criterion

for each analysis specified in Table LIX.

1. Prediction of Male Child Rearing Practice Factors

from Household Demography Factors. In the first set of

analyses, the question of interest was whether factors

in the child rearing practices domain were predictable

from the household demography factors. The results of

these analyses are set forth in Tables LX thru LXXXIX.

TABLE LVII. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG FACTOR SCORES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1

2 020

3 .,19 -.11

4 014 .76 .50

5 -.07 -.66 .08 -.53

6 .01 .02 -.89 -.60 - .. 04

7 -.15 -·50 .70 .07 .2J -.65

8 .22 .95 -.35 .55 -.62 .29 -.69

9 .29 -.OJ. -.OJ. -.04 .J.7 .09 -.00 .03

10 .12 -.09 .13 -.04 .06 -.11 .0.5 -.08 -.06

11 -.25 .13 .03 .22 -.02 -.16 .22 .04 .04 -.11

12 .04 -.05 -.18 -.14 .02 .18 -.09 .02 -.04 -.10 -.00

13 .02 .04 .11 .09 -.00 -.12 .09 .01 -.14 -.18 -.10 -.09

14 -.27 -.16 .17 .04 -.16 -.21 .47 -.26 .01 -.14 .25 -.07

15 .21 -.05 .0J -.07 .14 .01 .00 -.04 .18 .30 .05 .0J

'"0\

TABLE LVII. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG FACTOR SCORES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

16 -.03 -.03 -.16 -.10 .12 .09 -.07 .01 .27 .05 ·31 -.24

17 .24 .J.4 -.J.8 -.07 .07 .25 -.33 .22 ·37 -.24 -.27 .34

18 -.02 .02 -.26 -.12 .14 .22 -.15 .08 .19 -.19 .20 .15

19 -.11 -.04 .01 .00 -.17 -.00 .18 -.06 .06 -.10 .04 .12

20 .31 -.05 .10 -.05 .29 .02 -.04 .02 .62 .37 -.14 -.11

21 .07 -.02 .19 .06 .01 -.11 -.03 -.03 -.32 -.08 -.26 .08

22 -.15 .16 -$16 .03 -.21 .11 .01 .14 .12 -.25 .45 .17

23 -.32 -.05 .02 .05 -.33 -.10 .33 -.13 -·32 -.00 .05 -.10

24 .03 .13 .14 .17 .07 -.15 .08 .07 -.21 .05 -.00 -.13

25 .11 -.09 -.08 -.19 -.03 .15 -.16 .02 -.17 .34 -·30 -.07

26 .14 -.00 .05 -.00 .09 .OJ .01 .03 .13 -.09 -.29 .12

27 -.10 .01 -.17 -.13 -.21 .18 -.04 .02 -.13 -.08 -.16 .32

28 .21 -.03 .04 -.07 .14 .03 -.01 -.02 .41 .04 -.16 -.05

29 -.01 .15 -.13 .04 -.22 .08 -.13 .16 .15 -.15 .07 .20

30 .04 -.10 .23 .02 .24 -.15 .10 -.13 -.04 -.04 -.16 -.22

'"-..:J


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

31 - .2l!· .10 -.11 .08 -.02 -.02 -.04 .06 -.52 -.25 .20 -.01

32 .20 -.15 -.11 -.25 .02 .25 -.08 -.04 .23 .20 -.39 -.15

33 .08 .02 .02 -.04 .24 -.06 -.10 -.03 .02 -.07 .04 .02

34 -.11 -.11 .15 .01 .02 -.12 .05 -.15 -.24 .16 .07 -.16

3.5 -.36 .02 .04 .12 -.29 -.16 .17 -.07 -.22 .07 .40 -.07

36 -.04 -.01 .07 .01 .08 -.ll -.04 -.05 .01 -.16 .14 .08

37 -.17 -.04 -.01 -.00 .18 -.08 .01 -.05 -.02 .05 .21 .15

38 .05 .25 -.00 ·30 -.34 -.10 -.05 .21 .02 -.15 .16 .10

39 -.21 -.23 -.05 -.20 .06 .05 .04 -.19 .05 .05 .09 .14

40 .11 .04 -.11 -.01 .05 .16 -.08 .09 .06 -.19 -.05 -.05

41 -.06 .11 -.19 -.13 .03 .19 -.14 .19 .13 -.10 .05 -.09

42 -.16 -.20 .04 -.12 .12 -.03 .08 -.17 .14 .10 .02 .15

43 ··.12 -.25 .10 -.12 .06 -.08 .22 -.26 .04 .03 -.04 -.01

44 -.05 -.01 -.18 -.14 .13 .21 -.10 .06 .03 -.09 -.07 -.20

4.5 -.09 -.37 .02 -.26 .01 .01 .15 -.37 -.02 -.16 .11 .35'0(Xl


J. 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 J.o J.J. J.2

46 -.03 -.28 .01 -.28 .14 .04 .09 -.28 .05 -.07 .06 .06

47 -.19 .07 -.10 -.00 .07 .06 -.09 .07 -.02 -.26 .07 .05

48 -.04 -.36 -.05 -.32 .13 .10 .09 -.;4 -.12 -.07 .06 ·33

49 .00 -.25 -.11 -.30 .15 .15 .02 -.20 -.07 -.04 .07 .10

50 -.18 -.19 -.12 -.19 .12 .09 .04 -.15 -.11 -.14 -.08 .18

51 -.05 -.03 -.19 -.14 .11 .19 -.10 .05 -.11 -.13 -.10 -.00

\0\0


13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

14 .09

15 -.37 .02

16 -.02 .15 .19

17 -.11 -.29 .21 .14

18 .05 -.10 -.07 ·39 .00

19 -.20 .49 -.19 -.17 -.12 -.12

20 -.19 -.28 .40 .09 .27 -.00 -.04

21 .40 -.35 -.14 -.37 .01 -.27 -.36 -.06

22 -.14 .07 .06 .21 .22 .26 -.03 -.23 -.15

23 -.18 .58 .04 -.16 -.19 -.32 .37 -.40 -.24 .22

24 .62 -.22 -.22 -.21 -.08 -.09 -.47 -.14 .35 .02 -.04

25 .08 -.20 -.17 .06 .08 .01 .14 .13 -.05 -.15 -.10 .02

26 .06 -.15 -.02 -.12 .44 -.23 .25 .32 -.04 -.17 -.03 .09

27 -.16 .02 -.17 -.21 .19 -.01 .20 -.25 -.06 .30 .24 .02

28 -.14 -.09 .49 -.10 .25 -.06 -.06 .62 .14 -.01 .02 -.09 .....00


13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

29 .21 .08 -.21 -.01 .13 .11 .02 -.12 .24 .37 .01 .01

30 .19 -.13 .11 -.32 -.0.5 -.10 -.14 .29 .44 -.16 -.0.5 .26

31 .22 .24 -.26 .19 -.11 .16 .06 -.58 -.06 .10 .20 .08

32 -.09 -.09 .06 .16 .27 -.18 .10 .25 -.15 -.17 .08 .02

33 .19 -.18 .10 -.24 -.04 .17 -.08 .07 .27 .08 -.17 .22

34 -.17 .01 .11 .07 -.12 -.16 -.03 -.16 .11 -.06 -.03 -.08

35 -.13 .37 -.17 .38 -.38 .15 .04 -.41 -.33 .19 .16 -.14

36 .09 -.00 .11 -.09 -.05 .09 -.14 -.03 .39 .14 -.12 -.05

37 -.23 -.20 .08 -.12 -.15 .24 -.17 .12 .09 .17 -.11 -.06

38 .26 -.23 -.20 .22 .10 .09 -.16 -.07 .19 .17 -.20 .08

39 -.07 .15 -.05 -.00 -.10 -.08 .09 -.03 -.10 -.09 -.06 -.22

40 -.00 .03 -.06 .16 .12 .16 .04 .13 -.00 -.05 -.15 .06

41 .18 .07 -.11 .19 .08 .13 .07 .17 -.01 .07 -.10 .08

42 -.06 .04 .09 -.14 -.01 -.03 .00 .07 -.03 -.01 -.00 -.23

43 -.09 .13 -.02 .08 -.03 .06 .06 .02 -.14 -.05 .04 -.04I-'0I-'


13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

44 .04 .00 -.06 .21 .10 .01 .11 .20 .01 -.05 -.07 .02

45 .05 .22 -.07 -.15 -.09 -.02 -.06 -.24 .13 -.03 -.02 -.17

46 .14 .15 -.01 .00 -.06 .04 -.07 -.13 .08 .07 -.03 -.08

47 .21 .06 -.25 -.10 .07 -.09 -.02 -.10 .28 -.00 -.08 .11

48 .23 .24 -.03 -.00 -.14 .04 -.14 -.20 .24 -.07 -.11 -.03

49 .35 .23 -.02 .14 -.03 .06 -.19 -.05 .25 .05 -.07 .12

50 .32 .15 -.32 -.05 -.10 .01 .06 -.09 .29 -.11 .03 .05

51 .41 .17 -.15 .12 -.00 .08 -.06 .05 .32 -.06 -.06 .14

....ol\)


25 26 27 28 29 )0 )1 )2 )3 34 35 )6

26 .12

27 .19 -.02

28 -.32 .35 -.29

29 -.23 .02 .18 .22

30 -.20 .16 -.42 .56 .02

31 .08 -.15 -.09 -.47 -.04 -.14

32 040 .32 .26 .05 -.27 -.19 -.19

33 -014 -.02 -.23 .41 .24 .52 .03 -.40

34 ..17 -.:30 .28 -.4:3 -.28 -.08 .10 .18 -.20

35 - .. 08 -.44 .14 -.52 -.04 -.50 .24 -.25 -.31 .25

)6 -.35 -.04 -.29 .46 .49 .40 .05 -.51 .68 -.12 -.11

37 -.16 -.02 -.19 .30 .20 .21 -.17 -.54 .42 .2) .02 .49

38 -.01 .00 .07 -.2) .27 -.26 .11 .01 -.14 .11 .12 -.01

)9 -.04 -.08 .06 -.17 -.09 -.09 -.01 .08 -.21 .25 .22 -.00 ....,0

40 .12 .11 -.01 .07 -.12 .04 .02 .18 -.18 -.12 -.05 -.12 \N


25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

41 .05 .14 -.08 .12 .17 -.03 -.02 .00 -.05 -.25 -.06 -.05

42 -.17 -.09 -.06 .08 .11 .05 -.17 -.15 .09 .04 -.03 .15

43 .02 -.04 .20 -.12 -.20 .08 -.03 .27 -.22 .23 .13 -.18

44 .1S .20 -.01 .10 -.06 -.02 .06 .21 -.12 -.lS -.10 -.18

45 -.04 -.21 .07 -.13 .05 -.28 .03 -.20 -.10 .04 .14 .13

46 .11 -.16 .01 .04 .10 -.12 .00 -.10 .23 -.08 -.03 .22

47 -.14 -.0.5 .0.5 .0.5 .19 .06 .08 -.12 .11 .03 .07 .28

48 -.02 -.24 .10 -.17 .02 -.20 .1.5 -.13 -.14 .13 .1.5 .07

49 ..17 -.22 .07 .03 .17 -.02 .08 -.07 -.00 .01 .11 .17

50 .. 08 .06 .05 .10 .14 .04 .06 .08 -.01 -.14 -.07 .23

51 ..18 -.13 .02 .12 .12 .18 .14 .06 -.01 -.08 -.10 .09

f-'o~


37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

38 -.18

39 -.12 -.07

40 -.11 -.04 -.26

41 .09 .07 -.36 .52

42 .20 -.14 .60 -.62 -.36

43 -.29 -.06 .58 .18 -.41 .17

44 -.08 .01 -.40 .72 .75 -.58 -.18

45 -.03 .01 -.11 .18 .14 -.23 -.18 .11

46 -.04 -.10 -.33 .19 .36 -.35 -.36 .34 .73

47 .02 -.07 -.23 .30 .40 -.26 -.15 .33 .46 .60

48 -.09 .07 -.12 .32 .25 -.39 .00 .25 .84 ·70 .50

49 -.02 -.00 -.16 .48 .44 -.47 .01 .41 .61 .69 .56 .78

50 -.02 -.03 -.11 .49 .35 -.33 .16 .38 .45 .49 .66 .63

51 -.06 -.03 -.11 .62 .39 -.37 .27 .49 .16 .25 .49 .44

...,0\J\


49

50 ~67

51 .69

50

.72

51

....o

'"

107

TABLE LVIII. LISTING OF VARIABLESEMPLOYED IN REGRESSION ANALYSES

VARIABLENO. VARIABLE IDENTIFICATION

1 Household Demography Factor I - Stepmother,Origin off Oahu

2 Household Demography Factor II - Hanai

3 Household Demography Factor III - Subnuclear.Mother Absent

4 Household Demography Factor IV - Nuclear-Lateral. Consanguine

5 Household Demography Factor V - NanakuliOrigin

6 Household Demography Factor VI - NuclearFamily

7 Household Demography Factor VII - Subnuclear-Extended, Older Child

8 Household Demography Factor VIII - Spouse'sLineal

9 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor I -Achievement-Oriented Discipline

10 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor II -Compliance-Oriented Discipline

11 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor III -Discipline for Parental Aggression

12 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor IV -Physical Punishment

13 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor V -Task-Oriented Discipline

14 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor VI Punishment for Aggression

108

TABLE LVIII. (Continued) LISTING OF VARIABLESEMPLOYED IN REGRESSION ANALYSES


15 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor VII -Uninterpreted

16 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor VIII -Strictness of Discipline

17 Child Rearing Practices (MALE) Factor IX -Uninterpreted

18 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor I -Low Physical Punishment

19 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor II -Dislike of Intrusive Behavior

20 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor III -Discipline for Parental Aggression

21 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor IV -Achievement-Oriented Discipline

22 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor V -Later Age of Work Assignments

23 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor VI -Dislike of Non-feminine Behavior

24 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor VII -Compliance-Oriented Discipline

25 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor VIII -Less Independence

26 Child Rearing Practices (FEMALE) Factor IX -Task-Oriented Discipline

27 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor I -Warmth of Parent-Child Relationship

28 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor II -Obedience Training

29 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor III -Permissiveness

109



30 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor IV -Strictness of Discipline

31 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor V -Achievement Training

32 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor VI -Preference for Younger Children

33 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor VII -Demands for Compliance

34 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor VIII -Responsibility Training

35 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor IX -Uninterpreted

36 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor X -Uninterpreted

37 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor XI -Uninterpreted

38 Child Rearing Practices (GENERAL) Factor XII -Uninterpreted

39 Teachers Ratings Factor I - M (Creativity!Divergent Thinking)

40 Teachers Ratings Factor II - A+E (Aggression-Dominance)

41 Teachers Ratings Factor III - T (Emotionality)

42 Teachers Ratings Factor IV - K (Compliance)

43 Teachers Ratings Factor V - C+D+H (Sociality)

44 Teachers Ratings Factor VI - !- (RelationalInsecurity)

45 Behavior Problems Factor I - Social Withdrawal



46 Behavior Problems Factor II - Sluggish,Disinterested

47 Behavior Problems Factor III - Neurotic-Disturbed

48 Behavior Problems Factor IV - Inferiority-Irresponsible

49 Behavior Problems Factor V - Psychopathic-Unsocialized

50 Behavior Problems Factor VI - VerbalOveractivity

51 Behavior Problems Factor VII - Immaturity

110

III

TABLE LIX. LIST OF PREDICTORS AND CRITERIAFOR THE STEPWISE MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES

Analysis No. Predictors* Criterion*

1 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (9)

2 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (10)

3 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (11)

4 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (12)

5 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (13)

6 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (14)

7 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (15)

8 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (16)

9 HD(1-8) CRP (M) (17)

10 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (18)

11 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (19)

12 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (20)

13 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (21)

14 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (22)

15 HD(1-8) -"'> , CRP (F) (23)

16 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (24)

17 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (25)

18 HD(1-8) CRP (F) (26)

19 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (27)

20 HD{1-8) CRP (G) (28)

21 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (29)

22 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (30)

23 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (31)

112

TABLE LIX. (Continued) LIST OF PREDICTORS AND CRITERIAFOR THE STEPWISE MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSES


24 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (32)

25 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (33)

26 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (34)

27 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (35)

28 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (36)

29 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (37)

30 HD(1-8) CRP (G) (38)

31 HD(1-8) TR (39)

32 HD(1-8) TR (40)

33 HD(1-8) TR (41)

34 HD(1-8) TR (42)

35 HD(1-8) TR (43)

36 HD(1-8) TR (44)

37 HD(1-8) BP (45)

38 HD(1-8) BP (46)

39 HD(1-8) BP (47)

40 HD(1-8) BP (48)

41 HD(1-8) BP (49)

42 HD(1-8) BP (50)

43 HD(1-8) BP (51)

44 HD(1-8) + CRP (00) TR (39)(9-17) + CRP (F)(18-26) + CRP (G)(27-38)

11.3


Analysis No Predictors* Criterion*

4.5 HD(l-B) + CRP(M) (9-17) + TR (40)CRP(F)(IB-26) + CRP(G)(27-.3B)

46 HD(l-B) + CRP(M) (9-17) + TR (41)CRP(F) (lB-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

47 HD(I-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + TR (42)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

48 HD(1-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + TR (43)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

49 HD(I-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + TR (44)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

.50 HD(I-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (4.5)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-38)

.51 HD(I-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (46)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

.52 HD(I-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (47)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

.5.3 HD(I-8) + CRP(M)(9-17) + BP (48)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-38)

54 HD(1-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (49)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

.5.5 HD(I-8) + CRP(M)(9-17) + .BP (.50)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-.38)

114



56 HD(1-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (51)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-38)

57 HD(1-8) + CRP(M) (9-17) + BP (45)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-38) + TR(39-44)






63 HD(1-8) + CRP(M)(9-17) + BP (51)CRP(F)(18-26) + CRP(G)(27-38) + TR(39-44)

*HD = Household Demography; CRP(G) = Child RearingPractices (General Analysis); CRP(M) = Child RearingPractices (Male Analysis); CRP(F) = Child Rearing Practices (Female Analysis); TR = Teachers Ratings; BP =Behavior Problems; Numbers in parentheses refer tovariable numbers from the 51 x 51 matrix of intercorrelations.

TABLE LX. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

115

Variable Added toPrediction Equation R F

liD Factor I .2971 13.56**

HD Factor V •.3408 4•.39*

liD Factor VIII .3644 2.65

HD Factor VII •.3894 3.05

HD Factor VI .4228 4.48*

HD Factor II .4270 .60

liD Factor IV .4294 .33

HD Factor III .4323 .40

TABLE LXI. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


liD Factor III .1245 2.21

lID Factor IV .1647 1.66

lID Factor VIII .2069 2.26


HD Factor I .2907 ·59


HD Factor V ·3055 .67

HD Factor VII .3109 .49

*p <.05**p <.01

116

TABLE LXII. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .2745 11.41**

HD Factor I .3735 10.37**

HD Factor VII .4057 4.15*

HD Factor III .5192 19.68**

HD Factor V .5517 6.81**

lID Factor II .5553 .78

lID Factor VIII .5569 .35

HD Factor VI , .5569 .00

TABLE LXIII. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor III .1714 4.24*

HD Factor I .1937 1.18

lID Factor VII .2164 1.35

lID Factor IV .2223 ·38

lID Factor II .2441 1.47

HD Factor VIII .2508 .48

HD Factor V .2514 .04

HD Factor VI .2515 .00

*p <. .05**p <.01

117

TABLE LXIV. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


lID Factor VI .1296 2.39


lID Factor VII .165.5 .83

HD Factor IV .218.5 2.92



HD Factor I .2236 .01


TABLE LXV. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor VII .4619 37.97**

HD Factor V .5398 15·30**


HD Factor I .6014 2.2.5


HD Factor II .602.5 .06


HD Factor IV .6067 .21

*p <.05**p <. .01

118

TABLE LXVI. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor I .2241 7.40**

HD Factor V .2529 2.04

HD Factor II .2627 ·75






TABLE LXVII. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor III .1609 3.72


HD Factor VI .2361 1.66






*p < .05**p < .01

119

TABLE LXVIII. PREDICTION OF MALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR IX FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor I .3788 7·01**

HD Factor V .4036 3·19

HD Factor VIII .4232 2.71





TABLE LXIX. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor V .3197 4.82*


HD Factor VII ·3295 .13


HD Factor VI .3324 7.61**


HD Factor VIII ·3328 .03

*p (.05**p <.01

120

TABLE LXX. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor V .2779 6.75*







TABLE LXXI. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor I .3102 14.90**

HD Factor V .4227 13·95**

HD Factor VIII .4602 5·80*


HD Factor II .5287 10.72**

HD Factor VII ·5393 2.17



*p <e05**p <.01

121

TABLE LXXII. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor III .1944 5·50*


HD Factor II .3079 1·32






TABLE LXXIII. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

Variable Added toPrediction equation R F

HD Factor V .2240 7.39**


HD Factor II .2887 2.56

HD Factor VII .3165 2.56

HD Factor IV .4529 17.97**




*p ~.0.5**p (001

122

TABLE LXXIV. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor V .3320 17.35**

HD Factor VII .. 5329 33.74**






TABLE LXXV. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .2525 9.53**

HD Factor V .3169 5.67*





HD Factor III ·3970 .09


*p ( .05**p <. .01

123

TABLE LXXVI. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .2068 6.26*

HD Factor V .2534 3·18




HD Factor VIII ·3910 2.65

HD Factor II .4416 7.02**


TABLE LXXVII. PREDICTION OF FEMALE CHILD REARING PRACTICEFACTOR IX FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS





HD Factor VII .2536 3·24





*p (.05**p <.01

TABLE LXXVIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

124


HD Factor II .2995 13·80**


HD Factor IV .3453 3·09






TABLE LXXIX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor V .2892 5·90*







*p <.05*'*p <.01

125

TABLE LXXX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor II .3031 14.22**

HD Factor V ·3923 10.14**







TABLE LXXXI. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .3693 22.10**

HD Factor V .4707 15·22**


HD Factor VIII .4969 3·64

HD Factor III .4997 •.51

HD Factor VII •.5002 .09

HD Factor II •.500.5 .0.5

HD Factor I '.5005 .00

*p <005**p <.01

TABLE LXXXII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

126



HD Factor V .2628 4.29*

HD Factor VI ·3131 4.43*




HD Factor II ·3903 1.43


TABLE LXXXIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .2670 10.75**


HD Factor YI .3004 1.71






*p (.05**p (.01

127

TABLE LXXXIV. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

Variable Added toPractice Equation R F

HD Factor IV .3778 23.31**


HD Factor III .4262 2·37



lID Factor VIII .4297 .20



TABLE LXXXV. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR VIII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor II .2232 7.34**








*p <.05**p <.01

TABLE LXXXVI. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR IX FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor IV .3484 19.34**



HD Factor V .4495 5.69*





TABLE LXXXVII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR X FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

Variable Added toPrediction equation R F

HD Factor IV .2221 7.27**



HD Factor I .3°37 .68


HD Factor VI .3096 ·38



*p (.05**p <.01

128

TABLE LXXXVIII. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR XI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS


HD Factor II .1794 4.65*


HD Fsctor VIII .2102 .59


HD Factor IV .2578 1.44




TABLE LXXXIX. PREDICTION OF GENERAL CHILD REARINGPRACTICE FACTOR XII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor V .2708 8.01**




HD Factor IV .3337 .3°

HD Factor VI .3388 ·52

HD Factor II ·3389 ,,00

*p <.05**p <.01

129

130

Tables LX thru LXVIII present the results of the multiple

linear regression analyses utilizing the eight household

demography factors as predictors and the nine male child

rearing factors, in turn, as criteria. In Tables LXIX

thru LXXVII, the eight household demography factors served

as predictors and the nine female child rearing practices

factors, in turn, as criteria. In Tables LXXVIII thru

LXXXIX, the household demography factors are again the

predictors and the twelve general child rearing practice

factors, in turn, are the criteria.

In the prediction of male child rearing practice

factor I, which has been labelled "achievement-oriented

discipline," the first household demography factor entering

the equation, that factor exhibiting the highest correla

tion with the criterion (.2971), was factor I, which has

been labelled "stepmother, origin off Oahu." This corre

lation was significant beyond the .01 level (F= 13.56).

Also making a significant independent contribution to the

accountable criterion variance were household demography

factors V "Nanakuli origin" (p (.05), and VI '!nuclear

family" (p <.05) • The second male child rearing practice

factor, "compliance-oriented discipline," received a signi

ficant contribution only from household demography factor

VI, "nuclear family," with a probability level of between

.05 and .01. Male child rearing practice factor III,

1)1

"discipline for parental aggression," received signifi

cant contributions from household demography factors IV,

"nuclear-lateral, consanguine" (p ( .01), I, "stepmother,

origin off Oahu" (p <.01), VII, "subnuclear-extended,

older child" (p <.05), III, "subnuclear, mother absent"

(p (.01), and V "Nanakuli origin" (p <.01) • The sole

significant predictor of male child rearing practice

factor IV, "physical punishment" was household demography

factor III, "subnuclear, mother absent" (r= .1714, p <.05).

Factor VI in the male child rearing practice domain,

"punishment for aggression," received significant inde

pendent contributions from household demography factors

VII, "subnuclear-extended, older child," V, "Nanakuli

origin," and III, "subnuclear, mother absent." All were

significant at or beyond the .01 level. The uninterpreted

male child rearing practice factors VII and IX each re

ceived a significant contribution from household demog

raphy factor I, "stepmother, origin off Oahu," with p <. .01

in each case. Factor IX also received a significant inde

pendent contribution from household demography factor VII,

"subnuclear-extended, older child" (p (.01). Male child

rearing practice factors V, "task-oriented discipline,"

and VIII, "strictness of discipline," were not predictable

at the .05 level of significance from any household demog

raphy factors. One could further ask the question of

132

which criterion factors are predictable from the entire

set of predictors. With eight predictors and 133 degrees

of freedom a multiple correlation of approximately .3

is necessary to meet the .05 significance level (for df=

7/125 r must equal .307; for df= 9/150 r must equal .310).

A glance at the final row of Tables LX thru LXVIII shows

that factors I, II, III, VI, and IX meet this level. Of

these, factors I, III, VI, and IX met the .01 level of

significance.

2. Prediction of Female Child Rearing Practice

Factors from Household Demography Factors. The second

set of regression analyses again involve variables 1-8 in

Table LVIII, the household demography factors, as pre

dictors, and variables 18-26 in Table LVIII, the female

child rearing practice factors, as criteria. The results

of these 9 analyses are set out in Tables LXIX thru LXXVI

for each criterion in turn. Of these 9 criterion variables,

all multiple correlations with the 8 predictors meet the

.05 level of significance. Five (factors III, V, VI, VII,

and VIII) met the .01 significance level. In the pre

diction of female child rearing factor I, "low physical

punishment," two of the household demography factors, III

("subnuclear, mother absent") and VI ("nuclear family")

made independent contributions to the accountable criter

ion variance which were significant beyond the .01 level.

133

A third household demography factor, V ("Nanakuli origin")

met the .05 level of significance. In predicting to

female child rearing factor II from the household demog

raphy factors, two predictors were significant, both beyond

the .05 level. These were III, "subnuclear, mother absent"

and VI, "nuclear family." The third female child rearing

practice factor, "discipline for parental aggression,"

received significant independent contributions from four

of the household demography factors--I, "stepmother, origin

off Oahu" (p< .01), V, "Nanakuli origin" (p (.01), VIII,

"spouse's lineal" (p< .05), and II, "Hanai" (p < .05). Fe

male child rearing practice factor IV, "achievement oriented

discipline" was significantly correlated with household

demography factor III, "subnuclear, mother absent" (p< .05),

with household demography factor VII, "subnuclear-

extended, older child" making an additional independent

contribution (p <.01) • The fifth factor in the female

child rearing practice domain, "later age of work assign

ments," received significant (p < .01) contributions from

two of the household demography factors--V, "Nanakuli

origin" and IV, "nuclear-lateral, consanguine," while

three of the household demography predictors entered

significantly, p <.01 in both cases, in the prediction of

female child rearing practice factor VI, "dislike of non

feminine behavior." These three were factor V, "Nanakuli

origin," factor VII, "subnuclear-extended, older child,

134

and factor III, "subnuclear, mother absent." Female child

rearing practice factor VII, "compliance oriented disci

pline." received significant independent contributions

from household demography factors IV, "nuclear-lateral,

consanguine" (p (.01), V, "Nanakuli origin" (P(.OS),

VII, "subnuclear-extended, older child" (p (.OS). The

eighth female child rearing factor, "less independence,"

received significant contributions from household demog

raphy factors IV, "nuclear-lateral, consanguine" (p <.OS),

III, "subnuclear, mother absent" (p (.01), II, "Hanai"

(p <.01), and VI, "nuclear family" (p <.OS). The final

factor in the female child rearing practice domain, "task

oriented discipline," did not receive a significant con

tribution to accountable criterion variance at the .OS

level of significance from any of the eight household

demography factors.

3. Prediction of General Child Rearing Practice

Factors from the Household Demography Factors. The vari

ables of interest in this third set of regression analyses

are again variables 1-8 in Table LVIII, the household

demography factors, as predictors, and 27-)8 in Table

LVIII, the general child rearing practice factors, as

criteria. The results of these 12 stepwise regression

analyses are presented in Tables LXXVIII thru LXXXIX for

each of the 12 criteria in turn. A glance at the last

row of each of these tables reveals that 10 of the 12

13.5

criteria, excluding factors VIII and XI, exhibited an R

with the full set of predictors significant beyond the

.05 level. Of these 10, all but factors VI, X, and XII

met the .01 level of significance with respect to the

"full model" multiple correlation.

In predicting to the first general child rearing

practice factor, "warmth of parent-child relationship,"

only the household demography factor given the label

"Hanai" (factor II) contributed a significant amount to

the accountable criterion variance. Factor II from the

general child rearing practice analysis, "obedience

training," received contributions significant at the .05

level from household demography factors IV thru VII, which

have been labelled "nuclear-lateral, consanguine,"

"Nanakuli origin," "nuclear family," and "subnuclear

extended, older child," respectively. Factor III of the

general child rearing practice analysis, which has been

given the label of "permissiveness," received contribu

tions significant at the .01 level from household demog

raphy factors IV and V, which bear the labels "nuclear

lateral, consanguine" and "Nanakuli origin," respectively.

The fifth general child rearing practice factor, "achieve

ment training," received contributions beyond the .05

level of significance from household demography factors

IV, V, and VI, or "nuclear-lateral, consanguine,"

1)6

"Nanakuli origin," and "nuclear family," respectively.

Factors VI and X of the general child rearing practice

domain, the former labelled "nuclear family" and the latter

uninterpreted, received a significant contribution, in

each case beyond the .01 level of significance, solely

from household. demography factor IV, "nuclear-lateral,

consanguine." Factor VII in the general child rearing

practice domain also received a significant contribution

(p <.01) from the "nuclear-lateral, consanguine" demog

raphy factor, in addition to an independent contribution

from factor VII in the demography realm, "subnuclear

extended, older child." General child rearing practice

factor IX, which was not interpreted, also received a

contribution from the demography "nuclear-lateral, con

sanguine" factor (p <.01) as well as from demography fac

tors VI, "nuclear family" (p<.05), and V, "Nanakuli

origin" (p< .05) • General child rearing practice factors

VIII and XI, the former labelled "responsibility training"

and the latter uninterpreted, both received a significant

contribution (p <.01 in the case of factor VIII and p< .05

in the case of factor XI) from demography factor II, which

has been labelled "Hanai." The final general child rear

ing practice factor, XII, which has not been interpreted,

received a significant contribution from demography factors

V, "Nanakuli origin," (p <.01), and VII, "subnuclear

extended, older child" (p(.05).

137

4. Prediction of Teacher Rating Factors from the

Household Demography Factors. In the fourth set of re

gression analyses, variables 1-8 in Table LVIII, the

household demography factors, again serve as the predic

tors, while the criterion variables are the teacher rating

factors, which are listed as variables 39 thru 44 in Table

LVIII. The results of these six analyses are presented

in Tables XC thru XCV for the six criteria in turn.

An examination of the last row of each of these

tables reveals that the full model prediction equation

did not meet the .05 level of significance in any of the

six analyses. In entering one variable at a time, sig

nificant relationships were found to obtain in the case

of three of the six criteria, factors III ("emotionality")

V, ("sociality"), and VI, ("relational insecurity"). The

predictors exhibiting these relationships (p (.05 in each

case) were demography factor III, "subnuclear, mother

absent" in the case of the teacher rating factor of "emo

tionality," demography factor VII, "subnuclear-extended,

older child" in the case of the teacher rating factor of

"sociality," and demography factor VI, "nuclear family,"

in the case of the teacher rating factor of "relational

insecurity."

5. Prediction of Behavior Problem Factors from the

Household Demography Factors. In the prediction of the

behavior problems factors from household demography

TABLE XC. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATING,FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










TABLE XCI. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS








lID Factor III .2212 .04

lID Factor VII .2221 .06

*p <.05**p <.01

138

TABLE XCII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS



HD Factor VIII 01876 .83







TABLE XCIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










*p <.05**p ( .01

139

140

TABLE XCIV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










TABLE XCV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










*p (.05**p (,,01

141

factors the variables of interest as criteria in Table

LVIII are variables 45 thru 51, with the household demog

raphy variables (1 thru 8) again serving as predictors.

The results of these seven stepwise multiple regression

analyses are set forth in Tables XCVI thru CII for each of

the seven criteria in turn. Inspection of these tables

revealed that the full model multiple correlation did not

reach the .05 level of significance in any instance. Four

of the seven behavior problems factors, however, exhibited

a significant (p <.05 in each case) correlation with one

of the household demography factors. Behavior problem

factor I, "social withdrawal," correlated with household

demography factor II, "Hanai," behavior problem factor II,

"sluggish, disinterested," correlated with household demog

raphy factor IV, ·'nuclear-lateral, consanguine," behavior

problem factor IV, "inferiority-irresponsible," correlated

with demography factor II, again "Hanai," and behavior

problem factor V, "psychopathic-unsocialized," again cor

related with demography factor IV, "nuclear-lateral."

6. Prediction of the Teacher Rating Factors from

Household Demography and Child Rearing Practices Factors

Combined. In this section the criterion variables of con

cern are variables 39 thru 44 in Table LVIII, while the

variables utilized as predictors are variables 1 thru 38

in Table LVIII. The results of each of the six stepwise

multiple regression analyses are presented in Tables ellI

TABLE XCVI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS






HD Factor VI .27.58 .15




TABLE XCVII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










*p (,,05**p (.01

142

TABLE XCVIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS







HD Factor II .1666 ·39



TABLE XCIX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS






HD Factor VI .2260 .3°HD Factor IV .2289 .18



*p ( .05**p <.01

143

TABLE C. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










TABLE CI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS










*p <.05**p <.01

144

145

TABLE CII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEMFACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS

Variable Added toPrediction Equation

HD Factor VI

HD Factor V

HD Factor VIII

HD Factor II

HD Factor VII

HD Factor I

HD Factor IV

HD Factor III

*p <.05**p <.01

R

.0868

.1026

.1172

.1310

.1437

.1489

.1533

.1541

F

1.06

.42

.45

.47

.48

.21

.18

.03

thru CVIII for each of the six criteria in turn. The

question asked in each of these analyses concerns which

of the child rearing practice factors result in signifi-

cant increases in accountable criterion variance beyond

that accounted for by the household demography factors

alone.

It is discernible from inspection of the final row

of Tables CIII thru CVIII that the full model multiple

correlation meets the .01 level of significance in each

of the six analyses under consideration. In the case of

the first teacher rating factor, "creativity/divergent

thinking," none of the predictors was observed to make a

146

TABLE CIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND

CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS



CRP (F) Factor VII .2139 2.74

CRP (G) Factor III .2518 2.61


CRP (M) Factor IV .2997 1.61

CRP (F) Factor I .3184 1.73

CRP (G) Factor IX .3436 2.53

CRP (M) Factor I .3720 3.14

CRP (M) Factor IX .3947 2.72

CRP (M) Factor V .4021 .92

CRP (F) Factor IV .4096 .95

CRP (G) Factor VIII .4152 .72

CRP (M) Factor VIII .4201 .64

CRP (G) Factor X .4272 .93

CRP (F) Factor V .4342 .94


CRP (F) Factor VIII .4513 .70

CRP (F) Factor X .4561 .67


CRP (G) Factor XII .4662 .84

CRP (G) Factor XI .4709 .68

CRP (M) Factor II .4759 .73

147

TABLE CIII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



CRP (G) Factor V .4813 .79

CRP (F) Factor II .4863 .74

CRP (M) Factor VII .5017 2.36

CRP (F) Factor IX .5112 1.49

CRP (G) Factor II .5152 .64

CRP (G) Factor IV .5186 .54

CRP (M) Factor III .5737 .81

CRP (F) Factor VI .5260 .36


CRP (F) Factor III .5274 .07


CRP (G) Factor VI .5278 .00



CRP (G) Factor VII .5281 .00

CRP (M) Factor VI .5281 .00

*p <.05**p <.01

148

TABLE CIV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



CRP (M) Factor II .1505 3.24

CRP (F) Factor III .. 2338 4.71*

CRP (F) Factor VIII .2760 3·22

CRP (G) Factor V .2971 1.82

CRP (G) Factor I .3400 4.20*

CRP (I~) Factor I •3611.l· 2.3L!-

CRP (G) Factor XII .3787 2.00

CRP (M) Factor VIII .3921 1.62


CRP (ra) Factor V .4218 2.82

CRP (M) Factor VI .4369 2.09

CRP (F) Factor VI .4661 4.34*

CRP (G) Factor XI .4875 3.42

CRP (G) Factor VII .5089 3.67


CRP (F) Factor II ·5285 1.45



CRP (M) Factor III .5485 1.57




149

TABLE CIV. (Continued) PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND




CRP (F) Factor IV .5757 1.29



CRP (M) Factor IV .5867 .65



CRP (F) Factor I .5959 .38


CRP (M) Factor IX .5971 .12

CRP (G) Factor IX .5976 .09


CRP (G) Factor III .5991 .16


CRP (G) Factor II .6024 ·37


*p <.05**p (.01

150

TABLE CV. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



HD Factor III .1715 4 .24-l~

CRP(M) Factor V .2413 4.25*

CRP (F) Factor III ·3110 5.88*


CRP (00) Factor VII .3639 3.3.5

CRP (F) Factor V .3774 1•.57

CRP (G) Factor VIII .3881 1.29

CRP (G) Factor III .3962 1~01

CRP (M) Factor I .4081 1•.51

CRP (G) Factor I .4185 1.36





CRP (G) Factor VI .4601 1.88

CRP (F) Factor II .4701 1.49

CRP (M) Factor IV .4778 1.18




CRP (G) Factor XII .5°3° .85

CRP (F) Factor VIII .. 5090 .98

151

TABLE CV. (Continued) PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND






HD Factor IV .5419 3·81



CRP (G) Factor II .5595 1.01









CRP (F) Factor IX .5667 .00

~~p <.05**p (.01

1.52

TABLE CVI. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



CRP (F) Factor VII .1747 4.41*



lID Factor I .3036 3.26

CRP (M) Factor I .363.5 6.26*

CRP (M) Factor V .3892 3.08

CRP (M) Factor II .4278 .5.17*

CRP (F) Factor III .4463 2.68

CRP (M) Factor III .460.5 2.16

CRP (M) Factor IX .4754 2·35


CRP (F) Factor VI .493.5 1.21


CRP (M) Factor VI •.5009 •.5.5

HD Factor III •.5045 .61


HD Factor VII •.522.5 1.81

CRP (F) Factor IV ·5302 1.38

CRP (F) Factor VIII •.53.5.5 .96

CRP (G) Factor II •.5389 .63


HD Factor II ·.5537 1019

1.53

TABLE CVI. (Continued) PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



HD Factor VIII •.5672 2.6.5

CRP (G) Factor I •.5731 1.16


CRP (G) Factor IV •.5836 .41

CRP (F) Factor I •.5846 .21


CRP (F) Factor V •.5879 .3.5


CRP (G) Factor VI •.5907 .28

CRP (G) Factor XII •.5914 .14

CRP (G) Factor X •.5924 .19

CRP (G) Factor IX •.5929 .10



CRP (G) Factor III •.5936 .02

HD Factor IV •.5936 .00

*p <.0.5**p <.01

154

TABLE CVII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND




CRP (G) Factor VII .2844 5.15*



CRP (F) Factor VI ·3375 1.64

HD Factor I .3520 1·53

CRP (G) Factor VIII .3593 ·79


CRP (G) Factor I .3780 1.17

CRP (F) Factor VIII .3879 1.15

CRP (M) Factor IX .3939 ·71


CRP (lVI) Factor VII .4096 1.28






CRP (F) Factor VII .4516 .65


155

TABLE CVII. (Continued)PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND



liD Factor IV .4728 2.34



CRP (G) Factor X .4840 ·53










CRP (G) Factor III ..4978 .02

CRP (M) Factor I .4980 .03



*p <.05**p <.01

156

TABLE CVIII. PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR VI FRom HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND




CRP (M) Factor IV .2573 5 .28o:l~

CRP (F) Factor IX .3230 5.87*





liD Factor IV .4175 2.01




CRP (G) Factor X .4771 3.53


CRP (F) Factor V .4970 1.25



CRP (lVI) Factor VII ·5239 1.89


CRP (G) Factor IV .5369 1.06

CRP (G) Factor XII .5430 1.lJ

liD Factor III .5511 1.54


157

TABLE CVIII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF TEACHER RATINGFACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND








HD Factor II .5788 ·35CRP (G) Factor VIII .5811 .47







CRP (G) Factor I .5858 .04



*p <.05**p (.01

158

significant independent contribution to the accountable

criterion variance, however. In the case of teacher rating

factor II, "aggression-dominance," three of the child rear

ing practice factors made a contribution to the accountable

criterion variance which was significant beyond the .05

level. These were female child rearing practice factors

II, "dislike of intrusive behavior," and VI, "dislike of

nonfeminine behavior," and general child rearing practice

factor I, "warmth of parent-child relationship." In the

prediction of teacher rating factor III, "emotionality,"

it is observed that male child rearing practice factor V,

"task-oriented discipline," and female child rearing prac

tice factor III, "discipline for parental aggression,"

each made contributions significant beyond the .05 level.

Teacher rating factor IV, "compliance," received signifi

cant (p(.05) contributions from male child rearing prac

tice factors I, "achievement-oriented discipline," and II,

"compliance-oriented discipline." The single child rearing

practice factor making a significant contribution (p <.05)

in the prediction of teacher rating factor V, "sociality,"

was the general child rearing practice factor VII, "demands

for compliance." The sixth teacher rating factor, "rela

tional insecurity," received significant contributions

(p (.05) from male child rearing practice factor IV,

"physical punishment," and female child rearing practice

factor IX, "task-oriented discipline."

159

A second alternative method of examining the relative

contributions of the household demography and child rear

ing practice factors to the accountable variance in each

of the teacher rating factors is to ask, for each of the

six criteria in turn, whether the full model multiple

correlation in predicting from household demography plus

child rearing practice factors is significantly greater

than that obtained in predicting from the eight household

demography factors alone. Such an hypothesis can be tested

by the ratio

F =(R2~ - R22~ fN - Ml - 1),~ - RZIMl - M2)

where R21 is the squared multiple correlation resulting

from the larger number of predictor variables, Ml is the

larger number of predictor variables, R22 is the squared

multiple correlation resulting from the smaller number of

predictor variables, and M2 is the smaller number of

predictor variables. The degrees of freedom for the num

erator is given by N - Ml - 1, and the denominator by

Ml - M2. These two values are 101 and 30, respectively,

in the current analysis. For these degrees of freedom

an F of 1.57 is required to meet the .05 level of signifi

cance. A glance at Table eIX reveals that the addition

of child rearing practice factors to household demography

factors as predictors of the six teacher rating factors

increased the full model R2 a significant (p(005) amount

160

only in the case of teacher rating factor II, "aggression-

dominance ."

TABLE CIX. COMPARISON OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCE IN TEACHERRATING FACTORS WHEN PREDICTING FROM HOUSEHOLD

DEMOGRAPHY FACTORS ALONE VERSUS HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY PLUS CHILD REARING PRACTICES

Teacher Rating Household Household Demography FFactor Demography Plus Child Rearing

R2 M2Practices

R MI. Creativity/

Divergent1.06Thinking .05 8 .28 38

II. Aggression-Dominance .05 8 .36 38 1.61*

III. Emotionality .07 8 .32 38 1.23

IV. Compliance .05 8 .35 38 1.54

V. Sociality .05 8 .25 38 .89

VI. RelationalInsecuri ty .06 8 .35 38 1.49

*p .05

7. Prediction of the Behavior Problem Factors from

Household Demography and Child Rearing Practice Factors

Combined. The predictor variables of interest in this

section, as in the preceeding one, are variables 1 thru 38

in Table LVIII. The criterion variables to be examined in

this section are variables 45 thru 51 in Table LVIII. The

results of each of the seven stepwise multiple linear

regression analyses in this set are presented in Tables

CX thru CXVI for each of the seven criteria in turn. The

first question to be examined is the significance of the

161

TABLE CX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIOR PROBLEM FACTOR IFROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS


CRP (M) Factor IV .2413 8.66*-1(·

HD Factor VIII .3225 7.10 i l-*

CRP (F) Factor IX .3721 5·53*




CRP (fYI) Factor I .4470 2.64



CRP (F) Factor II ·5001 3.00

CRP (M) Factor II ·5110 1.94




CRP (G) Factor V ·5535 2.04






CRP (F) Factor III .5733 ·59CRP (M) Factor III ·5772 .80

162

TABLE CX. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY AND




HD Factor IV ·5812 .47


CRP (M) Factor VII .5859 ·57

CRP (F) Factor IV ·5870 .24

CRP (F) Factor I ·5893 .47



CRP (G) Factor IV ·5935 .09








*p <. .05*~.p <.01

163

TABLE CXI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

AND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS


CRP (G) Factor IX .18.58 5.01*




CRP (00) Factor V .2914 1.68

HD Factor IV .3060 1.30CRP (fYI) Factor VI .3177 1.09

CRP (G) Factor IV ·3351 1·70CRP (G) Factor VI .3437 .88


CRP (00) Factor II .36.55 1.14



CRP (Fa) Factor VII .3945 1.03



CRP (00) Factor IV .4118 .55CRP (M) Factor IX .4191 .90CRP (M) Factor I .4270 1.00


HD Factor III .4386 066


164

TABLE CXI. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEI~VIOR

PROBLEM FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYAND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS









CRP (F) Factor I .4605 ·39









~.p <.05';l-*p <.01

165

TABLE CXII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY



CRP (rvI) Factor VII .1705 4 .19':l~


CRP (0) Factor XI .2428 2.36

CRP (F) Factor VIII .2636 1·55CRP (0) Factor II .2805 1.36

CRP (0) Factor IX ·3231 3.88


CRP (0) Factor VIII .3710 1.88




CRP (0) Factor IV .4174 .67

CRP (0) Factor VI .4212 .49



CRP (0) Factor X .4393 ·73CRP (F) Factor IX .4448 .76



CRP (0) Factor V .4553 .43

CRP (0) Factor I .4599 .65

lID Factor I .4627 ·39

166

TABLE CXII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

~:.AND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS






CRP (G) Factor III .4728 .21-.,-




CRP (m) Factor I .4786 .12


CRP (F) Factor VI .4808 .1)






~,lop <.05**p <.01

167

TABLE CXIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY



CRP (M) Factor IV .2250 7.46**

CRP (G) Factor IX .3148 7.48**

CRP (M) Factor VI .2706 6.11-lr

CRP (F) Factor II .4161 5.93*

CRP (G) Factor VIII .4.352 2.73


CRP (F) Factor IV .47.32 2.04

CRP (F) Factor VI .4841 1.80







CRP (G) Factor I .5214 ·32




CRP (G) Factor IV .5271 ·30

HD Factor I .. 528.3 .21


HD Factor VIII .•5294 .11

168

TABLE CXIII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY







CRP (rtr) Factor III .5374 .06


CRP (M) Factor VII ·5378 .04










*p <.05**p <.01

169

TABLE CXIV. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY



CRP (M) Factor V .1900 5.25*





CRP (G) Factor V .3832 4.87*






CRP (M) Factor VII .4718 .92










CRP (G) Factor XII .5162 ·33

170

TABLE CXIV. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY




CRP (F) Factor II ·5218 .43













HD Factor V .5474 007


*p <.05**p ( .01

171

TABLE CXV. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY



CRP (M) Factor VII .1982 .5.72*

CRP (lVI ) Factor IV .2382 2•.57



CRP (G) Factor II ·3120 2.27

CRP (G) Factor IX .3634 .5.39*CRP (M) Factor VI .39.56 3.89CRP On) Factor II .4089 1.70


CRP (G) Factor III .4386 2.4.5

CRP (G) Factor V .4.524 2.01

CRP (F) Factor V .4741 3·3.5CRP (G) Factor X .4874 2.14

CRP (G) Factor VI .49.50 1.26

CRP (F) Factor IV •.5014 1.08

CRP (G) Factor I •.5133 2.04



CRP (F) Factor II .53.55 .93CRP (G) Factor IV .5397 .76

CRP (M) Factor VIII •.5446 .92

172

TABLE CXV. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

















CRP (M) Factor III. .5626 .05



*p <.05**p <.01

173

TABLE CXVI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY



CRP (M) Factor V .2395 8.52**



CRP (F) Factor IV .3294 4.03*















CRP (M) Factor III .5489 1.97



174

TABLE CXVI. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEM FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY




CRP (G) Factor VIII ·5731 ·59


CRP (G) Factor X ·5780 .43

HD Factor III ·5799 .38


CRP (00) Factor VII .5829 ·37CRP (F) Factor VI .5842 .25


CRP (F) Factor I ·5859 .12

CRP (F) Factor V .5876 ·31

CRP (1'11) Factor IX .5892 .21


CRP (00) Factor IV .5954 .72




*p <.05**p <.01

175

full model multiple correlation of each criterion variable

with all of the 38 predictors. A glance at the last row

in Tables ex thru eXVI reveals that the .01 significance

level was reached in each case. The second question to be

examined for each of the seven criteria is which of the

child rearing practice factors made a significant contribu

tion to accountable criterion variance.

Examination of Table ex reveals that in the case of

behavior problem factor I, "social withdrawal," male child

rearing practice IV, "physical punishment," made a contri

bution which was significant beyond the .01 level, and female

child rearing practice factor IX, "task-oriented discipline"

made an independent contribution which was significant

beyond the .05 level. The single significant (p <.05)

predictor in the case of behavior problem factor II, "slug

gish, disinterested," was general child rearing practice

factor IX, which has not been interpreted, but which had

as its primary salient loadings "learn a lot from books"

(in a positive direction) and "do what parents say" (in a

negative direction). This general child rearing practice

factor also made a significant (p <.01) contribution in the

prediction of behavior problem factors IV, "inferiority

irresponsible," and VI, "verbaloveractivity" (p(.OS).

One other child rearing practice factor made a significant

(p <.05) contribution to the "verbal overactivity" behavior

problem factor, and this was the male factor VII, which was

176

not interpreted, but which had as primary salients the

variables "age at which boys should be given a regular job

around the house," and "age at which boys should be given a

really important job around the house," both in a positive

direction. The other child rearing practice factors making

a significant contribution to the "inferiority-irresponsible"

behavior problem factor were male child rearing practice

factors IV, "physical punishment," (p <.01), and VI,

"punishment for aggression," (p (.05), and female child

rearing practice factor II "dislike of intrusive behavior"

(p (.01). The single child rearing practice factor making

a significant (p<.05) contribution to the accountable

criterion variance in behavior problem factor III,

"neurotic-disturbed," was again the uninterpreted male

child rearing practice factor VII. In the prediction of

behavior problem factor V, "psychopathic-unsocialized,"

significant (p (.05) contributions were rendered by male

child rearing practice factor V, "task-oriented disci

pline," and general child rearing practice factor V,

"achievement training." In the case of the final behav-

ior problem factor, "immaturity," a significant contribu

tion was made again by male child rearing practice factor

V, "task-oriented discipline," (p <.01), and by female

child rearing practice factor IV, "achievement-oriented

discipline" (p <,,05) "

177

In examining the relative contributions of the house

hold demography and the household demography plus the

child rearing practice factors to the accountable criter

ion variance in the behavior problem factors, a glance at

Table CXVII reveals that the accountable variance was

significantly (p <.05) increased when the child rearing

practice factors were added to the household demography

factors only in the case of the behavior problem factor

of "immaturity."

8. Prediction of the Behavior Problem Factors from

Household Demography, Child Rearing Practice, and Teacher

Rating Factors Combined. In this final set of regression

analyses the criteria of interest are again the behavior

problem factors, listed as variables 45 thru 51 in Table

LVIII, with variables 1 thru 44 in Table LVIII serving

as predictors. The results of these seven analyses are

presented in Tables CXVIII thru CXXIV for each of the

seven criteria in turn. A glance at the last row of each

of these tables again reveals that the full model multiple

correlation is significant beyond the .01 level in every

case.

In asking which of the teacher rating factors make a

significant contribution in the prediction of the behavior

problem factors, independent of the criterion variance

accounted for by household demography and child rearing

178

TABLE CXVII. COMPARISON OF ACCOUNTABLEVARIANCE IN BEHAVIOR PROBLEM FACTORS WHEN

PREDICTING FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY FACTORSALONE VERSUS HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY PLUS

CHILD REARING PRACTICES

Behavior Problem Household Household Demography FFactor Demography Plus Child Rearing

Practices

°R2 M R2 M

I. SocialWithdrawal .08 8 .36 38 1.46

II. Sluggish,Disinterested .06 8 .22 38 .ta

III. Neurotic-Disturbed .03 8 .24 38 .92

IV. Inferiority-Irresponsible .05 8 ·30 38 1.19

V. Psychopathic-Unsocialized .03 8 ·30 38 1.29

VI. Verbal Over-activity .02 8 .31 38 1.l.jQ

VII. Immaturity .02 8 .36 38 1.77*

*p< .05

179

TABLE CXVIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,

CHILD REARING PRACTICES AND TEACHER RATING FACTORS


CRP (00) Factor IV .2413 8.66**

HD Factor VIII ·3225 7.10-1:-*

TR Factor IV .3723 5.54*

CRP (F) Factor IX .4244 6.94**





CRP (G) Factor IX ·5015 4.23*





TR Factor V .5731 1.38

CRP (G) Factor VIII ·5797 1.44

CRP (00) Factor V ·5881 1.. 88

TR Factor II .5949 1.54






180

TABLE CXVIII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR I FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,




CRP (M) Factor VII .6352 1·51





TR Factor I .6586 .89


CRP (F) Factor II .6637 ·52



CRP (G) Factor XI .6761 ·53HD Factor IV .6780 ·50



ED Factor VI .6856 .50

TR Factor III .6859 .09


CRP (M) Factor III .6863 .03CRP (G) Factor VII .6864 .02


TR Factor VI .6864 .00

~.l-p <.05**p <.01

181

TABLE CXIX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,

CHILD REARING PRACTICES AND TEACHER RATING FACTORSVariable Added toPrediction Equation R F

TR Factor I .2205 7.15**HD Factor IV .3034 6.65*

CRP (G) Factor XII .3367 3·32CRP (G) Factor VIII .3636 2.97CRP (00) Factor VI .3874 2.86

TR Factor VI .4066 2.47CRP (G) Factor IV .4209 1.92CRP (G) Factor IX .4499 4.22*CRP (00) Factor IV .4631 2.02

CRP (00) Factor I .4726 1.49CRP (G) Factor VII .4895 2.78CRP (F) Factor III .5005 1.87

CRP (F) Factor V .5151 2.59HD Factor III .5237 1·57HD Factor II .5311 1.36

HD Factor I .5388 1.46HD Factor VI .5426 .72CRP (00) Factor VIII .5465 .74CRP (F) Factor II ·5505 .77CRP (F) Factor VII .5560 1.06CRP (F) Factor VIII .5638 1.54CRP (F) Factor VI ·5771 .63CRP (M) Factor V .5830 1.21

182

TABLE CXIX. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR II FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



TR Factor IV .5884 1.13











CRP (G) Factor VI ·5972 .06





TR Factor V ·5980 .01



TR Factor II ·5981 .00

*p <.05**p <. .01

183

TABLE CXX. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



TR Factor III .2239 7·39**

CRP (M) Factor VII .2686 3·30


CRP (G) Factor XI ·3235 2.73

CRP (F) Factor VIII .3410 1·78



CRP (G) Factor II .4097 4.39*

TR Factor I .4319 3.04


CRP (M) Factor IX .4786 4.34*


CRP (F) Factor III .4974 1·34




CRP (F) Factor II ·5155 .55




CRP (M) Factor I .5333 .64CRP (G) Factor I .5386 .95

TR Factor V .5427 .75

184

TABLE CXX. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR III FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,






CRP (G) Factor XII ·5570 .24


CRP (G) Factor VI ·5597 .29

TR Factor IV .5606 .15

CRP (M) Factor III ·5612 .12








CRP (M) Factor IV ·5708 .29

CRP (F) Factor VI ·5713 .08





*p <.05**p <.01

185

TABLE CXXI. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGP~PHY,



TR Factor IV .2363 8.28**

CRP (M) Factor IV .3459 100·78**

CRP (F) Factor IX .4196 9.45**

HD Factor II .LI·766 9.o6-lH }

CRP (M) Factor V .5035 4.79*







CRP (G) Factor VIII ·5920 4.28*






TR Fac"tor I .6305 ·39


TR Factor III .6385 1.20


CRP (G) Factor II .6419 ·51


186

TABLE CXXI. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR IV FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,






CRP (G) Factor VI .6509 ·50

CRP (G) Factor X .6.532 .58

HD Factor VII .6.542 .26






CRP (F) Factor IV .66.58 .27



HD Factor I .6703 ·33







*p <.05*-l~p <.01

187

TABLE CXXII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



TR Factor II .3361 17.83-31-*

CRP (G) Factor IX .4037 8.31**

CRP (M) Factor V .4465 6.26*

CRP (G) Factor I .4787 5.30*

CRP (G) Factor VI ·5250 8.73**

CRP (G) Factor V .5474 4.62*
















CRP (M) Factor VII .6409 068

CRP (M) Factor IX .6426 044

188

TABLE eXXII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR V FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



CRP (G) Factor XI .64.50 .63

CRP (M) Factor IV .. 6466 ·39

HD Factor VII .647.5 .24

HD Factor III .6.513 .99

CRP (F) Factor I .6.524 .28

CRP (F) Factor VI .6.533 .22



HD Factor II .6.570 .18




CRP (M) Factor I .6626 •.59






HD Factor I .6698 .0.5

TR Factor I .6699 .01


*p <.05**p <.01

189

TABLE CXXIII. PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



TR Factor II .3291 17.00**

CRP (M) Factor VII .3767 5.44*

CRP (M) Factor IV .4024 3·29





CRP (G) Factor IX ·5157 9·53**

CRP (F) Factor VI .5401 4.80*


CRP (F) Factor VIII .5720 4.41*













190

TABLE eXIII. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR VI FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,





TR Factor III .6584 1.01



CRP (1'11) Factor VIII .6643 .40






CRP (00) Factor II .6751 .55





CRP (00) Factor III .6789 .03





*p < .05**p <~Ol

191

TABLE CXXIV. PREDICTION QF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,



TR Factor II ••4686 39.40**

CRP (M) Factor V .5248 10.71**

CRP (F) Factor IX .5438 3.97*










CRP (G) Factor V .6451 4.76*




CRP (G) Factor VI .6682 1·59







192

TABLE CXXIV. (Continued) PREDICTION OF BEHAVIORPROBLEMS FACTOR VII FROM HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY,





CRP (M) Factor VIII .6942 ·50


CRP (G) Factor XII .7009 1·52


CRP (M) Factor IV ·7050 .74




CRP (M) Factor VII ·7115 .80





TR Factor IV .7219 .11






*p <.05**p <,,01

193

practice factors, examination of Tables CXVIII thru CXXIV

reveals that teacher rating factor II, "aggression

dominance," made a significant (p <.01 in each case)

contribution to the accountable criterion variance in

behavior problem factors V, "psychopathic-unsocialized,"

VI, "verbal overactivity," and VII, "immaturity." Teacher

rating factor IV, "compliance," made a significant con

tribution to the behavior problem factors I, "social

withdrawal," (p(.05), and IV, "inferiority-irresponsible"

(p <.01). Behavior problem factor II, "sluggish

disinterested," received a significant (p <.01) contribu

tion from the teacher rating factor I, "creativity/

divergent thinking," and behavior problem factor III,

"neurotic-disturbed, " received a significant (p <.01)

contribution from the teacher rating factor III, "emotion

ality."

In examining the relative accountable criterion

variance in the behavior problem factors when prediction

from teacher ratings in addition to household demography

and child rearing practice factors versus prediction from

the two latter sets alone, Table CXXV reveals that a

significant (p (.01) increase in accountable criterion

variance was observed in every case except behavior

problem factor III, "neurotic-disturbed," in which case

the increase was significant beyond the .05 level.

194

TABLE CXXV. COMPARISON OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCEIN BEHAVIOR PROBLEM FACTORS WHEN PREDICTING FROM

TEACHER RATING FACTORS IN ADDITION TO HOUSEHOLDDEMOGRAPHY AND CHILD REARING PRACTICE FACTORS

Teacher RatingsHousehold Added to House-

Behavior ProblemDemography Plus hold DemographyChild Rearing and Child Rear-

Factor Practices ing Practices F

R2 M R2 M

I. SocialWithdrawal .36 38 .48 44 3.6,**

II. Sluggish,Disinterested .22 38 .36 44 3.46**

III. Neurotic-Disturbed .24 38 ·3.5 44 2.68*

IV. Inferiority-Irresponsible ·30 38 .4.5 44 4.32**

V. Psychopathic-Unsocialized ·30 38 .45 44 4.32**

VI. VerbalOveractivity .31 38 .46 44 4.40**

VII. Immaturity .36 38 .,2 44 5.28**

*p <.05**p ~.Ol

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

In drawing conclusions from the data presented in

the preceeding chapters it will be useful to restate the

interlocking variable model which was discussed in chapter

three. It will be recalled that the behavioral tactic

factors, herein defined by the common factors arising

from the behavior problem analyses, were proposed to be a

function of strategic orientation, or personality factors,

in combination with the situation. In the current study

the latter element (the situation) of the chain was regarded

as a constant. The personality, or strategic orientation

factors, defined by the factors arising from the teacher

ratings analysis, in turn, were proposed to be a function

of child rearing factors, defined in this study by the

parental interview factors. The child rearing factors were

proposed to be a function of domestic group factors, herein

defined as the factors arising from the household demog

raphy analyses. The first link in the chain, proposed as

the set of factors antecedent to the domestic group factors,

was the set of ecological factors, regarded as a constant

in the current investigation.

The hypotheses derived from the behavior chain model

(see Chapter Four) were of two sorts. First; on the basis

of previous evidence, where available, hypotheses concerning

196

the dimensionality of the various domains were presented.

Secondly, hypotheses of relations among the domains were

presented.

In the domestic group (household demography) domain,

no prior evidence concerning the dimensionality was avail

able, but speculative hypotheses were offered that the

emergent factors might include family type, family origin,

relation of the child to the head of the household and

birth order of the child. The analysis resulted in eight

factors in this domain, four of which were primarily family

type factors (subnuclear, mother absent; nuclear-lateral,

consanguine; nuclear; and subnuclear-extended, older child),

two of which dealt with family origin (Nanakuli origin and

stepmother--origin off Oahu), and two of which were dimen

sions primarily of the relation of the child to the head

of the household (Hanai and spouse's lineal). It is con

sequently concluded that the hypotheses concerning the

dimensions of family origin, family type, and relation ot

the child to the household head have received support

from the data, but at the same time it must be recognized

that the factors emerging in the current analysis are

very likely to be highly specific to the population being

studied.

In the child rearing practices domain, the structural

hypotheses were that the emerging factors would be at

least seven in number and would include permissiveness,

197

strictness of discipline, warmth of parent-child relation

ship, promotion of independence, high use of sanctions

in controlling child behavior, patriarchal family, and

aggression training. The analysis of the general child

rearing practice data resulted in twelve factors, eight

of which were labelled as warmth of parent-child relation

ship, obedience training, permissiveness, strictness of

discipline, achievement training, preference for younger

children, demands for compliance, and responsibility

training. It is concluded that this phase of the analysis

which is of greater similarity to previous studies than

the separate male and female analyses, provided support

for the hypothesized dimensions of warmth of parent-child

relationship, permissiveness, and strictness of discipline.

The preference for younger children factor is similar to

the reverse of the hypothesized promotion of independence

factor. In the separate analysis of male child rearing

practices one factor was identified as strictness of dis

cipline, and two factors emerged in place of the hypoth

esized aggression training factor. These were labelled

discipline for parental aggression and punishment for

aggression. The remaining factors were identified as

achievement-oriented discipline, compliance-oriented

discipline, physical punishment, and task-oriented dis

cipline. Two factors were not interpreted. The separate

analysis of the female child rearing practice data

198

resulted in five factors which were of sufficient similar

ity to factors in the male analysis to bear the same

labels, these being discipline for parental aggression,

achievement-oriented discipline, task-oriented discipline,

compliance-oriented discipline, and low physical punishment,

the latter being the reverse of the male physical punish

ment factor. In addition, four factors unique to female

child rearing practices were identified as dislike of

intrusive behavior, later age of work assignments, dislike

of non-feminine behavior, and less independence.

Six factors were hypothesized in the child personality

phase of the analysis. On the basis of previous investi

gations these hypothesized factors were labelled intellect

(creativity/divergent thinking), sociality, aggression

dominance, emotionality, industriousness, and compliance.

Five of these factors were identified in the analysis,

with the industriousness factor being replaced by the

relational insecurity factor which had been identified

in some of the earlier studies.

Previous investigations of childhood behavior prob

lems suggested from four to seven factors in this domain,

the most reliably demonstratab1e of which were immaturity,

verbal overactivity, conduct problem, and personality

problem. Seven factors were identified in the current

analysis including verbal overactivity, immaturity,

psychopathic-unsocialized (a label suggested in place of

199

conduct problem), neurotic-disturbed (suggested in place

of personality problem), and three additional factors

which were labelled social withdrawal, sluggish-disinter

ested, and inferiority-irresponsible.

Working backwards in the interlocking model proposed

by Howard and Gallimore (1968), it was hypothesized in

Chapter Four that the behavior problem factor termed

"conduct problem" by Quay and his associates and labelled

"psychopathic-unsocialized in the current investigation

would be negatively related to the child personality

factor A, identified in previous investigations as

"friendly disposition vs. hostile," but which has been

identified in the current study as A + E (aggression

dominance). In view of the fact that a high score on

this factor represents high aggression-dominance in the

current study rather than high friendliness, the opposite

reaction should be expected, i.e., A + E should be related

positively to the psychopathic-unsocialized dimension.

This was the outcome in the multiple regression analysis.

In fact, the aggression-dominance factor was a signifi

cant predictor of the behavior problem dimensions of

verbal overactivity and immaturity as well.

It was also hypothesized that the child personality

factor D (previously identified as "excitability") would

bear a significant positive relationship to the psychopathic

unsocialized dimension. In the current investigation, the

200

earlier factor D collapsed into the C-D-H "sociality"

factor most recently discussed by Digman (1970), and the

sociality factor was not a significant predictor of the

psychopathic-unsocialized dimension.

The final child personality factor hypothesized to

bear a significant relationship to the psychopathic

unsocialized dimension was K (compliance) in a negative

direction. Although a significant negative correlation

(-.47) did obtain between these two factors, the results

of the multiple regression analysis on this criterion

indicate that factor K did not possess sufficient common

variance with the criterion psychopathic-unsocialized

independent of the other predictor variables in the anal

ysis. If one were to study the two variables in isolation,

i.e. in a bivariate study, and assuming the relationship

found here is a stable one, the hypothesis would receive

support (or, rather, the null hypothesis of no relation

ship would be rejected). Factor K of the child personality

domain was further found to be a significant predictor of

the behavior problem factors of social withdrawal and

inferiority-irresponsible. These two factors were not

hypothesized in the structural hypotheses section and

consequently no relations with other factors were hypoth

esized. Factor K was related to both in a negative

direction.

201

The behavior problem which has previously been label

led personality problem by Quay and his co-workers, and

which has been termed "neurotic-disturbed" in the current

investigation, was hypothesized to bear a significant

negative relationship to the child personality factors

I (relational security) and C (ego strength), and a sig

nificant positive relationship to the child personality

factor T (emotionality). In the current investigation,

factor C combined with D and H in the "sociality" factor,

which correlated with the neurotic-disturbed dimension

in the appropriate direction but not significantly

(r= -.15). Factor T correlated .25 with neurotic

disturbed, which was of sufficient magnitude to be sig

nificant, and was a significant independent predictor of

the neurotic-disturbed factor in the multiple regression

analysis.

The behavior problem factor of immaturity was hypoth

esized to relate negatively to the child personality

factors I (relational security) and E (previously labelled

dominance), and positively to the child personality factor

T (emotionality). Again, factor E combined with A to form

the aggression-dominance factor which, although correlat

ing .62 with immaturity in isolation, did not add suffi

cient independent predictability of the criterion in the

multiple regression analysis to reach significance. The

child personality factor I also exhibited a significant

202

correlation with the immaturity dimension when examined

in isolation, but did not prove significant in the multiple

regression analysis. The correlation in this instance

was .49, and it will be recalled that the factor I emerged

as I-, relational insecurity, rather than I+, relational

security, which would lend support, in a bivariate analy

sis, to the hypothesis of a negative relationship between

I and the Immaturity factor. Factor T (emotionality) also

correlated significantly and in the hypothesized direction

with immaturity (r = .39), but again in the multiple re

gression analysis did not exhibit sufficient independent

predictability of the criterion to reach significance.

The behavior problem factor of verbal overactivity

was hypothesized to relate positively to the child person

ality factors D (previously labelled excitability) and

E (previously labelled dominance), and negatively to child

personality factor K (compliance). As has been noted

above, factor E combined with A in the aggression-dominance

factor and D combined with C and H in the sociality factor.

The former correlated .49 and the latter .16 with verbal

overactivity. Neither proved significant independent

predictors in the multiple regression analysis. Factor K

exhibited a significant correlation in the hypothesized

direction (r= -.33), but did not make a significant inde

pendent contribution in the multiple regression analysis.

203

One relationship emerged from the regression analyses

predicting behavior problems from the child personality

factors which was not hypothesized in Chapter Four, re

sUlting from the fact that the particular behavior problem

dimension was not one of those hypothesized. This was the

significant negative relationship between the child per-

.sonality factor M (creativity/divergent thinking) and the

behavior problem factor labelled sluggish-disinterested.

Working backwards another step in the interlocking

model, it will be noticed that the hypotheses presented

in Table I (Chapter Four) were that the child rearing

practice termed warmth of parent-child relationship would

relate positively to child personality factors A (friend

liness vs. hostility), I (relational security), and C

(ego strength), and negatively to factor T (emotionality).

In terms of the dimensions which emerged in the factor

analysis of the child personality domain, the hypotheses

would be of positive relationships between warmth of

parent-child relationship and the child personality factors

I (relational security) and C-D-H (sociality), and negative

relationships with A-E (aggression-dominance) and T (emo

tionality). None of these hypotheses received support

from the multiple regression analyses, although a signifi

cant bivariate correlation did obtain between warmth or

parent-child relationship and sociality (r = .20).

204

The strictness of discipline child rearing practice

factor was hypothesized to relate positively to the pre

viously identified child personality factors A (friendli

ness) and K (compliance), and negatively to H (social

confidence). In terms of the factors which emerged in

the current analyses, the hypotheses would be a positive

relationship to A-E (aggression-dominance) and K (com

pliance), and a negative relationship to C-D-H (sociality).

The two factors labelled "strictness of discipline" in

the current study (male factor VIII and general factor

IV) did not exhibit relationships which would support

these hypotheses. However, child personality factor K

(compliance) did correlate significantly and in a positive

direction with the male compliance-oriented discipline

and achievement-oriented discipline factors, both of which

made significant independent contributions to the account

able criterion variance in the multiple regression analyses.

The hypothesized relationships between the child

rearing factor of permissiveness and the child personality

factors were that permissiveness would be positively re

lated to D (previously excitability), H (previously social

confidence), and E (previously dominance). In terms of

the factors in the current study this translates into

hypothesized positive relationships with A-E (aggression

dominance) and C-D-H (sociality). These hypotheses did

not receive support from the data.

205

The final hypothesis of relationship between child

rearing practices and child personality was that of a

positive relationship between independence training and

child personality factor E (dominance). Translated into

terms of the factors which emerged in the present analy-

sis, the specified hypothesis would be that of a positive

relationship between general child rearing practices

factor VIII and the child personality factor A-E

(aggression-dominance). This ~ypothesis failed to receive

support from the data, although a significant positive

relationship did obtain between the female child rearing

factor labelled dislike of intrusive behavior and aggression-

dominance.

In tracing the interlocking variable model back to

the final set of antecedents of concern to this study, it

will be noticed that due to a dearth of information con-

cerning the str~cture in this domain, the sole hypothe-~

sized factor fn the demography domain which was identifiable

was that of extended family type, and this appeared in

combination with subnuclear and older child. The extended

family type factor was hypothesized in Chapter Four to

bear a positive relationship to the child rearing practice

factor of independence training. The hypothesis received

no direct support from the data, although the subnuclear

extended older child factor exhibited a significant negative

206

relationship to the general child rearing practice factor

of demands for compliance.

In narrative form, the major relationships which

emerged from the current investigation, in terms of the

interlocking model set forth in Chapter Four, are the

following.

If, at the personality organization, or strategic

orientation as Howard and Gallimore prefer to refer to it,

level the child was high on aggression-dominance, he was

more likely at the behavior problem level to be high on

the psychopathic-unsocialized, verbal overactivity, and

immaturity dimensions. The child rearing practices which

were associated with aggression-dominance were high dis

like of female intrusive behavior, low dislike of female

non-feminine behavior, and low general warmth of the

parent-child relationship. Hanai children were more

likely to enjoy a warm parent-child relationship. Fami

lies of Nanakuli origin were less likely to dislike non

feminine behavior, while subnuclear families in which the

mother was absent were more likely to do so.

If a child received a low score on the personality

factor of compliance, he was more likely to receive a

high score on the behavior problem factors of social

withdrawal and inferiority-irresponsible. The child

rearing factors associated with high compliance were high

male compliance-oriented discipline and achievement-oriented

207

discipline, and contrarily, low female compliance-oriented

discipline. The families which were of a nuclear-lateral,

consanguine type were more likely to employ less compliance

oriented discipline with female children.

A child receiving a high score on the personality

dimension of emotionality was more likely to score highly

on the behavior problem dimension of neurotic-disturbed.

The child rearing factors associated with high emotionality

were high male task-oriented discipline and high female

discipline for parental aggression. If the child lived

in a home which was characterized by the presence of a

stepmother and in which the family origin was off Oahu,

the females were more likely to receive greater discipline

for parental aggression.

The child personality dimensions of sociality and

relational insecurity did not exhibit any significant

relationships with behavior problem dimensions. However,

the former was positively related to high general demands

for compliance and the latter to low male physical punish

ment and high female task-oriented discipline. The family

demography factor of nuclear-lateral, consanguine was

negatively related to high general demands for compliance.

CHAPTER VIII

SUMMARY

The investigation was concerned with the dimension

ality of household demography, parental reports of child

rearing practices, and teachers' reports of child person

ality and behavior problems in a sample of children and

their families from the Nanakuli, Hawaii homestead area.

The factor analyses of the four separate data domains

resulted in the extraction of eight household demography

factors, nine male and nine female child rearing practice

factors, twelve general child rearing practice factors,

six teacher ratings of child personality factors, and seven

teacher ratings of child behavior problem factors. The

household demography factors were labelled "stepmother,

origin off Oahu," "Hanai," "subnuclear, mother absent,"

"nuclear-lateral, consanguine," "Nanakuli origin," "nuclear

family," "subnuclear-extended, older child," and "spouse's

lineal." The nine male child rearing practice factors were

labelled "achievement-oriented discipline," "compliance

oriented discipline," "di scipline for parental aggression,"

"physical punishment," "task-oriented discipline," "punish

ment for aggression," and "strictness of discipline." Two

of the nine male child rearing practice factors were unin

terpreted. The nine female child rearing practice factors

were labelled "low physical punishment," "dislike of in

trusive behavior," "discipline for parental aggression,"

209

"achievement-oriented discipline," "later age of work

assignments," "dislike of non-feminine behavior,"

"compliance-oriented discipline," "less independence,"

and "task-oriented discipline." Four of the twelve general

child rearing practice factors were uninterpreted. The

remaining eight were labelled "warmth of parent-child re-

lationship," "obedience training," "permissiveness,"

"strictness of discipline," "achievement training,"

"preference for younger children," "demands for compli

ance," and "responsibility training." The six teacher•

ratings of child personality factors were labelled

"creativity/divergent thinking," "aggression-dominance,"

"emotionality," "compliance," "sociality," and "relational

insecurity." The seven teacher ratings of child behavior

problems factors were labelled "social withdrawal,"

"sluggish, disinterested," "neurotic-disturbed,"

"inferiority-irresponsible," "psychopathic-unsocialized,"

"verbal overactivity," and "immaturity."

In the prediction of male child rearing practices,

the household demography factors which contributed to

"achievement-oriented discipline" were "stepmother, origin

off Oahu" (positively, p <'.01), "Nanakuli origin" (posi

tively, p (.05), and "nuclear family (positively, p (.05).

In predicting to compliance-oriented discipline" in the

male child rearing practice domain, the significant (p (.05)

household demography predictor was "nuclear family"

210

(negatively, p<.05). The significant family demography

predictors of "discipline for parental aggression" were

"nuclear-lateral, consanguine" (positively, p< .01), "step

mother, origin off Oahu" (negatively, p<.05), "subnuclear

extended, older child," (positively, p<.05), "subnuclear,

mother absent," (positively, p< .01). The significant

predictors of "punishment for aggression" were "subnuclear

extended, older child," (positively, p< .01), "Nanakuli

origin (negatively, p < .01), and "subnuclear, mother ab

sent" (positively, p < .01). The remaining male child

rearing factors were either uninterpreted or had no pre

dictor variables reading the .05 level of significance.

In the prediction of female child rearing practices

from the household demography factors, the significant

predictors of "physical punishment" were "subnuclear,

mother absent" (negatively, p <.01), "Nanakuli origin"

(negatively, p( .05), and "nuclear family" (positively,

p <.01). In predicting to "dislike of intrusive behavior"

the significant predictors were "Nanakuli origin" (nega

tively, p( .05) and "subnuclear, mother absent" (positively

p <..05). The significant predictors of "discipline for

parental aggression" were "stepmother, origin off Oahu"

(positively, p< .01), "Nanakuli origin" (positively, p< .01)

"spouse's lineal" (positively, p( .05), and "Hanai" (nega

tively, p(.Ol). The female child rearing practices factor

of "achievement-oriented discipline" had as significant

211

predictors the household demography factors "subnuclear,

mother absent" (positively, p( .05), and "subnuclear

extended, older child" (negatively, p<.Ol). The "later

age of work assignments" factor was primarily accounted

for by the demography factors "Nanakuli origin" (negative-

ly, p < .01), and "nuclear-lateral, consanguine," (posi tive

ly, p< .01). The significant predictors of "dislike of

non-feminine behavior" were "Nanakuli origin" (negatively,

p <.01, "subnuclear, mother absent" (posi tively, p< .01) •

In predicting "compliance-oriented discipline" the predictor

variables exhibiting significant contributions were

"nuclear-lateral, consanguine" (positively, p( .01,

"Nanakuli origin" (positively, p(.05), and "subnuclear

extended, older child" (positively, p< .05). The signifi

cant predictors of "less independence" were "nuclear

lateral, consanguine" (negatively, p <.05), "subnuclear,

mother absent" (negatively, p (.01), "Hanai" (negatively,

p<.Ol), and "nuclear family (positively, p<.05).

In the prediction of the general child rearing practice

factors from household demography, factor I, "warmth of

parent-Child relationship," bore a significant (p < .01)

positive relationship to the demography factor labelled

"Hanai." "Obedience training" had as significant predic

tors (p < .05 in each case) "nuclear-lateral, consanguine,"

(negatively), "Nanakuli origin," (positively), "nuclear

family" (positively), and "subnuclear-extended, older

212

child (negatively). The significant predictors of "permis

sivenes s" were "Banai" (positively J p<. 01), "Nanakuli

origin" (negatively, p <.01), and "subnuclear, mother

absent" (negatively, p <.05) • Two predictors were signifi

cant at the .01 level in the prediction of "strictness of

discipline "--"nuclear-lateral, consanguine," and "Nanakuli

origin"--both in a positive direction. The predictors

reaching significance (p-(.05 in each instance) in the case

of "achievement training" were "nuclear-lateral, consanguine"

"Nanakuli origin," and "nuclear family,'" the first in a

positive manner and the latter two in a negative manner.

The general child rearing practice factor "preference for

younger children" bore a significant (p< .05) negative

relationship to "nuclear-lateral, consanguine," while the

uninterpreted factor X was positively related. Demography

factor II, "Hanai," was significantly related to "respon

sibility training" (p< .01, negatively), and the uninter

preted factor XI. The predictors reaching significance

in the case of "demands for compliance" were "nuclear

lateral, consanguine" (p( .01, negatively and "subnuclear

extended, older child" (p<.05, negatively).

In the prediction of the teacher rating factors from

household demography alone, only three significant (p< .05)

relationships were observed. These were between "sub

nuclear, mother absent" and "emotionality" (negative),

"subnuclear-extended, older child" and "relational

213

insecurity" (positive). Addition of the child rearing

practice factors to the prediction equation resulted in a

significant (p~.05) increase in accountable variance in

the case of the teacher rating factor of "aggression

dominance." The child rearing factors which added signif

icantly to the accountable variance in teacher rating

factors were, in the case of "aggression-dominance," the

female factors labelled "dislike of intrusive behavior"

(p( .05, positively), and "dislike of non-feminine behav

ior" (p( .05, negatively), and the general factor "warmth

of parent-child relationship," (p< .05, negatively). The

child rearing practice factors making significant (p( .05)

contributions to the prediction of "emotionality" were

the male "task-oriented discipline" (positively) and the

female "discipline for parental aggression" (positively)

factors. In the prediction of "compliance," the male

child rearing factors "compliance-oriented discipline"

and "achievement-oriented discipline" were both positively

related and significant (p( .05), while the female factor

"compliance-oriented discipline" exhibited a significant

(p< .05) negative relationship. The sole child rearing

factor adding significantly (p< .05) to the criterion

variance in "sociality" was the general child rearing

factor "demands for compliance" (positively). Two child

rearing factors were significant (p< .05) contributors

to "relational insecurity," one being the male factor

"physical punishment," in a negative direction, and the

214

other the female factor "task-oriented discipline,"

in a positive direction.

In the prediction of behavior problems from the

demography factors alone, four significant (p <.05)

relationships obtained. "Hanai" was negatively related to

"social withdrawal" and "inferiority-irresponsible," while

"nuclear-lateral, consanguine" was negatively related to

"sluggish, disinterested" and "psychopathic-unsocialized."

The addition of the child rearing practice factors

to the regression equation in the prediction of behavior

problems resulted in a significant (p(.05) increase in

the accountable criterion variance, when the "full model"

prediction equations were tested, only in the case of

"immaturity." When the factors were entered singly into

the stepwise analyses, the child rearing practice factors

making significant contributions to the "immaturity"

factor were the male "task-oriented discipline" (p (.01)

and female "achievement-oriented discipline" (p ( .05),

both in a positive manner. The behavior problem "social

withdrawal" factor received significant contributions

from the male "task-oriented discipline" (p <. .01, posi-

tively) and female "task-oriented discipline" (p <.05,

negatively). The "inferiority-irresponsible" factor

received significant contributions from the male "physical

punishment" (p <.01, positively) and "punishment for

aggression" (p <.05, positively), as well as the female

215

"dislike of intrusive behavior" (p <.05, negatively) fac

tors. The significant (p(.OS) child rearing contributors

to the behavior problem "psychopathic-unsocialized"

factor were the male "task-oriented discipline" and

general "achievement training" factors, both in a positive

direction.

The addition of the teacher rating factors to the

demography and child rearing practice factors in the

prediction of the behavior problem factors significantly

increased the prediction of all criteria beyond the .01

level with the exception of the "neurotic-disturbed"

factor, in which case the p level was beyond .05. The

teacher rating factor of "aggression-dominance" was the

most consistently successful predictor, relating sig

nificantly (p <.01) and in a positive direction to the

behavior problem factors of "psychopathic-unsocialized,"

"verbal overactivity," and "immaturity." The teacher

rating "compliance" factor related significantly (p (.01),

in a negative direction, to "social withdrawal" and

"inferiority-irresponsible." The behavior problems factor

of "sluggish-disinterested" bore a significant (p <..01)

negative relationship to "creativity-divergent thinking,"

and "neurotic-disturbed" was significantly (p <.01)

related to "emotionality" in a positive direction.

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTSOF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS

APPENDIX A

TABLE AI. INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD REARING PRACTICESAND CHILD BEHAVIOR WHICH MEET THE MINIMUM

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF MULTIVARIATE RESEARCH DESIGN

Investigation

Sewell et ale(1955)

Milton (1958)

Minturn et ala(1964)

Cattell & Gruen(1953)

Cattell & Coan(1957)

Behavior

Parent

Parent

Parent

Child

Child

DataSource

001

OOI

MI

PR

TR

Age ofChildren

5-6

5-6

3-10

9-14

6-10

AnalyticTechnique

C-OB

C-OR

C-OR*

C-OB

C-OB

N

162

379

133

173

198

n

38

44

28

30

39

k

8

7

7

6

13

Notel In Data Source column "MI" refers to mother interviews, "PR" to peer ratings,and "TR" to teacher ratings; in analytic technique column "PA" refers toprincipal axis, "c" to centroid, "OR" to orthogonal rotation and "OB" tooblique rotation; 'N" is number of subjects; "n" is number of variables;"k" is number of factors extracted.

* Oblique rotation also reported

NI-'-...J

APPENDIX A

TABLE AI. (Continued) INVESTIGATIONS OF CHILD REARING PRACTICESAND CHILD BEHAVIOR WHICH MEET THE MINIMUM

TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF MULTIVARIATE RESEARCH DESIGN

Data Age of AnalyticInvestigation Behavior Source Children Technique N n k

Peterson & Cattell(19.59) Child TR Pre-school C-OB 80 36 9

Digman (1963) Child TR 1st-2nd PA-OB 102 39 11Grade

Cattell (1963)** Child TR 1st-2nd PA-OB 102 39 11Grade

Digman (1965)*** Child TR Pre-school PA-OB 80 36 9

Emmerich (1966) Child TR Pre-school PA-OB .53 24 3

Notes In Data Source column "MI" refers to mother interviews, "PR" to peer ratingsand "TR" to teacher ratings; in analytic technique column "PA" refers toprincipal axis, "c" to centroid, "OR" to orthogonal rotation and "OB" tooblique rotation; "N" is number of subjects; "n" is number of variables;"k" is number of factors extracted.

** Reanalysis of Digman (1963) data*** Reanalysis of Peterson and Cattell (19.59) data

(\)

.....OJ

219

APPENDIX A

TABLE All. IDENTIFICATION OF THESEWELL, ET AL. (1955) FACTORS

Factor Identification Variable Loading

I. Permissiveness inearly feeding

short duration of bottlefeeding .80

.77110 Permissiveness

in toilettraining

long duration of breastfeeding .76

infant usually held whenbottle fed .48

infant fed on demand .30

infant slept with mother .23

bladder training beganlate

bowel training beganlate .73

bowel training withoutschedule .37

much activity with mother .50

much activity with parents .50

success in bowel trainingrewarded .22

III. Parent-ChildInteraction

bladder training withoutschedule

much activity with father

.27

.61

short duration confinedto playpen -.33

IV. Nonpunitivetreatment

ignore child's neglectof jobs'

spanked few times

ignore masturbation

220

APPENDIX A

TABLE All. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF THESEWELL, ET AL. (1955) FACTORS


IV. NonpunitiveTreatment(Continued)

V. Promotion ofIndependence

ignore child'sdisobedience of mother

take child on picnics

.26

child has own spendingmoney .37

non-evasion of child'squestions about sex .32

ignore child's fighting .29

infant fed on demand -.40

night feeding stopped atlate age -.35

infant slept with mother -.33

VI. CasualTreatment


bladder training withoutschedule .41

not insisting child takenap .37

not insisting child eateverything on plate .37

ignore mischievousness .35

ignore accidents in boweltraining .21

success in bowel trainingrewarded -.34

221

APPENDIX A

TABLE AII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF THESEWELL, ET AL. (1955) FACTORS


.29

VII. Noninsistence

VIII. Not Interpreted

mother does not insistchild mind without question .72

father does not insistchild mind without question .72

short duration confined toplaypen .28

child allowed to play alonein yard at early age .21

night feeding stopped atlate age

infant slept with mother .28


child has own spendingmoney .20

ignore mischievousness -.24

child allowed to go toneighbors alone at earlyage -.21

ignore child's neglect ofjobs -.20

222

APPENDIX A

TABLE AlII. IDENTIFICATION OFMILTON'S (1958) FACTORS

Factor Identification

I. ParentalStrictness

Variable

house and furniturerestrictions

Loading

.48

punishment for aggressiontoward parents .43

noise restrictions .38

disapproval of dependency .38

demands for table manners .37

standards of neatness andorderliness .35

severity of toilet training .34

importance of doing wellin school .32

standards of obedience .32

use of physical punishment .31

severity of handlingfeeding problems .22

permissiveness for aggres-sion toward other children -.30

permissiveness for aggres-sion toward siblings -.31

permissiveness for aggres-sion toward parents -.51

modesty permissiveness -.66

masturbation permissive-ness -.70

sex play permissiveness -.71

223

APPENDIX A

TABLE AlII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFMILTON'S (1958) FACTORS


II. Family Adjustment mother's self esteem .59

mother's evaluation of thefather .56

affectionate interactionwith the baby .30

severity of weaning -.14

threaten punishment and notfollow through -.35

mother's displeasure whenshe discovered pregnancy -.42

dissatisfaction with thecurrent situation -.47

father's hostility towardchild -.48

father's displeasure whenhe learned of pregnancy -.51

mother's child rearinganxiety -.56

mother-father disagreement -.60

III. Warmth ofmother-childrelationship

mother's affectionatedemonstrativeness towardchild .41

extent to use of reasoning .37

mother's affectionate inter-action with child .34

mother's responsiveness toinfant's crying .27

fun taking care of smallbaby .26

224

APPENDIX A



III. Warmth ofMother-ChildRelationship(Continued)

disapproval of dependency -.36

praise for good behaviorat table (high: none) -.38

time to play with the child -.50(high: little time)

IV. ResponsibleChild TrainingOrientation

deprivation of privileges

mother's standards ofobedience

.51

use of tangible rewards .40

standards of neatness andorderliness .38

mother's self esteem .34


house and furniturerestrictions .32

praise for table manners(high: none) - .37

praise for playing nicely(high: none) -.38

V. Parental aggressiveness andpunitiveness

demands for aggressiontoward other children

use of physical punishment

.45

.44

permissiveness for aggres-sion toward other children .42

severity of punishment foraggression toward parents e41

permissiveness for aggres-sion toward parents -.35

225

APPENDIX A



VI. Mother's Percep- permissiveness for aggres-tion of father as sion toward other children .35controlling agent

father's displeasure whenhe learned of pregnancy .34

father responsible for pol-icies .30

mother does most of thedisciplining .22

VII. Mother's concern rigidity of the feedingfor child's well- schedule .37being


strictness about bedtime .33

mother's child rearinganxiety .33

physical mobilityrestrictions .32

praise for obedience .24

226

APPENDIX A

TABLE AIVI IDENTIFICATION OFMINTURN'S (1964) FACTORS

Factor Identification Variable Loadirg

I. ResponsibilityTrainine

Age at which child beganto play away from the house .29

total frequency of chores .64

total number of chores .69

age of child .56

general hostility of mother -.69

mood variation of hostility -.20

II. Warmth ofMother

general warmth of mother .61

III. Aggression:Peer-DirectedAggression

degree that mother's warmthis contingent upon child'sactions -.21

amount of praise .52

frequency and intensity ofphysical punishment .58

degree to which mother isaggressive when child isangry or aggressive -.28

degree that mother's warmthis contingent upon child'sactions .25

amount of communication ofrules .24

consistency of aggressionrules .70

consistency of mother'sfollowthrough on nonroutinedemands for obedience .49

reward for retaliatory ag-gression to peers -.68

227APPENDIX A

TABLE AIV. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFMINTURN'S (1964) FACTORS


III. AggressionlPeer-DirectedAggression(Continued)

IV. Proportion oftime MotherCared for Baby

Variable

degree to which motherexpects immediate obedience

degree that mother-·shostility is contingentupon child's actions

Loading

.37

-.22

amount of communication ofrules -.29

consistency of aggressionrules -.21

amount of praise -.31

degree to which mother isaggressive when child isangry or aggressive -.28

amount of time that themother cared for the childwhen child was a baby .72

amount of time adult otherthan mother cared for childwhen child was a baby -.46

V. Proportion ofTime Mother Caresfor Child

proportion of caretakingdone by mother

mood variation of mother'swarmth .27

degree that mother's hostility is contingent uponchild's actions -.29


228

APPENDIX A



V. Proportion of timeMother Cares forChild (Continued)

degree to which privilegesand gifts are contingentupon child's behavior -.22

VI. AggressionTraining;Mother-DirectedAggression

VII. EmotionalInstability ofMother

reward for retaliatoryaggression to peers .24

amount of time that mothercares for child .54

degree to which mother ispositive or nonpunishingwhen child becomes angrywhen being scolded


consistency of mother'sfollowthrough on nonroutinedemands for obedience .36

frequency and intensityof physical punishment .33

degree to which privilegesand gifts are contingentupon child's behavior .39

degree to which mother isaggressive when child isangry or aggressive .64

age at which child beganto play away from the home .36

total frequency of chores .24

mood variation of mother'swarmth .74

general hostility of mother .34

229

APPENDIX A



degree that mother's warmthis contingent upon child'sbehavior .26

VII. EmotionalInstability ofMother

mood variation ofhostility .91

degree the mother's hostilityis contingent upon child'sactions .21

230

APPENDIX A

TABLE V.* IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES ANDROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS IN THE DIELMAN

ET AL. (1970) ANALYSIS OF THE MOTHERS' DATA


I. Patriarchal Family my spouse decides theStructural rules concerning the

children

report that spouse is bestjudge in deciding childrearing practices .92

father does all of thediscipline -.83

husband takes large partin family life -.61

husband handles disciplineproblems very well -.55

father should decide therules concerning the child .52

.80II. High Use of

PhysicalPunishment

always agrees with spouse'sideas about child rearing -.50

believes father shouldalways punish .44

child requires physicalpunishment often

child may not go outside ofyard alone .60

parent was very strict intoilet training -.49

slaps are often good meansof punishing .46

like age 6-8 because child-ren are grown-up .41

*Wording of items has been changed to conform todirection of loadings.

231

APPENDIX A

TABLE V.* (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES ANDROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS IN THE DIELMAN



II. High Use ofPhysicalPunishment

III. Mother's Lackof Self Confidence

praise and reward child forgood school work .39

child requires spanking daily.38

parent never reasons withchildren .36

prefer age 6-8 in children .36

child must be scolded forpoor table manners at everymeal .35

when told not to do somethingthe child goes ahead doingit; he has a mind of hisown -.35

relies on own judgment inchild rearing -.34

it never works to reasonwith a child .33

parent always uses threatsbut does not follow it up .27

mother rates herself poor asa mother -.78

feels husband would rateher poor as a wife -.73

feels methods of raisingchildren are insufficient .62

home life is not at allwhat I'd want it to be .51


232

APPENDIX A




III. Mother's Lack ofSelf Confidence(Continued)

mother thinks familywould rate her poor as amother .46

.88IV. Low Involvement

husband takes no part infamily life .37

it is not at all satisfyingto devote all of the timeto being a housewife andmother -.34

child weaned itself, refusedbreast or bottle .31

spouse often becomes angrywith children -.26

always permitted child toplay with his genitals

parent only steps in andends quarreling between hischildren when there is athreat of physical dangerto the children .61

always allowed sex play inchildren .49

permit children to talk backat parent .49

child is entirely free togo without clothes indoors .40

spend no time playing withchildren .37

behavior never requiresspanking -.35


233APPENDIX A




IV. Low Involvement(Continued)

Variable

it is not effective topunish children by takingaway their privileges

Loading

.32

dislike older children because they are tooindependent -.32

do not enjoy playing withchildren .31

children can be noisy almostany time .29

let children settle quarrelsthemselves -.27

babies are a great deal oftrouble to care for -.26

V. High Use ofReward in ChildRearing

rewards have great value,work well in trainingchildren .83

parent has a regular systemof rewards given for child-ren behaving correctly -.80

regularly reward good be-havior -.77

praise good table manners .41

feel it is normal for childto "hang on you" and followyou around .36

have a lot of problems withchild rearing methods andworry how to solve them .35


234APPENDIX A




Vo High Use of Reward parent forgets it whenin Child Rearing child shouts at him -.35(Continued)

believes privileges shouldbe taken away whenever achild annoys the parent -.32

parent takes no steps whenchild strikes him .30

praise or reward goodbehavior -.37

VI. StrictDiscipline

expect child to obey commands immediately

parent has several strictrules about marking on walls,climbing on furniture, etc. .58

very effective to punish bytaking away privileges 058

extremely important thatchild does exactly what heis told to do .53

praise and reward childrenfor good school work .41

child almost always stopsdoing something when toldto stop .38

husband handles disciplineproblems very well -.37

always agrees with spouse'sideas about child rearing -.35


235APPENDIX A




VI. StrictDiscipline(Continued)

VII. Lack ofAffection forChild

VIII. Low ChildOrientation

at bedtime, child must bequiet and fall asleep assoon as he goes to bed

child first pouts when he'sangry at parents .30

mother never kisses herchild .97

mother never hugs her child .95

mother feels it is neverright to kiss and hug thechild .46

mother plays with childbecause she feels she must .41

mother felt displeased whendiscovered she was pregnant .41

not important for a motherto demonstrate affectiontoward her child .46

spouse plays with childrenvery little if any -.65

spend no time playing withthe children .57

child cannot understandreasoning -.51

feel completely ineffectivein solving family lifeproblems .47

never tell child to "be likehis father" -.45

*Wording of items has been changed to conform todirection of loadings

236APPENDIX A




VIII. Low ChildOrientation(Continued)

Variable

often don't know who toturn to in solving childrearing problems

Loading

.43

IX. Low Use ofPraise

x. Low Preferencefor YoungerChildren

spouse places very littleimportance on giving affec-tion to the children -.37

do not comment when childdoes well in school -.36

it never works to reasonwith children .35

break up fights among child-ren immediately -.31

never praise child for goodbehavior, expect it .67

never praise child forobeying .65

give no praise for goodtable behavior -.58

feel child deserves praiserarely .54

give no praise if child hasgood table behavior at aguest's home -.48

dislike 2 year olds becausetoo much trouble to takecare of .97

like 2 year olds or youngerchildren least .72


237APPENDIX A



Factor Identification Variables Loading

Xo Low Preferencefor YoungerChildren(Continued)

child does not keep thehouse orderly

spend no time playing withchild

.45

·33

allow child to stay up aslate as he wants .31

it is not effective topunish by taking away privi-leges -.31

children may never play onfurniture -.26

XI. Promotion ofIndependence

always let children settletheir fights .69

like age 6-8 best -.52

like age 6-8 because childis more grown-up -.46

parents ignore fights thathis child started and letthe children settle them .45

it spoils a child to pickhim up when he cries -.41

parent has taught child tonever take anything from abully, always fight back .38

never go to child when hecries .38

expect lots of fights inchildren because it's naturalfor them to fight .32


APPENDIX A



238


XI. Promotion ofIndependence(Continued)

XII. Low Use ofDiscipline

with a small baby mothershould give little timefor affection

child always talks back

permit quite a bit of talkingback from children .63

child discovered genitals andbegan to play with them atage 3-4 .37

it is not at all satisfyingto devote all of the time tobeing a housewife andmother -.37

child first reacts by strik-ing or kicking when angry -.35

child does not keep houseorderly .30

expect children to fightjust to be fighting .56

XIII. Low GoalsFeelings ofInadequacy

set no goals for child inschool, he sets his own .69

take no action when childrenfight just to be fighting .52

in methods of child rearing,much of what the mother doesis not enough .34

. child does not keep the houseorderly .31

*Wording of items has been changed to conform todirection of loading.

239

APPENDIX A




.67

XIII. Low GoalsFeelings ofInadequacy(Continued)

XIV. Easily Annoyedby Children

XV. Early Socialization Training

never works to threatenyour child and not followup with punishment -.27

it is not important to getpleasure out of playingwith your child .55

child should have privilegestaken away whenever he annoysthe parent -.47

never let children play inhouse with friends .41

children must be quietenough not to disturb others-.28

began teaching children tobe neat and clean at age 2or younger

began teaching table mannersat age 2 and younger -.54

mother used a complete feed-ing schedule--child was fedaccording to a clock andwakened for meals -.44

like age 6-8 because child-ren are more grown-up -.42

mother was strict in dealingwith feeding problems .37

very abrupt weaning, motherdoesn't give in if childwants to nurse .36


240

APPENDIX A

TABLE AV* (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES ANDROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS IN THE DIELMAN



XVI. Permissiveness

Variable

parent believes collegeeducation is unnecessaryfor his children

Loading

.60

young mothers -042

take no action when childfights just to be fighting .41

child most always stops doingsomething when told to stop .40

feels children should neverhave privileges taken away .37

expect young children to fightjust for sake of fighting .31

allows child to play in housewith friends -.30

share about equally withspouse in answering child-ren's questions .29

spouse places little importance on giving affectionto children -.28


241

APPENDIX A

TABLE AVI.* IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES ANDROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS IN THE DIELMAN

ET AL. (1970) ANALYSIS OF THE FATHER '3 DATA


I. High Use ofSanctions inDirectingChild'sBehavior

Variable

always praise for goodtable manners

always praise for goodbehavior

Loading

-.86

have a regular system ofrewards for good behavior -.68

always praise for goodmanners around guests .67

always praise child forobeying -.63

rewarding for good behaviorworks well in training .61

regularly reward child forgood behavior -.59

child does not help keephouse orderly .34

II. High PhysicalPunishment

it is very effective topunish child by taking awayprivileges .31

child requires spankingdaily

child's behavior requiressome kind of physicalpunishment quite often .81

a slap is very often a goodmeans of punishment in dealing with childrens' misbe-havior 065


242

APPENDIX A

TABLE AVI.* (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF VARIABLES ANDROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS IN THE DIELMAN

ET AL. (1970) ANALYSIS OF THE FATHERS' DATA


II. High PhysicalPunishment

child deserves praiseanytime he obeys -.31

children must be quietenough not to disturbothers -.30

children cannot go out ofthe yard alone 030

-.88III. Promotion of

Independence

child strikes or kicksparent when angry -.28

let child settle his ownquarrels

stop quarrels only whendanger of physical injury .55

child permitted to gowithout clothes indoors .50

would ignore a fight hischild started and let himsettle it .47

let child settle his ownfights .41

spouse places much importance to giving affectionto child .39

expect fights and quarrelsamong children .36

child allowed to go offalone -.34

permitted child's sex play .32


APPENDIX A




IV. Preference forHigh ChildDependency

dislikes older childrenbecause they are tooindependent -.91

dislikes older children 6-8 -.88

prefers children less than2 years .36

do not permit child to talkback when angry -.30

v. StrictDiscipline

parent sets strict rulesabout marking on walls,climbing on furniture,jumping on beds, etc. .65

it is extremely importantthat the child does exactlywhat he is told to do .65

parent expects child toobey commands immediately .56

child almost always stopsdoing something when toldnot to do it .40

parent believes punishmentby taking away privilegesis highly effective .37

parent punishes strongly ifchild strikes him -.34

parent permits no talkingback from child -.31


244

APPENDIX A




parent expects a child to standup for his brother or sisterif he is picked on -.65

child must be quiet enoughnot to disturb others -.43

VI. DefiniteExpectationsAbout ChildBehavior

parent teaches child tonever take anything froma bully, always fight back .82

parent sets "A" work asgoal for child's schoolperformance -.39

parent never reasons withhis child .38

never works to reasonwith child .56

never reasons with child .35

VII. PermissiveLow Expectations

parent does not believe ayoung child -.68

children are permitted toplay on furniture .31

children can be noisyalmost anytime .30

parent expects lots of fightsbecause children naturallyfight .30

VIII. High ChildOrientation

spouse never becomes angrywith children .84

felt pleased when discoveredwife was expecting -.40


245

APPENDIX A




VIII. High ChildOrientation(Continued)

child never talks back

parent regularly rewardsgood behavior

-.36

-.32

spouse (wife) plays verylittle, if any, with child-ren everyday .31

parent sets "A" work asgoal for child's schoolperformance -.30

.90

.79

take no steps if child getsangry and strikes you .29

parent likes young childrenbecause they are fun tocuddle and take care of

prefers young children(less than 2 years)

Preference forYoung Children-Little Sharing ofChild RearingResponsibility

IX.

spouse never agrees withchild rearing practices .40

x. Belief thatChild Rearing isthe Mother's Duty

parent believes mothershould always be the one topunish the children -.78

mother does all of thedisciplining .68

allow children to play onthe furniture anytime .57

parent believes a collegeeducation is unnecessaryfor his child .57


246

APPENDIX A




XI. Wife Responsiblefor all Areas ofChild Rearing

Variable

spouse always decides therules concerning thechildren

Loading

.86

believes mother should alwaysdecide the rules concerningchild rearing -.60

mother does all of thedisciplining .55

usually spouse answerschildren's questions -.31

XII. Dissatisfactionwith Home Life

home life is not at allwhat I want 082

parent has several strictrules for marking on walls,climbing on furniture,jumping on beds, etc. .38

child goes ahead when he istold to stop doing something-.35

outside demands cause bigproblems in home life .30

it is not at all satisfyingto devote all time to beinga father -.30

parent believes praise israrely deserved .35

XIII. Low PraiseHigh Punishmentfor ParentalAggression

child discovered genitalsand started to play withthem at 3-4 years .95


247

APPENDIX A


ET. AL. (1970) ANALYSIS OF THE FATHERS' DATA


XIII. Low PraiseHigh Punishmentfor ParentalAggression

children always settletheir own fights

began teaching cleanlinessand neatness at age 5 orolder

.29

-.29

XIV. Low FatherInvolvement

xv. Use of ThreatRather thanPhysical Punishment

parent would punish hischild strongly if he hithim - .25

spouse is usually the bestjUdge of rules to follow inchild rearing .88

usually spouse answers thechildren's questions -.54

caring for a baby is agreat deal of trouble -.35

began teaching standardsof neatness and cleanlinessat age 5 or older -.34

it nearly always works tojust threaten the child notpunish .78

always just threaten anddon't follow up with pun-ishment .61

takes no action when childfights just to be fighting .54

XVI. Dislike of Intrusive ChildBehavior

very satisfying to devoteall time to being father .89


248APPENDIX A




XVI. Dislike ofIntrusive ChildBehavior(Continued)

truly enjoy caring for ababy

never allow child to playin house with friends ·30

feels child should haveprivileges taken away whenhe is annoying parent -.28

XVII. Not Interpreted praise and reward child forgood school work .78

spouse places much importancein giving affection to thechildren .39

always just threatens anddoes not follow up withpunishment .35

child always talks back .34

XVIII. Not Interpreted

displeased at news wife wasexpecting .31

child must be scolded forpoor table manners at everymeal .81

forget it if child shoutsat parent -.30

if child is in a fight hestarted father would bringhim home immediately -.30

249

APPENDIX A

TABLE AVII. IDENTIFICATION OF THECATTELL AND GRUEN (1953) FACTORS

Factor Identification Variables Loading

I. Surgency vs.Desurgency

Likes to try many newthings vs. (is afraid todo new things) -.62

has fun doing anything vs.(is not sure of himself) .50

never worries about anything vs. (worries a lotabout himself 050

full of pep vs. (is slowabout things) -.50

is cheerful vs. (isoften very sad) -.49

cannot be fooled easilyvs. (always believes whatother people say) .47

is interested in otherpeople vs. (wants to be byhimself) -.44

always needs others tohelp him vs. (likes to dothings for himself .40

good at fixing things vs.(likes to imagine things) .39

is sure of himself vs.(not sure of himself .37

likes to be with otherpeople vs. (likes to beby himself) .35

is not worried about sickness vs. (worries aboutsickness) 035

250

APPENDIX A

TABLE AVII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OF THECATTELL AND GRUEN (1953) FACTORS


II. Dominance vs.Submissiveness

is sure of himself vs.(not sure of himself) .53

is jealous vs. (is notjealous) .48

is selfish vs. (thinksof others .46

wants a lot of attentionvs. (does not need a lotof attention) -.40

is mean when others dobetter vs. (never getsmean) -.)6

talks a lot vs. (saysvery little) .)1

does not care what happensto his group vs. (wants todo his share for the group) .28

is only interested in himself vs. (is interested inwhat others think) -.26

does not always behave wellvs. (has good manners) .24

always wants others to helphim vs. (likes to do thingsfor himself) .22

III. Positive very particular about howCharacter vs. things look vs. (is easilyUnintegrated pleased .60Weak Character(Superego strength)

never gets mean vs. (ismean when others do better) .41

cooperates vs. (does notcooperate) .3)

251APPENDIX A



does what the others dovs. (acts differently fromother children) -.39

.24

.30

-.48

is interested in whatothers think vs. (is onlyinterested in himself) .22

keeps calm vs. (getsexcited)

does what he is told vs.(does not obey)

does the right thing vs.(is not always honest)

IV. EmotionalStability vs.Neurotic

III. PositiveCharacter vs.UnintegratedWeak Character(SuperegoStrength)

never gives up vs. (quitsbefore he is done) -.33

wants to do his share forthe group vs. (does not carewhat happens to his group) -020

V. Paranoia (?)Not clearlyIdentifiedr=.8 with

is jealous vs. (is notjealous) .44

does what other people sayvs. (has his own ideas aboutthings) .31

is sure of himself vs. (notsure of himself) .28

does what he is told vs.(does not obey) .23

is selfish vs. (thinks ofothers) .22

VI. Unidentified likes to be by himself vs.(likes to be with otherpeople) -.40

252

APPENDIX A



VI. Unidentified(Continued)

never gets mean vs. (ismean when others dobetter)

wants to be by himselfvs. (is interested inother people) .22

does not trust peoplevs. (trusts people) .22

253

APPENDIX A

TABLE AVIII. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND COAN (1957) FACTORS


I. Superego Strengthvs. DependentCharacter

follows instructions easilyand accurately vs. hasdifficulty in followinginstructions .69

learns fast vs. learnsslowly 064

self-sufficient, prefers toavoid teacher's directionsvs. dependent on teacher -.53

persevering, determined vs.quitting, fickle .49

very attentive to class proceedings vs. inattentive,absentminded, prone to daydreaming, shows poor con-centration .43

confident (perhaps overconfident) of own abilityand ideas, vs. lacking inself-confidence, easilydiscouraged or defeated .42

conscientious, trustworthyvs. untrustworthy, dishonest-.4l

responsible vs. irresponsi-ble, frivolous -.39

aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidiousvs. lacking in artisticfeeling .38

polished in manner vsclumsy, socially awkward 035

stable in interests,attitudes, opinions vschangeable .33

254APPENDIX A

TABLE AVIII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND COAN (1957) FACTORS


I. Superego Strengthvs. DependentCharacter(Continued)

careful with property ofothers vs. careless, destructive of property of others -.33

self-assertive, tends todominate other children vs.submissive, follows leadof other children 030

neat, tidy, orderly vs.unt:i.dy, careless with respectto appearance of self andbelongings -.30

alert, wide-awake, energetic vs. lethargic, apathetic, easily tired orfatigued .29

cooperative, compliant,courteous with children andadults vSo negativistic,stubborn, disobedient,discourteous, argumentative,"poor sport" .21

parents appear generallyaccepting toward child vs.parents appear rejectingtoward child -.18

adaptable, flexible vs.rigid, has difficulty adjusting to changes or new situ-ations -.17

aggressive, tends towardfighting, bullying, teasing,cruelty vSo non-aggressive,kind, considerate .42

II. Dominance vs.Submission

male vs. female .48

255

APPENDIX A

TABLE VIII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND COAN (1957) FACTORS


II. Dominance vsSubmission(Continued)

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance ofpossible rejection orinjury vs. retiring,cautious .30

negativistic, stubborn,disobedient, discourteous,argumentative, "poor sport"vs. cooperative, compliant,courteous with children andadults -.29

talkative, distracting inclass vs. quiet

self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" vs.self-abasive, deferent, min-imizes own importance .28

untidy, careless with respectto appearance of self andbelongings, vs. neat, tidy,orderly .25

clumsy, socially awkward vs.polished in manner -.24

lacking in artistic feelingvs. aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious -.24

demanding of teacher'sattention, vs. prefers notto be noticed .20

self-assertive, tends todominate other children vs.submissive, follows leadof other children .20

256

APPENDIX A

TABLE VIII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND CGAN (1957) FACTORS


II. Dominance vs.Submission(Continued)

careless, destructive ofproperty of others vs.careful with property ofothers .19

confident (perhaps overconfident) of own abilityand ideas vs. lacking inself-confidence, easilydiscouraged or defeated .14

.45

-.43cheerful vs. depressed

learns fast vs. learnsslowly .12

of generally good healthvs. poor health, prone toabsence by reason of illness, physical complaints

III. Surgency vs.Desurgency

alert, wide-awake, energetic vs. lethargic, apathetic, easily tired orfatigued .41

lacks nervous habits, vs.prone to "nervous habits"(e.g., thumbsucking, mailbiting, scratching, pullingand twisting hair, grimacing-.34

adaptable, flexible vs. rigidhas difficulty adjusting tochanges or new situations -.33

placid, free from distressvs. fearful, worrying,anxious -029

257

APPENDIX A

TABLE VIII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND CGAN (1957) FACTORS


III. Surgency vs.Desurgency(Continued)

IV. Parmia vs.Threctia

well poised, tough, sticksup for own rights whenthreatened vs. easily upset, overwhelmed by teasingof other children, yieldseasily to persuasion -.25

expressive, frank vs.secretive, reserved .23

stable in interests, attitudes, opinions vs change-able .16

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance of possible rejection or injury vs.retiring, cautious .14

responsible vs. irrespon-sible, frivilous -.14


very attentive to class proceedings, vs. inattentive,absent-minded, prone today-dreaming, shows poorconcentration .12

gregarious, prefers gamesinvolving many children vs.prefers solitary pursuits .58

outgoing, mixes freely withother children vs. shy,bashful, seclusive, aloof,remains fairly isolated fromother children .45

258

APPENDIX A

TABLE VIII. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL AND eOAN (1957) FACTORS


IV. Parmia vs.Threctia(Continued)

V. Protension(Paranoid trend)

parents relatively permissive, allow child to makeindependent decisions vs.parents appear dominating,over-protective towardchild -.33

popular, generally likedby other children vs. unpopular, generally dislikedby other children .31


associates primarily withchildren of opposite sexvs. associates primarilywith children of own sex -.27

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance ofpossible rejection orinjury vs. retiring, cau-tious .22

talkative, distracting inclass, vs. quiet -.20

suspicious, ungrateful, rejects affection or solicitude vs. trustful of others,readily accepts solicitudeof others as sincere .51

unpopular, generally dis-liked by other children vs.popular, generally likedby other children -.40

clumsy, socially awkwardvs. polished in manner -.32

259

APPENDIX A



v. Protension(Paranoid trend)(Continued)

Variable

aggressive, tends towardsfighting, bullying, teasing, cruelty vs. nonaggressive, kind, considerate

Loading

.29

negativistic, stubborn,disobedient, discourteous,argumentative, "poorsport" vs. cooperative,compliant, courteous withchildren and adults -.28

untrustworthy, dishonestvs. conscientious, trust-worthy .25

shy, bashful, seclusive,aloof, remains fairly isolated from other childrenvs. outgoing, mixes freelywith other children -.23

self-sufficient, prefers toavoid teacher's directionsvs. dependent on teacher -.23

prone to jealousy vs. freeof jealousy, feels accepted .23

untidy, careless with re-spect to appearance of selfand belongings vs. neat,tidy, orderly .19

careless, destructive ofproperty of others vs.careful with property ofothers .18

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance of possible rejection or injuryvs. retiring, cautious .16

260

APPENDIX A



VI. Cyclothymia vs.Schizothymia

Variable

imaginative vs. practicalminded

Loading

.53


cheerful vs. depressed -.36

associates primarily withchildren of opposite sexvs. associates primarilywith children of own sex -.31

free of jealousy, feelsaccepted vs. prone tojealousy -.29

trustful of others, readilyaccepts solicitude of othersas sincere vs. suspiciousof others, ungrateful, rejects affection or solici-tude -.27

adaptable, flexible vs.rigid, has difficulty adjusting to changes or newsituations -.22

confident (perhaps overconfident) of own abilityand ideas vs. lacking inself-confidence, easilydiscouraged or defeated .17

polished in manner vs.clumsy, socially awkward .16

aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidiousvs. lacking in artisticfeeling .14

261

APPENDIX A



VI. Cyclothymia vs.Schizothymia

VII. Excitement vs.Deprivation

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance of possible rejection or injuryvs. self-abasive, deferent,minimizes own importance .12

demanding of teacher'sattention vs. prefers notto be noticed .48


trustful of others, readilyaccepts solicitude of othersas sincere vs. suspicious ofothers, ungrateful, rejectsaffection or solicitude -.25

talkative, distracting inclass vs. quiet -.23

dependent on teacher vs.selfsufficient, prefers toavoid teacher's directions .22

of generally good health vs.poor general health, proneto absence by reason of ill-ness, physical complaints .21

overactive, excitable, perhaps irritable vs. calm,relaxed .17


prefers solitary pursuitsvs. gregarious, prefersgames involving many child-ren -.16

262

APPENDIX A



VII. Excitement vs.Deprivation


parents appear rejectingtoward child vs. parentsappear generally acceptingtoward child .14

self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" vs.self-abasive, deferent,minimizes own importance .12


VIII. Premsia vs.Harria

female vs. male -.46

demanding of teacher'sattention, vs. prefers notto be noticed .30

unpopular, generally disliked by other children vs.popular, generally liked byother children -.25


changeable vs. stable ininterests, attitudes,opinions -.15

easily upset, overwhelmedby teasing of other children, yields easily to persuasion vs. well poised,tough, sticks up for ownrights when threatened 013

263

APPENDIX A



VIII. Premsia vsHarria(Continued)

very attentive to class proceedings, vs. inattentive,absent-minded, prone today-dreaming, shows poorconcentration .12


suspicious of others, ungrateful, rejects affectionor solicitude vS o trustfulof others, readily acceptssolic~tude of others as sin-cere .11

aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious vs.lacking in artistic feeling 010

follows instructions easilyand accurately vs. has difficulty in following in-structions .10

IX. Guilt-Depressionor SuperegoProneness

fearful, worrying, anxiousvs. placid, free from distress .45

easily upset, overwhelmedby teasing of other children, yields easily to persuasion vs. well poised,tough, sticks up for ownrights when threatened .38

lacking in self-confidence,easily discouraged or defeated vs. confident(perhaps over-confident) ofown ability and ideas -.33

264APPENDIX A



IX. Guilt-Depressionor SuperegoProneness

Variable

associates primarily withchildren of opposite sexvs. associates primarilywith children of own sex

Loading

-.23

X. Ego Strength vs.General Emotionality


responsible vs. irrespon-sible, frivilous -.16

careful with property ofothers vs. careless, destructive of property ofothers -.16

self-abasive, deferent, minimizes own importance vs.self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" -.15

parents relatively per-missive, allow child tomake independent decisions,vs. parents appear dominating,overprotective toward child -.41

calm, relaxed vs. overactive,excitable, perhaps irritable-.40

lack nervous habi is vs. proneto "nervous habits" (e.go,thumbsucking, nailbiting,scratching, pulling andtwisting hair, grimacing) -.34

lethargic, apathetic, easilytired or fatigued vs. alert,wide-awake, energetic -.27

265APPENDIX A


LoadingFactor Identification Variable

Xo Ego Strength vs.General Emotionalality

placid, free from distressvs. fearful, worrying,anxious -.19

-.30

XI. Alaxia vs.Praxernia

untidy, careless withrespect to appearance ofself and belongings, vs.neat, tidy, orderly .16

quiet vs. talkative, dis-tracting in class .12

lacking in artistic feelingvs. aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious -.11

of generally good health vs.poor general health, proneto absence by reason of ill-ness, physical complaints .30

careful with property ofothers, vs. careless, destructive of property ofothers

neat, tidy, orderly vs. untidy, careless with respectto appearances of self andbelongings -.29

imaginative vs. practical-minded .27

aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious vs.lacking in artistic feeling .22

inattentive, absent-minded,prone to day-dreaming, showspoor concentration vs. veryattentive to class proceed-ings -.16

266APPENDIX A



XI. Alaxia vs.Praxernia(Continued)

Variable

alert, wide-awake, energetic vs. lethargic, apathetic, easily tired orfatigued

Loading

.15

XII. Coasthenia


expressive, frank vs. se-cretive, reserved .11

parents relatively permis-sive, allow child to makeindependent decisions, vs.parents appear dominating,overprotective toward child -.11


overactive, excitable,perhaps irritable vs. calm,relaxed .10

aggressive, tends towardfighting, bullying, teasing,cruelty vs. non-aggressive,kind, considerate .33

negativistic, stubborn, disobedient, discourteous,argumentative, "poor sport"vs. cooperative, compliant,courteous with children andadults -.28

self-centered, conceited,boastful, ltshow-off lt vs.self-abasive, deferent,minimizes own importance .25

267

APPENDIX A



XII. Coasthenia(Continued)

easily upset, overwhelmedby teasing of other children, yields to persuasionvs. well poised, tough, sticksup for own rights whenthreatened .17

suspicious of others, ungrateful, rejects affectionor solicitude vs. trustfulof others, readily acceptssolicitude of others assincere .17

poor general health, proneto absence by reason ofillness, physical complaintsvs. of generally goodhealth -.15

fearful, worrying, anxiousvs. placid, free from dis-tress .14


quiet vs. talkative, dis-tracting in class .13


parents appear dominating,overprotective toward childvs. parents relatively permissive, allow child tomake independent decisions .13

depressed vs. cheerful .10

268

APPENDIX A

TABLE AIX. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE DIGMAN (1965) FACTORS

Factor Identification Variable Loadirg

I. Friendly Disposi- tough, hard vs. tender .44tion vs. Hostility

inconsiderate, rude vs.considerate, polite .32

unconscientious vs con-scientious .31

irritable, spiteful vs.good natured, easygoing .27

reluctant to admit mistakevs. ready to admit mistake .27

II. Excitement vs.Deprivation

boisterous, noisy, rowdyvs. quiet, composed .46

inquisitive, curious, interested vs. uninquisitive,uninterested .48

energetic, alert, activevs. languid, slow .36

tense, high strung vs.relaxed .36

solemn vs. gay -.37

emotional vs. not emotional .26

III. Dominance vs.Submissiveness

not prone to daydream vs.prone to daydream ·39egotistical vs. self-effacing .27

assertive vs. submissive .29

cooperative vs. obstructive -.23

269

APPENDIX A

TABLE AIX. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE DIGMAN (1965) FACTORS


IV. Ego Strength vs.Neuroticism(Possibly Surgencyvs. Desurgency)

anxious, careful, worryingvs. happy-go-lucky

sad vs. happy

..41

034

cautious, tired, retiringvs. bold, adventurous .22

solemn vSo gay .39

V. Competence vs.Lack of Competence(Cattell'sSuperego Strength)

determined, perserveringvs. quitting

responsible, dependable vs.irresponsible, undependable

.43

resourceful vs. unresource-ful .28

VI. Social Confidencevs.Social Diffidence(Cattell's ParmiaThrectia)

conventional vs. unconventional, eccentric

gregarious, social vs.self-contained

·52

.45

unthinking, goes vigorouslywith group vs. thoughtful,pensive, original .40

interested in others vs.cool, reserved .28

easily distressed vs.tolerant of stress .43

VII. RelationalSecurity vs.RelationalInsecurity(Cattell'sPremsia)

attention seeking vs. notattention seeking

demanding, impatient vs.not demanding, patient

.48

.43

dependent vs. self-reliant,independent 038

270

APPENDIX A

TABLE AIX. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE DIGMAN (1965) FACTORS


VII. RelationalSecurity vs.RelationalInsecurity(Cattell'sPremsia)

VIII. Compliance vs.Non-compliance(Cattell'sComentionAbcultion)

prone to jealousy vs. notjealous .36

emotional vs. not emotional .35

suspicious vs. trusting .26

socially, culturally mature,vs. socially, culturallyimmature .54

insistently orderly vs.disorderly .35

mannerly, polished vs.crude .33

cooperative vs. obstructive .29

271

APPENDIX A

TABLE AX. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE DIGMAN (1963) FACTORS


I. Superego Strength

Variable

neat, tidy, orderly vs.untidy, careless withrespect to appearanqe ofself and belongings

Loading

.65

II. Hostility vs.Social Integration

responsible vs. irrespon-sible, frivilous .50

stable in interests, attitudes, and opinions vs.changeable in interests,attitudes, and opinions .44

careful with property ofothers vs. careless, destructive of property of others .41

persevering, determined vs.quitting, fickle .40

self-assertive, tends todominate other children vs.submissive, follows lead ofother children .37

very attentive to class proceedings vs. inattentive,absent-minded, shows poorconcentration .30

negativistic, stubborn, disobedient, argumentative vs.cooperative, compliant,obedient .46

untrustworthy, dishonest vs.conscientious, trustworthy .37

suspicious of others, ungrateful, rejects affectionor solicitude vs. trustfulof others, readily acceptsaffection or solicitude assincere .36

272

APPENDIX A

TABLE AX. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE DIGMAN (1963) FACTORS


II. Hostility vs.Social Integration

aggressive, tends towardfighting, bullying, teasing,cruelty vs. nonaggressive,kind, considerate .35

of generally good health vs.poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness or physical complaints .33

noisy, distracting in classvs. quiet .27

quitting, fickle vs. per-severing, determined .26

III. Surgent Excitement vs. Desurgent Apathy

cheerful vs. depressed

expressive, frank vs. secretive, reserved

.39

.39

IV. Autia

demanding of teacher'sattention vs. prefers not tobe noticed .38

alert, wide-awake, energeticvs. lethargic, apathetic,easily tired or fatigued .37

outgoing, mixes freely withother children vs. shy,bashful, seclusive, aloof,remains fairly isolated fromother children .36

noisy, distracting in classvs. quiet .25

aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious vs.lacking in artistic feel-ing .64

273APPENDIX A



IV. Autia(Continued)

Variable

imaginative vs. unimaginative, practical-minded

Loading

.61

v. GeneralIntelligence

VI. Premsia vs.Harria

poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness or physical complaintsvs. general good health .27

learns fast vs. learnsslowly

follows instructions easilyand accurately vs. followsinstructions with difficulty .51

self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" vs.self-abasive, deferent, min-imizes own importance .31

easily upset, overwhelmed bythe teasing of other children, yields easily to persuasion vs. well poised,tough, sticks up for ownrights when threatened .39


unpopular, generally dis-liked by other children vs.popular, generally wellliked by other children .35

depressed vs. cheerful .29

demanding of teacher'sattention vs. prefers notto be noticed 025

APPENDIX A



VII. Sex

Variable

male vs. female

Loading

VIII. SocialConfidence

IX. Neuroticism vs.Ego Strength

very attentive to classproceedings vs. inattentive,absent-minded, prone to day-dreaming .25

gregarious, prefers gamesinvolving many children vs.prefers solitary pursuits .43

confident (perhaps overconfident) of own ideas andabilities vs. lacking inself-confidence .32

adventurous, bold, willingto run the risk of possibleinjury or rejection vs.retiring, cautious .28

rigid, has difficulty adjusting to changes or newsituations vs. adaptable,flexible

dependent on teacher vs.self-sufficient, indepen-dent .24

poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness or physical complaintsvSo of generally goodhealth .24

suspicious of others, rejectsaffection and solicitude vs.trustful of others, readilyaccepts affection and solici-tude as sincere .20

fearful, worrying, anxious vs.placid, free from distress .18

275APPENDIX A



X. UnidentifiedFactor

XI. ParentalAttitude:Harshness vs.Permissiveness

associates mostly withchildren of opposite sex vs.associates mostly with child-ren of own sex .49

polished in manners vs.,socially awkward, clumsy .25

parents appear dominating,overprotective toward childvs. parents appear relatively permissive, allowchild to make independentdecisions .38

parents appear generallyrejecting toward child vs.parents appear generallyaccepting toward child .34

prone to nervous habits (e.g.thumbsucking, nailbiting,pulling and twisting hair,grimacing) vs. lacks ner-vous habits .29

poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness or physical complaintsvs. of generally good health .29

276

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXI. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL (1963) FACTORS


I. Sizothymia vs.Affectothymia


suspicious of others, ungrateful, rejects affectionor solicitude vs. trustfulof others, readily acceptssolicitude of others as sin-cere -.75

aggressive, tends towardfighting, bullying, teasing,cruelty vs. nonaggressive,kind, considerate -.67

untrustworthy, dishonest vs.conscientious, trustworthy -.67

self-assertive, tends to dominate other children vs.sUbmissive, follows lead ofother children -.51

rigid, has difficulty adjusting to changes or newsituations vs. adaptable,flexible -.50

prone to jealousy vs. freeof jealousy, feels accepted -.37

self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" vs.self-abasive, deferent, min-imizes own importance -.29

II. Intelligence learns slowly vs. learnsfast .73

277

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXI. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE CATTELL (1963) FACTORS


II. Intelligence(Continued)

has difficulty followinginstructions vs. followsinstructions easily andaccurately .70

III. GeneralEmotionalityvs. EgoStrength

self-abasive, deferent, minimizes own importance vs.self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" .39

inattentive, absent-minded,prone to day-dreaming, showspoor concentration vs. veryattentive to class proceed-ings .34

lethargic, apathetic, easilytired or fatigued vs. ener-getic, alert, wide awake .34

dependent on teacher vs.self-sufficient, indepen-dent -.30

free of jealousy, feelsaccepted vs. prone to jeal-ousy .27

lacking in self-confidence,easily discouraged or defeatedvs. confident .21

quitting, fickle vs. perse-vering, determined .43

associates mostly withchildren of opposite sex vs.associates mostly withchildren of own sex .39

demanding of teacher'sattention vs. prefers notto be noticed -.38

278

APPENDIX A



III. GeneralEmotionalityvs. EgoStrength(Continued)

changeable in interests,attitudes, opinions vs.stable in interests,attitudes, opinions

overactive, excitable, perhaps irritable vs. calm,relaxed -.34

noisy, distracting inclass vs. quiet -.31

self-centered, conceited,boastful, "show-off" vs.self-abasive, deferent, min-imizes own importance -.22

parents appear relativelypermissive, allow child tomake independent decisionsvs. parents appear dominating, overprotective towardchild .22


IV. Deprivation vs.Excitement

parents appear relativelypermissive, allow child tomake independent decisionsvs. parents appear dominating, overprotective towardchild .64

parents appear generallyaccepting toward child vs.parents appear generallyrejecting toward child .51

279

APPENDIX A



IV. Deprivation vsExcitement(Continued)

lacks nervous habits vs.prone to nervous habits(e.g., thumbsucking, nailbiting, pulling and twisting hair, grimacing .42

calm, relaxed vs. o~eractive,

excitable, perhaps irritable .37

adventurous, bold, willingto take the chance of pos-sible rejection or injuryvs. retiring, cautious -.25

lethargic, pathetic, easilytired or fatigued vs. alert,wide awake, energetic .19

lacking in self-confidence,easily discouraged or defeated vs. confident (perhapsover-confident) of own abil-ity and ideas .18

non-aggressive, kind, considerate vs. aggressive,tends toward fighting,bullying, teasing, cruelty .45

V. Submissivenessvs. Dominance

placid, free from distressvs. fearful, worrying,anxious

female vs. male

.15

.62

calm, relaxed vs. overactive,excitable, perhaps irritable .38

inattentive, absent-minded,prone to day-dreaming, showspoor concentration vs. veryattentive to class proceed-ings .33

280

APPENDIX A



V. Submissivenessvs. Dominance(Continued)

quiet vs. noisy, distracting in class .30

dependent on teacher vs.self-sufficient, independent-.30

practical minded vs. imagin-ative .25

polished in manner vs.socially awkward, clumsy -.22

VI. Desurgency vs.Surgency

VII. SuperegoStrength

unpopular, generally dislikedby other children vs. pop-ular, liked by other children

depressed vs. cheerful

associates mostly withchildren of opposite sexvs. associates mostly withchildren of own sex .46

lethargic, apathetic, easilytired or fatigued vs. ener-getic, alert, wide awake .43

prone to jealousy vs. freeof jealousy, feels accepted -.39

easily upset, overwhelmed byteasing of other children,yields easily to persuasionvs. well poised, tough,sticks up for own rightswhen threatened -.20

untidy, careless with respect to appearance of selfand belongings vs. neat,tidy, orderly -.89

281

APPENDIX A



careless, destructive ofproperty of others vs.careful with property ofothers -.68

VII. SuperegoStrength(Continued)

irresponsible, frivolousvs. responsible -.82

VIII. Threctia vs.Parmia

quitting, fickle vs. perse-vering, determined .59

changeable in interests,attitudes, opinions vs.stable in interests, atti-tudes, opinions .56

socially awkward, clumsyvs. polished in manner .48

inattentive, absent-minded,prone to day dreaming, showspoor concentration vs. veryattentive to class proceed-ings .38

untrustworthy, dishonest vs.conscientious, trustworthy -.32

prefers solitary pursuitsvs. gregarious, prefersgames involving many child-ren .80

retiring, cautious vs. adventurous, bold, willing totake the chance of possiblerejection or injury .75

secretive, reserved vs. ex-pressive, frank .61

282

APPENDIX A



VIII. Threctia vs.Parmia(Continued)

shy, bashful, seclusive,aloof, remains fairlyisolated from other children vs. mixes freely, outgoing with other children

associates mostly withchildren of own sex vs.associates mostly withchildren of opposite sex -.49

neat, tidy, orderly vs. untidy, careless with respectto appearance of self andbelongings .48

lacking in artistic feelingvs. aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious .47

.43

-.58male vs. female

lethargic, apathetic, easilytired or fatigued vs. alert,wide awake, energetic .45

socially awkward, clumsy vs.polished in manner

Harria vs.Premsia

IX.

prefers not to be noticedvs. demanding of teacher'sattention .41


submissive, follows lead ofother children vs. selfassertive, tends to dominateother children .40

secretive, reserved vs. ex-pressive, frank .39

283

APPENDIX A



IX. Harria vs.Premsia(Continued)

X. Coasthenia

well poised, tough, sticksup for own rights whenthreatened vs. easily upset,overwhelmed by teasing ofother children, yields easilyto persuasion .35

shy, bashful, seclusive,aloof, remains fairly isolated from other childrenvs. outgoing, mixes freelywith other children .35


poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness, or physical complaintvs. generally good health .39

self-assertive, tends to dominate other children vs. submissive, follows lead ofother children -.32

popular, gener~ly liked byother children vs. unpopular,generally disliked by otherchildren -.28

inattentive, absent-minded,prone to day dreaming, showspoor concentration vs. veryattentive to class proceed-ings .18

follows instructions easilyand accurately vs. has difficulty following instruc-tions -.16

284

APPENDIX A



X. Coasthenia(Continued)

XI. Praxerniavs. Autia

trustful of others, readilyaccepts solicitude of othersas sincere vs. suspicious ofothers, ungrateful, rejectsaffection or solicitude .16

gregarious, prefers gamesinvolving many children vs.prefers solitary pursuits -.15

associates mostly withchildren of opposite sexvs. associates mostly withchildren of own sex .14

lacking in artistic feelingvs. aesthetically sensitive,aesthetically fastidious .63


gregarious, prefers gamesinvolving many children vs.prefers solitary pursuits -.35

of generally good health vs.poor general health, proneto absence by reason of illness or physical complaints -.35

lacks nervous habits vs.prone to nervous habits(e.g., thumbsucking, nailbiting, pulling and twist-ing hair, grimacing) .34

learns slowly vs. learns fast.30

neat, tidy, orderly vs. untidy, careless with respectto appearance of self andbelongings 026

285

APPENDIX A



XI. Praxerniavs. Autia(Continued)

XII. GuiltDepression orSuperegoProneness

associates most with children of own sex vs. associatesmostly with children ofopposite sex -.17

placid, free from distressvs. fearful, worrying,anxious .80

adaptable, flexible vs.rigid, has difficulty adjusting to changes or newsituations .65

confident (perhaps overconfident) of own abilityand ideas vs. lacking inself-confidence, easilydiscouraged or defeated -.62

of generally good healthvs. poor general health,prone to absence by reasonof illness or physicalcomplaints -.60

prefers not to be noticedvs. demanding of teacher'sattention .59

well poised, tough, sticksup for own rights whenthreatened vs. easily upset,overwhelmed by teasing ofother children, yieldseasily to persuasion .56

self-sufficient, independentvs. dependent on teacher .50


APPENDIX A


Factor Identification Variable

286

Loading

XII. Guilt Depression or SuperegoProneness(Continued)

lacks nervous habits vs.prone to nervous habits(e.g., thumbsucking, nailbiting, pulling and twisting hair, grimacing)

287

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXIl. IDENTIFICATION OFTHE EMMERICH (1966) FACTORS


bosses children .86

I. AggressionDominance

threatens children .88

derogates children .86

directs children .84

dominates children .80

attacks children physically .68

threatens teachers .72

insists on own ideas .77

destroys property of otherchildren .59

derogates teacher .76

seeks recognition fromchildren .53

submits to children whenchallenged -073

avoids rough activities -.57

follows teacher's direc-tions without resistance -.54

seeks to be near teacher -.23

asks teacher for specialprivileges .43

II. Dependency seeks recognition fromchildren .41

avoids rough activities .20

seeks to be near teacher .90

288

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXIl. (Continued) IDENTIFICATION OFTHE EMMERICH (1966) FACTORS


II. Dependency(Continued)

seeks physical contactwith teacher .88

III. Autonomy

seeks recognition fromteacher .87

seeks attention fromteacher .77

asks teacher for specialprivileges .64

asks teacher to do whatteacher asks child to do .84

seeks help from teacher .66

overcomes obstacles by him-self -.21

attacks children physically -.44

destroys property of otherchildren -.55

follows teacher's directionswithout resistance .38

asks teacher for specialprivileges -.21

seeks help from teacher -.35

completes activities .88

gets intrinsic satisfactionfrom work .87

overcomes obstacles by him-self .76

289

APPENDIX A

TABLE XIII. RESULTS OF THE PETERSON(1961) STUDY ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

Conduct Problem Personality Problem

Variable/Grade K 1-2 3-4 5-6 K 1-2 3-4 5-6

Disobedience 74 77 69 86

Disruptiveness 73 67 66 76

Boisterousness 68 63 67 68

Fighting 54 73 61 77

Attention-Seeking 54 67 63 76

Restlessness 64 58 62 71

Negativism 56 64 60 70 27

Impertinence 57 57 53 76

Destructiveness 59 65 51 65 27

Irritability 53 59 57 69

Temper Tantrums 54 37 49 64

Hyperactivity 51 49 54 49

Profanity 30 42 64 60

Jealousy 50 41 56

Uncooperative-ness 67 67 53 71 31 38

Distractibility 56 57 61 72 29 42 32

Irresponsibility 60 65 49 65 47

Inattentiveness 54 61 36 69 39 30 57 28

Laziness inSchool 44 59 36 37 29 36 55 31

290APPENDIX A

TABLE XIII. (Continued) RESULTS OF THE PETERSON(1961) STUDY ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS


Variable/Grade K 1-2 3-4 5-6 K 1-2 3-4 5-6

Shortness ofAttention Span 48 54 31 60 37 34 55 29

Dislike forSchool 38 40 32 41 26 54

Nervousness 25 46 50 40 44 26

Thumb-Sucking 29 36 28

Feelings of56 66 62Inferiority 25 59

Lack of Self-Confidence 26 60 61 60 58

Social With-drawal 50 64 61 60

Proneness to be-come Flustered 28 54 59 60 58

Self-Conscious-ness 55 60 47 63

Shyness 62 57 50 51

Anxiety 50 57 55 47

Lethargy 31 52 47 61 43

Inability toHave Fun 49 48 53 48

Depression 29 47 43 64 41

Reticence 45 43 64 41

Hypersensitivity 26 30 40 53 54 46

Drowsiness 29 39 48 45 41

291

APPENDIX A

TABLE XIII. (Continued) RESULTS OF THE PETERSON(1961) STUDY ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS


Variable/Grade k 1-2 3-4 5-6 k 1-2 3-4 5-6

Aloofness 51 32 50 31

Preoccupation 37 47 57 64 41

Lack of interestin Environment 30 51 40 44 67 28

Clumsiness 36 43 54 34 36

Daydreaming 26 49 53 46 69 47

Tension 31 39 39 41 62 27 41

Suggestibility 29 31 52 41 42 48 30

Crying 59 27 48 32

Preference forYounger Play-mates 28 45 37 32

Specific Fears 47

Stuttering 27 35 29

Headaches 46 27

Nausea 38 37

Truancy fromSchool 27 39 37

Stomach-aches 30 38 29

Preference forOlder Playmates 26 38

Masturbation 26 40

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXIV. ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF COMMONVARIABLES FROM STUDIES BY QUAY AND HIS ASSOCIATES

Factors

Emotionally8th Grade Disturbed Pre-Students Adolescent Preadolescent adolescents (Quay,

(Quay and Quay Delinquents Delinquents et al.,1965) (Quay, 1964) (Quay, 1966) 1966)

Variable P C I P C I P C I P C I

Restless 70 46 44 58

Attention Seeking 61 70 49 64

Inability to Have Fun 60

Self-Conscious 54 48 59 60

Disruptive 70 77 67

Feelings of Inferiority 57 47 65 64

Boisterousness 60 71 69 63

Preoccupation 62 60 48 51

Shyness 38 -42 54 59 42 -40

Withdrawal 67 41 40 N'-0N

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXIV. (Continued) ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF COMMONVARIABLES FROM STUDIES BY QUAY AND HIS ASSOCIATES

Factors

8th Grade EmotionallyStudents Adolescent Preadolescent Disturbed Pre-

(Quay and Quay Delinquents Delinquents adolescents (Quay,1965) (Quay, 1964) (Quay, 1966) et al., 1966)

Variable P C I P C I P C I P C I

Short Attention Span 44 56 59 55

Lack of Confidence 63 66 57 57

Inattentive 46 58 64 50 52 42 46

Easily Flustered 34 55 46 60 52

Lack of Interest 48 49 49 47 57

Reticence 44

Laziness in School 59 55 66 52

Irresponsibility 51 75 53

Daydreaming 57 41 50 46

Disobedience 62 74 64 69I'V'-0VJ

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXIV. (Continued) ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF COMMONVARIABLES FROM STUDIES BY QUAY AND HIS ASSOCIATES

Factors

8th GradeStudents

(Quay and Quay1965)

AdolescentDelinquents(Quay, 1964)

PreadolescentDelinquents(Quay, 1966)

EmotionallyDisturbed Pre

adolescents (Quay,et alo, 1966)

Variable

Uncooperativeness

Passive, Suggestible

P C I P C

74

47

I P C

59

I P C

65

I

Hyperactivity

Distractibility

54

59

53

62

60 59

46 53

Impertinence

Lethargy

Nervous, Jittery

62

42

62

43 40

57

58

68

45

Notea P stands for "Personality Problem," C for "Conduct Problem," and I for"Inadequacy-Immaturity."

N'!)-t:="

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXV. ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF THEDIELMAN, ET AL. (1970c) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS STUDY

FactorVariable Identification 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8

Easily fatigued -.03 -.07 .44 -.04 .14 -.1.5 -.19 -.0.5

Absence due to illness -.18 .09 .04 -.08 -.02 -.11 -.10 -.20

Unexplained absence -.19 .26 .09 -.28 .09 .1.5 -.36 -.22

Nervousness, jitteriness .48 .14 .18 -.19 -.04 -.08 -.14 -.17

Nervous habits (e.g. pencilchewing, nail biting, hairtwisting) .35 .02 .33 .00 -.06 -.11 -.10 -.11

Thumb sucking .41 .08 -.06 .07 .24 -.01 -.13 -.29

Extreme excitability .80 -.08 .05 -.01 .08 -.03 .12 -.06

Hyperactivity .89 -.07 .06 -.14 .05 .10 .11 .1.5

Showing off •.53 .12 D07 -.06 -.08 .09 -.12 .20

Stealing -.05 .27 .20 .20 -.16 .3.5 -.06 -.01

Bragging .26 .19 .09 .17 -.13 -.08 -.05 .26

Over talkativeness •.51 .01 .04 -.04 -.22 -.11 .04 .1.5('\)\,()

'"

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXV. (Continued) ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF THEDIELMAN, ET AL. (1970c) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS STUDY

FactorVariable Identification 1 2 :3 4 5 6 7 8

Excessively loud or high-.06 .06pitched voice .70 -.02 -.05 .00 -.03 .04

Fighting .58 .11 -.00 -.13 .09 ·35 -.24 .09

Defiance .39 .40 .01 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.11 .07

Negative attitude -.03 .76 .06 .09 .17 -.05 -.18 -.00

Greediness -.24 .19 -.15 .73 .13 .25 -.03 -.01

Jealousy -.28 .20 -.03 .71 .07 -.00 -.15 .02

Suspicious attitudetoward people -.00 .0) .11 .65 .2) .18 .03 -.07

Belittling efforts ofothers .17 -.00 -.04 .58 -.01 .03 .02 .15

Lack of self-control .52 .2) -.01 .04 .15 .21 .04 -.12

Overaggressiveness .48 .10 -.06 .04 .04 .34 -.09 .14

Inability to abide by.48 .45rules and regulations ·-.08 -.14 .01 .25 -.12 .01

N'!)~

APPENDIX A


FactorVariable Identification 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Quarrelsome attitude .37 .27 -.09 .19 .06 .24 -.27 -.00

Teasing and bullying of.41 -.14others .12 -.01 .03 .18 -.08 .20

Is teased and bullied ~.16 .24 -.06others -.22 .23 .27 .18 .10

"Fringe" membership in all-.04 -.16 .41groups .05 .26 .14 -.02 -.10

Lack of acceptance by.16 .14 .16others -.03 .18 .20 .29 .13

Stuttering .01 .13 .16 -.13 -.02 -.26 ·79 .1.5

Blames others for owninadequacies .04 .11 -.06 .62 -.06 .12 -.19 -.04

Blames things for own.06 .60 -.06 .06inadequacies -.03 .12 -.15 -.02

Oddness, bizarre behavior -.00 .33 .10 -.10 .30 -.14 .40 .12

Self consciousness; easilyNembarrassed -.00 -.20 .10 .07 •.56 -.1.5 -.07 .07 '-0

"

APPENDIX A



Fixed expression; lack ofemotional reactivity -.18 ·33 .16 -.20 ·39 -.16 -.00 .20

Disruptive; tendency to.14annoy and bother others ·39 .29 -.02 -.07 .02 .22 .29

Feelings of inferiority .09 -.11 .11 .22 .46 -.17 -.18 .11

Boisterousness; rowdiness .61 -.05 .01 -.15 -.03 .18 .16 .37

Repetitive speech .17 -.09 .05 .02 -.05 .02 .51 -.11

Short attention span .03 .04 .68 .09 -.10 .16 .25 -.15

Inattentiveness to whatothers say .05 -.02 .65 .19 -.14 .09 .04 .04

Easily flustered and con-.26 .16fused .11 -.05 .38 .02 -.08 -.15

Temper tantrums -.09 -.07 .05 -.16 .29 .27 .29 -.07

Reticence, secretiveness .03 .09 .10 .05 .42 -.11 .04 .09

Hypersensitivity; feelings.26 -.14 .41easily hurt -.09 .18 .10 .07 -.20 N

'-00:>

APPENDIX A

TABLE AXV. (Continued) ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS OF THEDIEL~~N, ET AL. (1970c) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS STUDY


Laziness in school and inperformance of tasks -.10 .28 .61 -.02 -.09 .12 .0) .02

Anxiety; general fearful-.04ness .29 .02 .25 .26 -.09 .01 -.28

Irresponsibility; inde-pendability -.03 .39 .53 .02 -.08 .12 .14 -.13

Sexual misbehavior unusualfor his or her age -.14 .17 .55 -.04 -.01 .02 .11 -.11

Disobedience; difficultyin disciplinary control .07 .55 .07 .04 -.14 .14 .21 -.01

Depression; unexplainedsadness .12 .18 -.05 .0] .6] -.11 -.06 .1]

Uncooperativeness in groupsituations .17 .72 -.07 .13 .22 -.07 .11 -.03

Aloofness; social reserve -.08 .21 -.04 -.10 .60 .08 .11 .05

Doesn't know how to havefun; behaves like a "littleadult" -.14 -.01 -.15 .13 .48 .03 -.08 .08 N

'0'0

APPENDIX A



Passivity; suggestibility;-.06 .42easily led by others -.11 .12 .2) -.09 .12 .1)

Belongs to a "gang" .25 -.0) -.16 .00 .18 -.21 .10 .69

Distractability .15 .24 .57 -.02 .01 .1) .22 -.09

Destructiveness in regard.)6 .46to others' property -.03 .15 .14 -.08 .01 -.09

Keeps bad company .21 .67 -.06 .22 -.05 -.05 .02 -.19

Impertinence, sauciness .6J ·55 -.11 .12 .00 -.J1 .17 .19

steals in company with-.06 .14others .15 .59 -.J2 .JO -.12 .02

Pro£ane language .01 -.OJ .26 .1J -.10 .79 -.17 -.22

Drowsiness -.08 -.24 ·57 -.06 .11 .20 -.16 .OJ

\.oJoo

APPENDIX B

CORRELATIONS, EIGENVALUES, UNROTATED PRINCIPALAXIS MATRICES, PRIMARY FACTOR PATTERN MATRICES

AND PRIMARY FACTOR CORRELATIONSFOR THE FOUR FACTORED DATA SETS

APPENDIX BTABLE BI. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II

1

2 -.41

3 -.26 -.09

4 -.44 -.15 -.09

5 -·35 -.12 -.07 -.13

6 -.25 -.08 -.05 -.09 -.07

7 -.10 -.08 -.07 -.11 -.05 -.06

8 -.12 .02 .03 .20 -.09 .02 .03

9 .17 -.07 -.04 -.08 -.06 -.04 .10 -.19

10 .04 .02 -.05 -.15 .12 .02 -.07 -.85 -.16

11 -.04 .01 .16 .00 -.05 -.03 .07 -.15 -.03 -.13

12 .10 -.04 -.03 -.05 -.04 -.03 -.11 -.11 -.02 -.10 -.02

13 -.01 -.03 -.12 -.03 .12 -.02 .00 -.08 -.02 -.07 -.01

14 .00 -.08 .18 -.03 -.02 .02 -.09 -.11 .04 .05 .02w0I\)

APPENDIX BTABLE BI. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG

HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

15 .05 -.04 .10 -.05 -.04 -.03 -.05 -.06 .13 -.04 .18

16 .04 -.11 .08 -.06 .08 -.01 -.12 .18 .07 -.22 .06

17 -.17 .27 -.04 -.06 -.05 .17 .12 -.11 -.03 .13 -.02

18 -.09 .22 -.02 -.03 -.03 -.02 -.08 .08 -.02 -.07 -.01

19 .07 -.07 -.06 .11 -.09 -.06 .07 -.15 -.05 .20 -.04

20 -.06 -.02 -.01 .14 -.02 -.01 .06 -.06 -.01 .07 -.01

21 .02 -.04 -.02 -.04 .08 . -.02 .04 -.10 -.02 .05 -.02

22 .05 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.02 -.01 .06 .06 -.01 -.05 -.01

23 .34 .04 -.11 -.51 -.00 .09 -.12 .02 .08 -.05 -.00

24 -.01 .09 -.10 .05 .11 -.15 .05 .06 -.04 -.06 -.00

25 .18 .08 .01 -.16 -.21 -.00 -.11 -.10 .12 .02 .03

26 -.14 -.06 -.06 .11 .31 -.09 .07 .02 -.02 .02 -.04

27 -.11 -.04 -.14 -.03 .49 -.13 .03 -.04 .01 .07 -.06

28 .02 .07 -.22 -.28 .49 -.14 -.00 -.03 .05 .06 -.11VJ

29 .04 .15 .14 -.11 -.10 -.15 .01 .07 -.09 -.02 .09 0VJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE BI. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONGHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY'VARIABLES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

.30 .20 -.08 -.05 -.09 -.07 -.05 -.06 -.02 -.04 -.04 -.0.3

31 -.02 -.10 -.08 -.05 .11 .21 -.01 .01 .22 -.06 -.05

32 -.18 -.05 -.07 .29 .05 .03 .05 -.12 -.06 .1.3 -.05

wo+:-

APPENDIX B

TABLE BI. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONGHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLES

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 -.01

14 .15 -.01

15 -.01 -.01 .03

16 -.05 .03 -.06 .04

17 -.02 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.42

18 -.01 -.01 -.00 -.01 -.22 -.01

19 -.03 -.02 .06 -.03 -.76 -.04 -.02

20 -.01 -.00 -.00 -.01 -.16 -.01 -.00 -.02

21 .28 -.01 .04 -.01 -.27 -.02 -.01 -.03 -.01

22 -.01 -.00 -.00 -.01 -.16 -.01 -.00 -.02 -.00 -.01

23 .05 -.08 .14 .05 .20 -.19 .03 -.10 -.14 .04 -.14

24 .. 12 -.07 .08 .03 -.01 -.00 -.00 .01 -.00 -.00 -.00

25 009 -.02 .06 -.03 -.02 -.01 -.10 .09 .05 -.06 -.07

26 -007 .03 -.06 .03 .04 -.11 .06 -.01 -.07 .05 .02 \..>0V\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BI. (C-ontinued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONGHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLES

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

27 -.05 .02 .13 .03 -.01 -.16 .00 .10 -.10 .05 .01

28 -.06 -.03 -.10 .01 .02 -.13 -.03 .10 -.09 -.05 .01

29 -.20 -.05 -.01 -.07 .49 -.01 -.14 -.45 -.10 -.17 -.10

30 .37 -.02 .15 -.03 -.15 -.03 0.02 .23 -.01 -.02 -.01

31 -.04 -.03 -.02 .15 -.23 -.05 -.03 .35 -.02 -.03 -.02

32 .06 .11 -.08 -.04 -.37 .10 .25 .13 .18 .31 .18

\.JJo0'.

APPENDIX B

TABLE BI. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONGHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY VARIABLES

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

24 .28

25 .- .04 -.01

26 .05 .16 -.68

27 .20 .39 -.46 .77

28 .35 .42 -.10 .32 .70

29 .15 -.12 -.02 -.05 -.16 -.12

30 .09 .27 .15 -.08 .05 .19 -.39

31 .11 .05 .17 -.12 -.06 .23 -.60 -.08

32 -.41 -.18 -.24 .25 .12 -.22 -.55 -.07 -.11

Iv.>o--J

APPENDIX B

TABLE Blla. CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 5J)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1

2 .J6

J .05 -.00

4 -.02 .13 -.08

5 -.22 -.16 -.04 .09

6 -.15 -.01 -.10 .08 -.28

7 .19 .07 -.10 -.04 -.21 -.43

8 .16 .06 .18 -.08 -.15 -·30 -.24

9 -.10 .06 .09 -.11 -.06 .04 -.06 .08

10 .13 -.13 .12 .13 -.02 -.03 -.04 .14 -.20

11 .00 .11 -.07 -.07 -.07 .02 .16 -.08 -.10 -.08

12 -.16 -.10 -.06 -.05 .25 -.01 -.09 -.06 -.07 -.06 -.oJ

13 .01 .04 .07 .10 .13 .05 .00 -.03 -.44 -·37 -.18

u0OJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE Blla. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 53)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 :3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

14 .11 .14 -.01 -.06 .00 .01 .00 -.09 -.00 .11 .05

15 .07 -.02 -.09 -.05 .01 -.02 .01 .06 -.11 -.01 -.07

16 .09 .11 .10 -.03 .02 .05 -.12 .11 -.11 -.01 -.09

17 -.10 -.11 .07 .07 -.05 .05 .11 -.14 .26 -.09 -.02

18 -.22 -.06 -.14 .01 .10 -.56 .00 -.01 -.12 -.01 .12

19 .01 -.01 -.01 .02 -.13 -.02 .01 .13 .07 -.15 .18

20 .17 -.11 .10 -.06 -.07 -.13 .20 .05 -.09 .18 -.04

21 .09 .07 -.07 -.08 -.08 .07 -.04 .12 -.01 -.09 .15

22 .00 .02 -.25 .18 .17 .02 -.02 -.08 .01 -.08 -.04

23 .06 -.01 -.01 -.04 -.04 -.03 -.07 .15 -.09 .01 .07

24 -.01 .10 .08 .05 -.07 -.06 .07 .03 .01 -.08 -.04

25 .00 .10 .07 -.05 .10 -.01 -.09 .08 .19 -.06 -.03

26 -.05 -.09 -.15 .18 -.01 .11 .02 -.04 -.09 .12 -.10

V..>0'-0

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIIa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 53)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

27 -.02 .13 .18 -.05 -.0) .02 -.0) .0) .10 -.05 -.05

28 -.01 -.22 .16 -.02 .22 .00 -.11 .0) -.01 -.05 .08

29 .01 .20 .22 -.08 .01 -.15 .06 .11 .13 .01 -.04

)0 -.06 -.04 -.22 -.09 .05 .05 .07 -.09 -.03 -.18 -.05

31 .00 .07 .02 .0) -.05 .00 -.09 .07 .08 .14 -.07

)2 .02 -.05 .12 -.04 -.04 -.0) -.07 .08 .10 .08 -.07

)) .04 -.05 .16 -.07 .17 -.06 -.02 -.08 .20 -.08 -.04

34 .14 .22 -.14 .22 -.07 .05 .10 -.07 -.09 .05 -.04

35' .00 .12 .06 .03 -.04 .01 -.02 -.02 -.12 .09 -.01

36 .10 .22 .21 .01 -.03 -.25 .12 .03 -.05 .05 .05

37 .11 .20 .13 .07 .06 -.16 .07 -.04 .09 -.04 .04

38 .03 -.16 -.21 -.14 -.05 .36 -.12 -.18 -.03 .05 .12

39 -.05 .22 .01 .02 -.05 -.20 .08 .17 -.00 .02 -.11

VJI-'0

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIIa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 53)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

40 .08 -.08 .05 -.03 -.12 -.1) .00 .17 .05 .17 -.06

41 -.16 -.04 .00 -.06 .07 .15 -.10 -.07 -.09 -.07 -.04

42 -.02 -.01 .08 .01 .00 .01 -.07 -.01 .12 -.01 -.05

4) -.17 -.2) -.00 .06 .03 -.05 .10 -.05 .06 -.05 .01

44 .20 .24 .04 -.13 -.05 .04 -.09 .04 -.02 .08 -.07

45 -.07 -.00 -.09 .08 .07 .05 .00 -.07 -.09 -.07 .20

46 .18 -.04 .04 -.20 -.03 -.05 .01 .04 .04 -.09 -.19

47 -.18 .04 -.11 .12 .05 .12 -.08 -.05 -.09 .09 .26

48 .03 .02 .1) .07 -.01 -.06 .08 -.04 .09 .0) -.08

49 .01 -.02 -.12 .17 .11 -.11 .1) -.20 .12 -.10 .20

50 -.07 .05 .07 -.10 .27 -.01 -.16 -.03 .10 -.03 -.05

.51 -.04 -.17 .07 -.11 .07 .02 .00 -.0) -.08 .09 .11

.52 .11 .06 .07 -.06 -.07 -.04 .•00 .0.5 .03 .05 .20

.5) .0) .18 -.03 .08 -.14 -.04 .12 -.0) .80 -.16 -.22 \..oJI-'I-'

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

12 13 14 1.5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 -.14

14 -.06 -.11

15 .11 .10 -.13

16 -.07 .20 -.17 -.16

17 .03 -.21 -.21 -.21 -.26

18 .17 .02 -.09 -.09 -.11 -.1.5

19 -.0.5 .01 -.1) -.13 -.16 -.21 -.09

20 -.03 .02 .07 .22 .04 -.10 -.04 -.06

21 co.O) .02 -.08 .04 .00 -.04 -.06 .27 -.04

22 -.03 .14 -.07 .0.5 -.09 -.02 .12 .0.5 -.04 -.04

23 .12 -.0.5 -.04 .04 -.08 -.07 .02 .28 -.06 -.07 -.07

24 -.03 -.10 -.07 -.07 -.09 .25 -.05 -.07 -~04 -.04 -.04

25 -.02 -.04 .10 -.05 -.07 .1.5 -.04 -.0.5 -.0) -.0) -.0)\.l.)

I-'N

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 -.08 .16 .n.07 .22 -.22 -.07 -.05 .00 .02 -.11 .10

27 -.06 .02 .02 -.05 .17 -.03 .04 -.00 -.01 -.02 .02

28 .32 -.06 -.03 .06 -.06 .08 .04 .06 .11 .07 -.06

29 -.14 -.01 .04 -.09 .09 -.12 -.01 .16 .11 .17 -.01

30 .12 .18 -.05 .07 .14 -.16 .04 .02 -.02 .01 .04

31 -.05 -.12 .17 -.05 -.02 -.09 .02 .03 -.06 -.08 -.07

32 -.05 -.10 -.12 .04 .06 -.07 .02 .04 -.06 -.07 -.07

33 -.03 -.02 -.07 -.07 -.09 .16 -.05 .05 -.04 .15 .17

34 -.03 .02 .07 -.06 -.08 .20 -.04 -.06 -.03 .17 -.04

35 .04 .05 .02 .03 .00 .02 .01 -.08 .12 -.12 .08

)6 -.0) -.00 -.0) .09 -.07 -.05 -.08 .09 .1) .08 -.01

37 -.06 .04 -.08 -.07 .12 -.02 -.01 .14 -.07 .13 .15

38 -.10 -.02 .10 .02 -.04 -.16 .10 -.14 -.12 .09 .04\.JJ

.15 -.02 .01 .08 -.02 -.08 .08 -.04 .31 -.04I-'

39 -.02 \.JJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIIa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR =53)

CORRELATION ~~TRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

40 -.05 -.1) -.12 .05 -.07 .18 -.08 .14 -.06 -.07 -.06

41 -.03 .19 .07 -.06 .16 .00 -.04 -.06 -.03 -.04 -.04

42 -.04 -.04 .00 -.09 .06 -.15 -.06 .11 -.04 -.06 -.05

43 .13 -.09 -.02 .01 .01 .10 .02 -.08 -.03 -.04 -.07

44 -.12 .07 .04 .02 .03 -.13 -.00 .06 .04 .05 .01

45 -.03 .02 -.07 -.06 -.08 .10 -.04 .08 -.03 -.04 .20

46 .06 .07 .06 -.01 .06 -.13 .01 .14 .01 .08 -.0)

47 -.01 -.04 -.05 -.03 .04 .08 .07 -.03 -.04 -.02 .09

48 -.06 -.05 -.01 .07 -.12 .28 -.10 -.14 .06 -.09 -.08

49 .14 -.09 -.05 -.05 .02 .05 -.01 .13 -.01 -~05 .15

50 .16 -.07 .08 -.10 .04 .05 .06 -.10 -.05 .09 .10

51 -.07 .00 -.05 .02 .00 .00 .13 -.05 .03 -.10 .11

52 -.03 -.07 .07 -.06 -.08 .00 -.04 -.06 -.oJ -.04 -.04w

.04 -.06f-J

53 -.07 .13 -.05 .08 .03 .02 -.09 .03 .07 +:-

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION ~~TRIX

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

24 -.07

25 -.05 -.03

26 -.10 -.10 -.08

27 .00 .10 .04 -.53

28 -.01 -.06 .14 -.15 -.33

29 -.05 -.08 -.01 -.05 .08 .01

30 -.11 -.05 .01 .08 -.13 -.02 -.16

31 .0.5 -.07 -.05 -.17 .07 ~.01 .21 ··.23

32 .15 -.07 -.05 .16 -.05 -.01 -.13 -.22 -.11

33 -.07 .17 .24 .00 .02 .08 .34 -.13 -.07 -.07

34 -.06 -.04 -.03 .02 .08 -.05 -.13 -.12 -.06 -.06 -.04

35 .06 -.01 .04 -.04 .14 -.10 -.03 -.36 -.19 -.18 -.11

36 .03 .20 -.05 .01 -.04 .05 .31 -.13 .06 -.13 .13'vJ

.36I-'

37 -.06 .04 -.06 -.03 .15 -.04 -.12 .08 .02 .15 \..r\

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION ~~TRIX

2) 24 25 26 27 28 29 )0 )1 )2 ))

)8 -.06 -.1) .01 .12 -.0) -.02 -.17 -.06 -.02 -.00 -.05

)9 -.01 .07 .0) -.01 .0) -.04 -.0) .19 -.08 -.01 -.11

40 .07 .08 -.05 -.02 .03 .00 -.11 -.16 .06 .25 .08

41 -.06 -.04 -.0) -.09 .08 -.05 -.11 .17 -.06 -.06 -.04

42 .1) -.05 -.04 -.05 .11 .04 .12 .04 .02 .13 -.05

43 .02 .01 .03 -.08 -.01 .09 .07 -.10 .04 -.08 .01

44 .00 -.07 -.01 .05 .0) -.07 -.05 .12 -.02 .11 .01

45 -.06 .20 -.03 .02 -.01 -.05 -.07 -.02 -.06 -.06 -.04

46 -.06 -.19 -.15 .02 .00 .10 .10 .11 -.03 .09 -.03

47 .11 -.15 .09 .01 .02 -.06 -.05 -.11 .09 .01 .01

48 -.06 .38 .09 -.09 .01 -.04 -.07 .02 -.07 -.13 .04

49 .0) -.03 -.09 .01 .05 -.06 .01 .01 -.13 .03 -.03

50 -.09 -.05 -.04 .02 .01 .14 -.02 .08 -.09 .01 .10\....)

I-J

'"

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

23 24 2,5 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

51 -.02 .01 .06 .06 -.08 .07 .08 -.06 .03 -.16 .11

,52 .09 .43 -.03 .02 -.01 -.05 -.08 -.02 -.06 .09 .20

53 .04 -.06 .03 -.13 .13 -.12 -.01 .03 .01 .04 -.14

v.>I--'

-.,J

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

3.5 -.10

36 -.11 .07

37 -.07 .10 .40

38 .07 -.01 -.35 -.27

39 .00 .03 .22 -.22 -.38

40 -.06 .08 -.16 -.13 -.21 -.18

41 -.03 .01 -.13 -.07 -.11 -.10 -.06

42 -.04 .01 .14 .27 -.17 .00 .03 .14

43 -.03 .20 -.01 -.07 -.13 -.10 .11 .06 .02

44 .04 -.20 .00 .0,5 .18 .10 -.08 -.0,5 -.00 -.92

4.5 -.03 .01 .0.5 .06 -.12 .00 -.06 -.03 -.04 -.21 -.14

46 .01 -.0.5 -.0.5 .06 -.08 .10 .07 .01 .14 -.02 .10

47 -.04 .03 -.09 -.08 .20 -.11 -.08 -.04 -.13 .01 -.02\....)

I-'co

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

48 .06 .05 .20 .04 -.12 -.02 .03 .06 -.01 .02 -.08

49 .10 .05 -.02 .01 -.05 -.02 -.01 -.01 -.01 .07 -.07

50 .13 -.07 -.04 .16 -.05 .06 -.09 .13 .06 -.08 .10

51 .03 .03 .18 -.02 .07 .01 -.15 .03 -.12 -.04 -.00

52 -.03 .01 -.OJ -.07 .07 .00 .10 -.OJ -.04 -.OJ .04

5J -.02 .01 -.04 -.05 .00 .00 .12 -.11 .10 .11 -.06

'u.>f-l'-0

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

46 -.17

47 .05 -.73

48 .19 -.38 -.31

49 .02 -.02 -.04 .11

50 -.05 .22 -.21 -.02 .11

51 .15 -.21 .17 .10 -.04 -.13

52 -.03 -.16 .05 .19 .10 -.05 -.08

53 -.11 .02 .05 -.09 -.01 -.30 -.53 -.20

~

No

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIIb. CHILD REARING PRACTICESMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 29)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1

2 .49

3 -.08 -.03

4 .03 .14 -.16

5 .02 -.06 -.10 -.09

6 -.02 .06 -.11 -.10 -.06

7 -.17 -.14 -.12 -.11 -.07 -.08

8 -.03 .02 .22 -.06 -.04 -.04 .15

9 -.01 .06 .27 .10 -.08 .10 .09 -.05

10 -.00 -.08 -.07 -.07 .16 -.05 .12 -.03 -.06

11 .07 .05 .13 .13 .06 .11 .16 -.07 -.16 -.08

12 -.10 -.15 .03 .26 .16 .03 -.06 -.07 -.16 -.08 -.22

1; -.07 .04 .11 .14 -.05 .09 -.06 .21 .16 -.04 -.10\..J.)

Nf-I

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIIb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 29)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11

14 -.11 -.09 .04 .02 .26 .12 .10 -.07 .18 .28 -.21

15 -.02 -.05 .17 -.07 -.04 -.05 .12 -.03 .23 -.03 .03

16 .06 -.06 .18 .02 -.06 -.06 .06 -.04 .25 .16 -.11

17 .13 .09 .14 .17 -.0.5 .10 -.06 .24 .06 -.04 -.09

18 .06 .23 .05 .18 -.06 .0.5 -.08 -.04 .)0 -.05 -.1)

19 -.08 -.13 -.02 .16 .02 -.00 .08 .11 .03 -.06 -.17

20 -.03 -.12 .27 -.13 -.08 -.09 -.01 .11 .12 -.06 -.16

21 .12 .12 .0) -.07 -.05 -.05 .09 .24 .06 -.04 -.09

22 -.01 .04 .07 .19 .04 .11 -.09 -.05 .30 -.06 -.16

23 -.03 -.04 .06 .41 -.04 -.04 -.04 -.02 -.05 -.03 -.07

24 .11 .09 .30 .06 .18 .06 -.10 .03 .09 .11 .10

25 -.09 -.0.5 -.03 .08 -.06 .17 .04 -.04 .20 .13 -.13

26 -.07 .01 -.03 .1.5 .02 .18 .16 -.06 .10 .07 .13\..oJf\)N

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

27 -.12 -.26 .21 .03 .04 -.09 .19 .29 -.03 -.06 .11

28 .01 .12 .08 .10 -.04 -.04 .15 -.02 -.05 -.03 .32

29 .05 .14 -.02 .00 -.07 -.07 -.09 -.02 .09 -.07 .01

'vJN'vJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE Bllb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 29)

CORRELATION MATRIX

12 I) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 .19

14 .28 -.10

15 .04 -.04 -.08

16 .16 -.05 -.11 -.04

17 .12 -.04 -.09 -.04 -.05

18 .0) .2) -.04 -.05 -.06 .10

19 .21 .27 -.10 -.06 .13 .05 -.10

20 .04 .04 -.15 .2) .25 .06 -.09 -.12

21 -.09 -.04 -.09 -.04 .1) -.04 .26 .18 -.07

22 .18 .42 -.01 -.06 -.08 .33 .52 .36 -.11 -.07

23 .20 .21 -.07 -.03 -.04 -.0) -.04 .4) -.05 -.0) -.0,5

24 .11 -.04 .22 .21 .02 .17 .13 .02 .09 .17 .05

2,5 .27 .09 .28 -.05 .07 .10 .05 .09 -.09 -.0,5 .21\...VN-t="

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 .01 .03 .15 -.07 ,,22 -.07 -.10 .16 -.05 -.07 -.04

27 .25 .17 -.08 -.06 .04 .07 .01 .12 .13 .07 .06

28 -.07 -.0) -.07 -.0) -.04 -.0) -.04 -.05 -.05 -.03 -.05

29 -.14 .01 -.20 -.02 .01 .07 -.09 .01 -.09 -.05 -.04

\JJN\..n

APPENDIX B


CORRELATION MATRIX

23 24 25 26 - . 27 28 29

24 003

25 -.04 -.15

26 010 -.21 -.10

27 .12 -.19 -.09 -.12

28 -002 -.09 -.04 -.06 -.05

29 .01 -.14 -.05 ,-.13 .00 -.05

'--'>l\)

0'.

APPENDIX B

TABLE Bllc. CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)

CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1

2 .54

3 .07 -.08

4 .00 -.00 -.17

5 -.11 -.03 -.07 -.08

6 .06 -.04 -.07 -.08 -.03

7 -.10 -.04 -.13 -.16 -.06 -.06

8 -.09 -.07 .25 .30 -.06 -.06 .03

9 .01 -.05 .10 .20 -.07 .17 .25 -.15

10 .05 -.04 .07 .16 .38 -.08 .09 -.16 -.19

11 .10 -.00 .49 -.03 .14 -.04 -.09 .32 -.11 .05

12 -.10 -.12 -.0) .25 .)0 .17 .05 .20 -.18 .42 -.11

1) .00 -.06 .08 .27 -.05 -.05 -.00 .)0 -.11 .0) -.07\...oJ

14 .04 .22 -.06 .38 -.04N

.13 .09 -.07 -.03 -.03 -.07 --..J

APPENDIX B

TABLE Bllc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)

CORRELATION r~TRIX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

15 009 .13 .12 -.02 -.04 -.04 -.08 -.08 -.10 .07 .08

16 003 -.00 .19 .18 -.06 -.06 .04 .22 -.07 .12 .24

17 -.04 -.07 -.00 .06 -.07 -.07 .15 .16 -.16 .12 -.10

18 -.07 -.14 .24 .37 .12 .01 .09 .46 .17 .04 .32

19 (\01 .09 .03 .05 .09 -.06 .20 .05 .07 .12 .13

20 .02 .02 -.09 -.02 -.04 .35 .02 -.08 .09 -.02 -.06

21 -.02 -.07 .29 -.01 -.06 .10 .14 -.02 .23 .20 -.08

22 -.02 -.13 .24 .15 -.07 ·31 .06 .07 .25 .10 -.01

23 .15 .06 .20 .10 .15 .04 .15 .01 .14 .26 .22

24 -.04 -.06 -.12 .13 -.06 -.06 .30 .06 .09 .13 .03

25 .22 .30 -.11 .01 .06 -.04 .04 -.02 -.07 .01 .01

26 .10 .20 .02 .05 .06 -.16 -.09 .02 -.05 .03 -.03

27 .10 .24 .06 .07 .06 -.21 -.13 -.03 .01 .02 -.05\...VNex>

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIlc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)

CORRELATION MATRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 -.11

14 -.07 -.05

15 -.10 .07 -.04

16 .00 .11 .09 -.08

17 ;-.16 .43 .20 -.09 -.13

18 .22 .21 .01 .03 .06 .06

19 .00 .11 .09 -.08 .23 .10 -.18

20 .09 -.06 -.04 .09 -.08 .01 -.13 -.08

21 .09 -.09 .10 .04 -.02 .04 -.17 -.10 -.07

22 .19 .15 .05 .00 .01 -.03 .19 -.14 .19 .32

23 .20 -.05 -.08 .07 .04 .00 .18 .25 -.02 .13 -.19

24 .01 .12 .10 -.07 .16 .19 .14 .16 .04 -.10 -.13

25 -.08 -.05 .10 .05 -.14 .24 -.04 -.03 .07 -.08 -.12

\....Jf\)'!)

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIlc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)

CORRELATION MATRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

26 -.07 .00 .06 -.10 -.01 .19 .01 -.12 .05 -.07 -.03

27 -.12 .03 .00 -.09 -.04 .17 .08 -.11 -.07 -.07 -.11

'-'"'-'"o

APPENDIX B

TABLE Bllc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)

CORRELATION MATRIX

2) 24 2.5 26 27

24 -.15

25 -.03 .02

26 -.06 .01 .64

27 -.0.5 .07 .46 .79

VJ'vJI-'

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIll. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE TEACHER RATINGVARIABLES RESCALED TO T-SCORES (NVAR = 20)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1

2 -·31

3 -.08 .14

4 ·57 -.34 -.05

5 -.07 .42 -.21 -.06

6 .13 -.03 -·50 ·30 .34

7 .00 .39 .40 -.11 .12 -.23

8 -.05 .45 -.01 -.27 ·55 .13 ·37

9 -.05 .18 .12 -.14 .27 .09 .43 .29

10 .19 -.15 -.13 .35 .16 .46 -.14 .03 -.09

11 ·57 -.20 -.04 .64 -.15 .24 -.10 -.22 -.11 .27

12 -.07 .52 .12 -.25 .34 -.04 .49 .23 .30 .03 -.04

13 -.09 -.05 -.36 -.04 .24 .36 -.22 .06 .02 .13 .01 -.02

14 -.17 -.45 -.03 -.19 .34 .18 .27 .36 -.28 -.05 -.21 .27 \..V\..Vl\)

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIll. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE TEACHER RATINGVARIABLES RESCALED TO T-SCORES (NVAR = 20)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

15 .18 -.13 .10 .38 -.27 -.15 .11 -.25 -.02 -.08 .28 .01

16 -.04 .16 .48 -.20 -.29 -.62 .42 -.01 .13 -.31 -.11 .16

17 .40 -.55 -.36 .50 -.16 .35 -.46 -.29 -.28 .45 .40 -.38

18 .40 -.39 -.08 .51 -.26 .11 -.26 -.51 -.28 .16 .42 -.20

19 -·33 .47 -.01 -.43 .39 .12 .23 .45 .18 -.08 -.38 .25

20 .27 -.19 -.18 .35 .13 .46 -.22 -.12 -.02 .68 .26 .01

VJVJVJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIII. (Continued) INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG THE TEACHER RATINGVARIABLES RESCALED TO T-SCORES (NVAR = 20)

1J 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

14 .14

15 -.OJ -.10

16 -.28 .05 .15

17 .19 -.29 .09 -.J5

18 .01 -.J6 .21 -.05 .55

19 .18 .J5 -.14 .09 -.J4 -.42

20 015 .07 .06 -.J4 .57 .J1 -.10

\...U\...U.{:""

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIV. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS (NVAR = 29)CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1

2 .04

3 -.06 .11

4 .59 .06 -.14

5 .26 .14 .53 -.00

6 .23 .14 .0.3 .16 .08

7 .45 -.02 -.10 .84 .13 .15

8 .14 .20 .52 .09 .41 .02 .14

9 -.12 .16 .39 -.25 .44 -.1.3 -.11 .36

10 .14 .0.3 •.32 -.02 .57 .31 .12 .36 .29

11 .55 .01 .05 .50 .28 .26 .50 .10 -.06 .21

12 .18 -.01 .64 .11 ·53 -.11 .16 .34 .26 .40 .29

1.3 .14 .0.3 -.10 .2.3 .00 .07 .17 -.02 -.16 -.02 .14\....J\....J\J\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIV. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS (NVAR = 29)CORRELATION MATRIX

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

14 .22 .06 .08 .28 .12 -.02 .0) .10 .09 .04 .26

1.5 .)8 .12 .)1 .32 .66 .13 .46 .28 .16 .44 •.50

16 ·.53 .06 .22 •.5) .32 .14 .48 .32 .12 .22 .61

17 •.55 .29 .00 .52 .24 .23 •.52 .13 .02 ·30 .64

18 .14 .09 .43 .00 .41 .17 .0.5 •.57 .36 .36 .10

19 .48 .1.5 .01 .48 .24 .13 •.56 .06 -.1.5 .11 .47

20 .63 .12 -.15 .75 .08 .39 .64 .01 -.21 .01 .58

21 .40 -.08 .09 .49 .13 .14 .4.5 .35 -.06 .17 .68

22 -.04 .35 .1.5 -.21 .30 .07 -.18 .02 .39 .15 .13

23 •.5.5 .19 .00 •.52 .24 .23 .4.5 .13 .24 ·30 .42

24 .04 .03 .45 -.11 .36 -.09 -.08 .30 .40 .11 .10

25 ·51 -.05 -.06 .68 .19 .05 .64 .13 -.17 .05 .51

26 .03 -.11 -.07 .39 .02 .02 .43 -.05 -.06 -.03 .08'ul'ul0'\

APPENDIX B


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

27 .11 -.15 .31 .06 .29 .04 .03 .28 .11 .25 .07

28 .48 .11 -.20 .81 .03 .28 .66 -.06 -.28 -.02 .40

29 .41 -.05 .04 .58 .08 .21 .54 .02 -.17 .05 .61

\."J\."J---J

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIV. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS (NVAR = 29)CORRELATION ~~TRIX

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 -.00

14 .11 .07

15 .50 .12 .10

16 .. 37 .08 .23 .51

17 .. 25 .14 .29 .45 .52

18 04; -.05 .0; .;7 .;2 .1;

19 .. 26 .18 ·33 .55 .41 .49 .14

20 013 .22 .30 .34 .43 .53 .01 .64

21 028 .13 .34 ·31 .46 ·37 .16 .37 ·51

22 .04 -.09 -.Ol .l7 .14 .19 .23 -.12 -.l5 -.01

23 .25 .14 .26 ·37 .52 .57 .05 .34 .53 .20 .00

24 .32 -.06 .44 .21 ·31 -.04 .17 .12 -.06 .25 .29

25 .25 .17 .03 .38 .41 .38 .02 .46 ·70 .44 -.09

26 .03 .10 .07 .34 .26 .06 .24 .35 .14 .10 -.09 VJVJco

APPENDIX B


12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

27 .31 -.00 -.01 .43 .35 .17 .37 .03 -.10 -.05 .11

28 .13 .17 .23 .33 .39 .42 .02 .54 ·75 .)2 -.15

29 .36 .14 .)) .28 .41 .47 -.08 .46 .70 .67 -.09

\.0.)\.0.)\.()

APPENDIX B


23 24 25 26 27 28 29

24 .07

2.5 .38 -.16

26 .03 -.00 .17

27 .17 .1.5 .11 .22

28 .42 -.14 .61 ·3.5 -.01

29 .38 .14 .64 .17 -.09 •.51

U>.{:"o

341

APPENDIX B

TABLE BV. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYFINAL REDUCED DATA SET (NVAR = 32)

EIGENVALUES AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGEOF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCE

Cumulative PercentageVariable Eigenvalue of Accountable Variance

1 3.28 10.26

2 3.08 19.88

3 2.69 28.30

4 2.01 34.58

5 1.76 40.08

6 1.64 45.22

7 1.44 49.73

8 1.43 54.21

9 1.36 58.46

10 1.21 62.26

11 1.14 65.82

12 1.09 69.24

13 1.02 72.41

14 1.01 75.56

15 1.00 78.68

16 .93 81 •.58

17 .84 84.21

18 .83 86.80

19 .72 89.06

20 .65 91.10

APPENDIX BTABLE BV. (Continued) HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHY

FINAL REDUCED DATA SET (NVAR = 32)EIGENVALUES AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE

OF ACCOUNTABLE VARIANCE

342


21 .58 92.92

22 .56 94.67

23 .47 96.15

24 ·39 97.38

25 .31 98.35

26 .25 99.14

27 .21 99.79

28 .06 99.98

29 .01 100.00

30 .00 100.00

31 .00 100.00

32 .00 100.00

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIa. CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR =53)


Variable Eigenvalue Cumulative Percentageof Accountable Variance

1 3.12 5.90

2 2.87 11.32

3 2.52 16.08

4 2.44 20.69

5 2·31 25.05

6 2.24 29.27

7 2.22 33.46

8 2.03 37.30

9 1.81 40.72

10 1.78 44.07

11 1.72 47.32

12 1.63 50.39

13 1.50 53.22

14 1.45 55.96

15 1.34 58.49

16 1.33 61.00

17 1.28 63.41

18 1.25 65.75

19 1.20 68.02

20 1.14 70.18

344

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 53)


Variable

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Cumulative PercentageEigenvalue of Accountable Variance

1.07 72.20

1.03 74.14

1.00 76.03

.94 77.79

.92 79.53

.88 81.20

.84 82.78

.75 84.20

.68 85.49

.67 86.76

.63 87.94

.58 89.04

.57 90.12

.56 91.18

.51 92.14

.47 93.03

.47 93.91

.45 94.75

841 95.52

.37 96021

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESGENERAL ANALYSIS (NVAR = 53)


Variable Eigenvalue Cumulative Percentageof Accountable Variance

41 .34 96.85

42 .J2 97.46

43 .27 97.98

44 .22 98.39

45 .19 98.74

46 .16 99.05

47 014 99.30

48 .12 99.53

49 .11 99.73

50 .06 99.85

51 .05 99.95

52 .02 99.99

53 .00 100.00

346

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIb. CHILD REARING PRACTICESMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR E: 29)



1 2.70 9.32

2 2.22 16.98

3 2.12 24.29

4 2.00 31.19

5 1.60 36.72

6 1.56 42.12

7 1.51 47.32

8 1.47 52.39

9 1.25 56.69

10 1.18 60.74

11 1.10 64.53

12 1.08 68.25

13 .98 71.64

14 .96 74.95

15 .93 78.15

16 .92 81.31

17 .83 84.16

18 .68 86.50

19 .66 88e77

20 063 90.95

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 29)



21 .56 92.89

22 .47 94.52

2) .42 95.97

24 .37 97.25

25 ·31 98.33

26 .15 98.84

27 .13 99.28

28 .12 99.69

29 .09 100.00

348

APPENDIX B

TABLE EVIc. CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)



1 2.81 10.40

2 2.60 20.05

3 2.00 27.46

4 1.98 34.78

5 1.92 41.88

6 1.75 48.35

7 1.50 53.89

8 1.44 59.23

9 1.25 63.87

10 1.20 68.33

11 1.09 72.37

12 1.00 76.06

13 .90 79.40

14 .79 82.31

15 .75 85.08

16 .64 87.46

17 .61 89.72

18 .55 91.78

19 .50 93.63

20 .38 95.02

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICESFEMALE ANALYSIS (NVAR = 27)



21 .33 96.25

22 .29 97.32

23 .21 98.10

24 .18 98.75

25 .15 99.30

26 .12 99.73

27 .07 100.00

350

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVII. TEACHER RATING T-SCORE CORRELATIONSEIGENVALUES AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE



1 5.31 26.56

2 3.34 43.28

3 2.19 54.23

4 1.11 59.80

5 1.04 64.99

6 .90 69.50

7 .80 73.51

8 .74 77.23

9 .69 80.68

10 .61 83.73

11 .57 86.56

12 .52 89.18

13 .42 91.30

14 .39 93.26

15 .33 94.93

16 .27 96.27

17 .25 97.49

18 .20 98.47

19 .17 99.34

20 .13 100.00

351

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIII. BEHAVIOR PROBLEM CHECKLISTEIGENVALUES AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE



1 8.83 30.43

2 4.72 46.72

3 2.80 56.38

4 1.69 62.21

5 1.44 67.18

6 1.34 71.79

7 1.05 75.42

8 .87 78.41

9 .77 81.06

10 ·73 83.59

11 .66 85.87

12 .65 88.10

13 .50 89.83

14 .47 91.45

15 ·39 92.79

16 .35 94.01

17 .30 95.66

18 .26 95.95

19 .21 96.68

20 .18 97.30

21 .16 97.86

APPENDIX B

TABLE BVIII. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEM CHECKLISTEIGENVALUES AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE


352


22 .15 98.36

23 .12 98.79

24 .11 99.17

25 .09 99.48

26 .08 99.75

27 .06 99.97

28 .04 100.00

29 .00 100.00

353APPENDIX B

TABLE BIX. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 .17 .08 .67 -.01 .57 -.01 -.37 -.15

2 .05 -.01 -.12 -.11 -.48 .41 .04 - .1B

3 .19 -.03 -.13 -.03 -.03 -.04 .09 .Cf)

4 -.07 -.25 -.53 .23 .09 -.07 -.04 .44

5 -.43 .31 -.11 -.12 -.14 -.17 .23 .(Q

6 .04 -.13 -.01 .04 -.17 -.17 .16 - .21.

7 -.06 -.06 -.15 .02 -.08 .05 -.15 .d+

8 .20 .23 -.32 .77 -.05 .16 -.16 - .JD

9 .02 .03 .18 .06 .03 -.21 -.02 - .00

10 -.24 -.21 .20 -.80 -.07 -.09 .01 .13

11 .11 .00 -.03 -.04 .00 -.02 .03 .05

12 -.05 -.10 .20 .10 .28 .26 .42 .(Q

13 -.04 -.01 -.06 -.03 .07 -.07 .06 - .d+

14 -.02 -.01 .13 -.03 .06 .08 .13 .11

15 -.01 -.04 .07 .03 .01 -.14 .02 - .d+

16 .49 .69 -.13 .00 .16 -.32 .30 .JD

17 -.00 -.28 -.08 -.17 -.27 .23 -.01 - .17

18 -.10 -.09 -.10 .06 -.03 .17 .01 - .25

19 -.43 -.45 .28 .11 -.10 .03 -.38 025

20 -.02 -.19 -.08 -.02 .03 .01 .03 - ·W

21 -.17 -014 .00 -.06 .19 .11 .17 - .19

354

APPENDIX B

TABLE BIX. (Continued) HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

22 -.07 -.08 -.06 .05 .08 .0) -.07 -.08

2) -.01 .48 .47 .03 -.04 .10 .00 -.27

24 -.29 .29 .17 .16 -.09 .29 .10 .20

25 .37 -.27 .45 .08 -.19 -.01 .15 .16

26 -·59 .42 -.38 -.09 .22 -.01 -.15 -.07

27 -.78 .55 -.08 -.05 .04 .02 -.05 .08

28 -.55 ·5) .30 .04 -.25 .04 -.01 .06

29 .6) .50 -.19 -.39 -.09 .17 -.27 .10

)0 -.18 -.07 .39 .21 .20 .)6 .22 .24

)1 -.30 -.17 ·35 .38 -.36 -.51 .01 -.11

32 -.42 -.49 -.42 -.07 .35 -.02 .11 -.26

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXa. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - GENERAL ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 .32 -.18 .20 -.16 .10 -.15 .09 .10 -.12 .21 .03 -.06

2 .35 -.14 .34 -.15 -.12 -.16 -.26 -.00 .11 .14 -.21 .02

3 .37 .15 .05 -.01 .08 .19 .11 -.30 -.12 -.12 .13 -.02

4 -.11 .11 .08 -.03 -.15 -.21 -.08 .10 -.16 -.15 -.37 -.04

5 -.13 .05 -.16 .42 -.16 .15 -.00 -.14 .06 -.14 -.24 .06

6 -.38 -.16 .01 -.08 .08 .15 -.25 -.06 -.17 .02 .07 -.03

'7 .16 .14 .06 -.03 -.07 -.38 .03 .29 .05 .28 .07 .06

8 .27 -.04 .03 -.17 .06 .08 .29 -.13 .10 -.19 .10 -.03

9 .19 .19 -.05 -.05 .32 .29 -.25 .11 .12 -.05 -.06 .30

10 -.02 .03 .19 -.14 .17 .05 .50 -.16 -.20 .11 -.29 -.08

11 -.17 .12 .27 .02 -.12 .13 .01 .32 ·30 .26 .17 -.27

12 -.12 .08 -.28 .23 -.01 .03 .11 -.04 .34 -.02 -.15 -.01\..tJ\J\\J\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXa. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - GENERAL ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 -.03 -.31 -.10 .12 -.44 -.28 -.19 -.14 -.28 -.23 .24 -.06

14 .01 -.08 .06 -.05 .06 .05 .03 -.12 -.00 .37 -.10 .05

15 -.03 -.09 -.05 -.00 -.06 -.21 .22 .00 -.01 -.07 .08 .11

16 .10 -.18 -.08 -.09 -.22 .07 -.11 -·33 -.05 -.01 .05 -.16

17 -.04 .44 .01 .09 .40 -.08 -.26 .07 -.06 -.07 -.06 .14

18 -.16 -.04 -.05 .12 -.14 .07 .08 -.01 .17 .05 -.09 -.05

19 .20 -.09 .02 -.08 -.14 .19 .01 .46 .16 -.20 .18 -.15

20 .16 -.02 .03 .01 -.06 -.23 .31 -.12 .02 .13 .05 .14

21 .12 -.11 .03 -.01 -.07 .14 -.11 .21 .05 .09 .16 .06

22 -.11 -.04 .07 .21 -.19 -.02 -.13 .16 -.07 -.10 -.19 .01

23 .01 .01 .02 -.19 -.04 .08 .17 .09 .20 -.17 .02 -.21

24 .14 .35 .22 .12 .24 -.23 -.15 -.07 .02 -010 .15 -.13VJ\.T\0'\

APPENDIX B


FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

25 -.02 .12 .06 .02 .08 .10 -.09 -.14 .07 -.03 .05 .29

26 -.23 -.19 .03 .19 .03 -.20 .27 .35 -.40 -.19 -.12 .14

27 .22 .06 .06 -.22 -.08 .11 -.34 -.33 .11 .07 -.07 -.18

28 -.02 .08 -.19 .24 .05 .21 .21 .02 .12 -.02 .10 .12

29 .46 .10 .09 .03 -.32 .33 .03 .07 -.15 .11 .06 .23

30 -.10 -.30 -.21 .25 -.05 -.25 -.14 -.02 .23 -.03 .20 .09

.31 .09 .05 .08 -.20 -.06 .22 .08 -.08 -.03 .09 -.08 .07

.32 .0.3 -.12 -.06 -.18 .21 .11 .15 .11 -.01 - •.30 -.12 -.14

.33 .16 .20 .13 .24 .06 .28 -.12 .09 -.13 -.09 .12 .23

34 -.05 -.05 .08 -.01 .12 -.15 -.16 .08 -.08 .21 -.21 -.02

35 .01 .20 .01 -.11 -.15 -.09 .05 -.13 -.12 .08 -.12 -.16

36 .47 .20 .26 .21 -.27 -.09 .17 .06 -.03 .00 .02 .07Iv.>\J1.--.:J

APPENDIX B


FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

37 .45 .08 .16 .15 -.30 .22 -.18 .16 -.20 -.05 -.18 -.11

38 -.52 -.29 .13 -.15 .14 .21 -.08 .04 -.17 .28 .13 .08

39 .25 -.08 -.01 .14 -.04 -.36 .22 -.18 .40 -.00 -.12 .15

40 .09 .17 -D12 -.29 .29 .01 .13 .11 -.06 -.26 .00 -.17

41 -.09 -.04 -.16 .11 -.05 .01 -.18 -.25 -.05 -.01 .09 -.19

42 .24 -.02 -.13 -.04 -.07 .13 -.06 -.00 -.01 -.12 -.08 -.13

43 -.12 .65 -.55 -.20 -.23 .01 .08 .02 -.10 .20 .04 .01

44 .16 -.70 .45 .10 .27 .06 -.05 -.08 .11 -.12 -.05 .08

45 -.09 .14 .20 .20 -.06 -.12 -.11 .10 .02 -.11 .02 -.15

46 .42 -.44 - •.59 .10 .16 .09 .04 .17 -.11 .21 .01 -.11

47 - •.52 .11 .43 -.28 -.38 .21 .06 -.0.5 .21 -.17 -.11 .16

48 DI0 .39 .20 .20 .25 -.31 -.13 -.15 -.10 -.03 .11 -.06v)\J\OJ

APPENDIX B


FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

49 -.03 .12 -.04 .10 -.02 -.07 -.14 .24 .14 .05 -.19 -.17

50 .10 -.12 -.17 .40 .15 .20 -.12 -.07 .05 .09 -.28 -.08

51 -.17 .13 .29 .33 -.13 .12 .23 -.11 -.11 .10 .18 -.01

52 -.01 .14 .24 .01 .25 -.05 .02 .02 .06 -.02 .13 -.19

53 .13 -.05 -.22 -.58 -.13 -.27 -.26 .06 .07 -.16 -.04 .32

'vJ\.J'l'0

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXo. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 .07 .45 -.16 .06 -.09 -.18 -.17 -.02 -.27

2 .01 .59 -.28 .09 -.04 -.07 -.18 -.06 -.25

3 -.16 .18 .49 -.26 -.14 .17 .04 .11 -.09

4 -.34 -.00 -.36 -.01 -.28 .12 -.20 .15 -.10

5 .01 -.11 .06 .24 -.21 -.06 .11 -.08 .01

6 -.09 .05 -.08 .18 .03 .15 .04 -.01 -.02

7 .09 -.22 .12 -.10 .03 .30 -.06 -.34 .00

8 -.09 .01 .19 -.36 -.04 -.11 .12 -.33 -.16

9 -.41 .27 .30 .06 .31 .39 -.29 .05 .10

10 .05 -.13 .12 .27 -.01 -.00 -.08 -.16 -.04

11 .40 .15 -.18 -.17 -.47 .61 .12 -.01 -.05

12 -.46 -.38 .03 .12 -.27 -.14 .07 .18 -.29VJ0'\0

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I) -.46 -.02 -.11 -.21 .0) .06 .07 .01 .05

14 -.16 -.26 .25 .68 -.10 .11 .03 -.18 -.1)

15 .02 .09 .29 -.06 -.05 .08 -.06 .18 .17

16 -.10 -.07 .27 -.11 .09 .04 -.47 .0) -.24

17 -.28 .20 .02 -.07 -.06 -.06 .15 .05 -.20

18 -.4) .40 -.07 .05 .11 .06 .1) -.1) .05

19 -.46 -.26 -.18 -.2) -.12 -.07 -.2) -.18 .19

20 .00 .00 .46 -.28 .07 -.09 -.09 .)0 -.09

21 -.08 .21 .10 -.16 -.01 -.19 -.17 -.5) .0)

22 -.75 .20 -.17 .0) .1) .17 .)0 .02 .10

2) -.27 -.25 -.29 -.18 -.)2 -.12 -.)1 .09 .16

24 -.18 .38 .45 .24 -.64 -.14 -.04 -.02 .2)VJ0'!-'

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25 -.30 -.14 -.01 .26 .18 .J.2 .05 .01 -.18

26 -.01 -.20 -.11 .08 .01 .29 -.36 -.06 -.06

27 -.17 -.27 .12 -.46 -.10 .06 .24 -.13 -.20

28 .15 .08 -.11 -.08 -.12 .25 .03 -.02 -.09

29 .07 .12 -.13 -.14 .13 -.05 -.04 .10 .01

\.....)0'.N

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXc. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 .28 -.04 -.04 -.33 .18 .23 -.38 .34 .02

2 .43 .03 -.01 -.28 .10 .18 -.41 .22 .0]

3 -.23 -.42 -.44 -.47 .21 .12 .36 .04 -.07

4 -.09 -.49 .05 .40 .08 -.13 -.46 .11 -.35

5 -.01 -.16 .31 -.21 -.05 -.22 .01 -.24 .08

6 -.23 .17 .03 .05 .36 -.11 -.10 .18 .36

7 -.12 -.05 .24 .21 .05 .50 .07 -.23 .27

8 -.18 -.54 -.31 .14 -.19 -.08 -.06 .06 .19

9 -.20 .07 -.18 .24 .61 .37 -.19 -.38 -.14

10 -.08 -.45 .79 -.29 .07 .03 .15 .08 -.16

11 -.14 -.39 -.32 -.44 -.13 .06 -.0] -.10 .18

12 -.30 -.28 .4] -.03 .12 -.4] -.14 -.07 .16\..JJ0'\

\..JJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13 -.02 -.35 -.12 .32 -.18 .10 .08 .35 -.05

14 .09 -.12 .30 .01 .03 .27 .08 .16 -.02

15 -.01 .02 -.05 -.19 .02 -.01 -.03 018 -.03

16 -.13 -.26 -.06 -.08 -.14 .15 -.10 .02 -.09

17 .23 -.28 .09 .34 -.14 .25 .31 .24 .14

18 -.21 -.58 -.21 .16 .05 -.13 -.13 -.14 .12

19 -.07 -.lJ .1J -.07 -.20 .J7 -.14 -.09 .05

20 -.01 .14 .07 .08 .25 -.08 -.06 .14 .Jl

21 -.20 -.OJ .10 -.09 .40 .15 .27 .07 -.18

22 -.J2 -.14 -.05 .16 .55 -.10 .17 .29 .03

23 -.15 -.27 .11 -.29 .06 .15 -.19 -.17 .07

24 .02 -.18 .13 .27 -.14 .26 -.04 -.10 .09VJ0\.{:"

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25 .65 -.16 .05 .00 .16 .01 -.02 -.01 .23

26 .80 -.31 -.04 .06 .25 -.16 .15 -.15 .04

27 .72 -.29 -.09 .05 .18 -.11 .10 -.20 -.13

\..oJCA\.l'\

366

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXI. TEACHER RATING T-SCORESUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 .51 .03 -.46 -.24 -.19 .02

2 -.68 -.25 -.22 -.01 .26 .36

3 -.29 .47 .... 33 .26 -.12 .06

4 .69 -.01 -.44 -.20 -.00 .05

5 -.31 -.67 -.12 -.13 -.06 .10

6 .33 -.76 -.00 -.13 .07 -.07

7 -.54 .11 -.59 .01 -.06 -.16

8 -.52 -.45 -.17 -.16 -.37 .05

9 -.36 -.17 -·30 -.05 -.06 -.38

10 .43 -.48 -.22 .42 -.14 .11

11 .58 .02 -.46 -.22 .08 .14

12 -.44 -.18 -.40 .11 .23 .06

13 .10 -.42 .21 -.11 .21 -.18

14 -.42 -.36 -.14 .00 .12 -.11

15 .21 .28 -·30 -.09 .28 -.16

16 -.37 ·55 -.26 .13 .02 -.08

17 .81 -.18 .05 .09 -.06 -.07

18 .66 .18 -.12 .02 .17 .05

19 -.55 -.35 .06 .03 .08 -.04

20 .51 -.48 -.2] .46 .06 -.09

367APPENDIX B

TABLE BXII. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS CHECKLISTUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7

1 .01 -.69 -.06 -.06 .07 .2) -.1)

2 -.00 -.78 -.02 -.10 -.16 .09 -.06

) .13 -.62 -.27 ·)5 .1) -.05 -.08

4 .01 -.72 -.25 .26 -.28 -.26 -.0)

5 -.20 -.49 -.16 -.45 .00 -.0) -.0)

6 -.16 -.49 -.07 -.06 .07 .19 .04

7 .00 -.69 -.05 .29 -.38 .24 -.09

8 .08 -.66 -.41 .26 .0) -.08 .03

9 -.3) -.51 -.)9 -.)1 .16 .01 .57

10 -.65 .04 -.04 .)0 .40 -.04 -.19

11 -.76 -.03 .12 -.00 -.00 -.17 .26

12 -.77 -.25 .21 .10 .34 -.18 .06

13 -.46 .)1 -.55 -.01 -.09 -.02 -.02

14 -.76 -.28 .29 -.0) .1) -.21 -.05

15 -.5) .22 -.50 .23 .01 .15 .02

16 -.66 -.29 .18 .05 .34 -.10 -.10

17 -.57 .08 -.42 -.)1 .15 -.01 -.32

18 -.26 .40 -.62 -.01 -.11 .08 .06

19 -.72 .12 .09 .0) -.04 .11 -.05

20 -.57 -.06 .00 .0) -.31 -.25 .18

21 -.80 .07 .20 -.05 -.21 .15 .01

368

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXII. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS CHECKLISTUNROTATED PRINCIPAL AXIS

FACTOR MATRIX

Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 -.44 .29 -.30 .03 -.03 .28 .11

23 -.70 -.10 .12 .11 .10 .21 .14

24 -.52 .24 -.30 .11 -.10 -.16 .04

25 -.78 -.09 .41 -.01 -.21 -.10 -.08

26 -.67 .17 -.33 -.20 -.18 -.18 -.27

27 -.59 .08 -.10 .23 .15 .50 -.03

28 -.73 .06 .24 -.10 -.29 .14 -.13

29 .66 -.07 .34 .08 -.21 .09 .13

369

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYHARRIS-KAISER

PRIMARY FACTOR PATTERN

Variable Factor

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7 8

1 -.02 .17 -.20 -.59 -.04 .61 -.34 .36

2 -.01 -.08 - .14 .68 .06 .18 -.01 .. 04

3 .01 -.08 -.02 .02 -.02 -.17 -.10 -.17

4 .02 -.11 .12 -.18 .19 -.79 .12 .08

5 .04 -.02 .2) .07 -.17 -.06 .56 -.26

6 -.09 .11 .)4 .16 -.01 .06 -.13 -.18

7 -.12 -.05 -.09 .06 .07 -.10 .06 .17

8 -.09 -.04 -.04 .05 .92 .02 .01 .07

9 -.08 .01 .22 -.15 -.01 .13 -.06 -.02

10 -.05 -.05 -.07 .04 -.89 -.05 .08 .07

11 .01 -.05 -.0) -.02 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.08

12 .61 .25 -.0) .01 .01 .03 -.11 -.20

13 -.01 .10 .05 -.04 -.04 -.03 .02 -.09

14 .24 -.04 -.0) -.0) -.09 -.03 -.01 -.05

15 -.03 .00 .14 -.08 -.01 .04 .01 -.05

16 .01 -.19 .04 -.)2 .07 .01 .09 -.83

17 -.07 .09 -.05 .44 -.09 .06 -.15 .12

18 -.03 .27 -.01 .24 .14 .17 -.01 .06

19 -.00 -.21 .0) -.10 -.08 -.20 .04 .81

20 .04 .04 .00 -.00 -.06 - .. 18 -.06 .02

21 .16 ·39 .01 .06 -.06 .10 -.01 -.06

370

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIII. (Continued) HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8

22 -.05 .15 -.OJ -.01 .07 .02 -.01 .10

23 .07 -.05 .06 .04 .06 .68 .11 -.05

24 .J8 -.2J -.11 .10 .13 .04 .J7 .10

25 .26 -.J4 .18 .04 -.10 -.OJ -·50 .02

26 -.19 .27 .19 -.lJ .05 .02 ·75 .03

27 .05 .01 -.05 -.08 -.OJ .07 .94 .09

28 .1J -.29 .12 .07 -.02 .28 .68 .14

29 -.J2 -.J7 -.59 .04 -.07 .15 -.09 -.21

JO .67 -.04 -.IJ -.06 .07 -.02 -.00 .15

Jl -.14 -.19 -.82 -.05 .07 .05 .04 .19

J2 -.OJ .77 .05 .03 -.05 -.22 .05 .OJ

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVa. CHILD REARING PRACTICE - GENERAL ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 -.08 .08 -.06 -.39 -.01 .17 .16 .01 .22 .05 .04 .11

2 .04 .02 -.12 -.22 .31 .04 .28 -.05 -.07 .14 .32 .22

3 .01 -.17 .10 -.03 .16 .13 .01 .16 .04 .23 -.36 .02

4 -.09 -.21 .11 .05 -.09 .10 -.06 .02 -.17 .10 .45 .02

5 -.00 -.16 -.04 .58 -.02 -.03 .00 -.05 -.06 .14 .06 .03

6 -.02 -.05 -.08 -.05 .04 -.04 .05 -.03 -.04 -.12 .01 -.49

7 .02 .21 -.20 -.31 -.14 -.07 -.18 .06 .11 -.01 .19 ·31

8 -.03 -.03 .27 -.06 .05 .08 .11 -.02 -.05 .00 -·30 .21

9 .64 -.03 .04 .03 .07 -.03 .05 -.04 .03 .09 -.02 -.06

10 -.14 -.11 .06 .00 -.13 .67 .06 -.05 -.00 -.07 -.02 .09

11 -.08 .68 -.04 -.01 .05 -.01 -.05 .07 -.10 -.02 .05 -.04

12 .08 .08 .04 .46 .02 -.05 -.08 -.08 .03 -.21 .03 .24VJ--.JI-'

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIV. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - GENERAL ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 -.50 -.28 -.06 -.12 -.02 -.47 .01 .03 -.04 .19 -.04 -.13

14 .03 .05 -.29 -.05 .13 .27 .03 -.14 .12 -.09 .03 .02

15 - .. 09 -.09 -.01 -.07 -.20 -.07 -.01 -.06 -.05 -.10 -.09 .19

16 - .. 28 -.12 .00 .01 .35 -.05 .02 -.08 .02 .05 -.11 -.09

17 .. 44 -.13 -.01 .00 -.07 -.00 -.12 .40 .02 -.05 .13 -.10

18 - .. 08 .12 -.04 .26 .02 .01 -.01 -.11 -.06 -.07 .04 .06

19 .. 01 .38 .38 -.09 -.08 -.27 .04 -.10 .01 .24 -.01 -.00

20 - .. 09 -.06 -.18 -.11 -.11 .10 -.02 -.05 .01 -.06 -.15 .38

21 .. 10 .21 -.06 -.13 -.01 -.17 .05 -.12 .07 .15 -.04 -.07

22 - .. 05 -.03 -.01 .18 -.12 -.08 .06 -.02 -.09 .21 .29 -.07

23 -010 .20 .35 .02 .06 .02 -.00 -.04 -.12 -.08 -.05 .09

24 005 .01 .04 -.10 .08 -.07 .01 .61 -.01 -.01 -.02 .06U>-..JN

APPENDIX B



Variable Factor1 2 J 4 .5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

2.5 .JO -.12 -.1.5 .04 .OJ -.0.5 .04 -.00 -.18 .01 -.1.5 .02

26 -011 -.19 .07 -.0.5 -.70 .0.5 .09 -.04 .OJ .11 .18 -.09

27 - .. OJ -.OJ .01 -.OJ .62 .04 .01 .06 -.04 .02 .05 -.06

28 .1.5 .08 -.01 .27 -.16 -.04 -.07 -.07 .07 .02 -.26 .08

29 .12 .02 -.14 -.10 .02 .04 -.08 -.26 -.00 .6J -.16 .07

JO -.05 .02 -.1.5 .11 -.OJ -.46 .1J -.01 .01 -.24 -.0.5 .1J

Jl .08 -.01 -.01 -.05 .11 .22 -.OJ -.20 -.10 .11 -.07 -.01

J2 .02 -.05 .47 .02 -.08 .11 .14 -.04 .04 -.08 .01 -.06

JJ .J2 -.OJ -.08 .05 -.lJ -.08 .04 .12 -.OJ 041 -.15 -.14

J4 .05 -.01 -.16 -.08 .02 .15 .06 .OJ .1J -.81 .J2 -.05

J5 -.21 -.07 -.00 -.OJ .13 .20 -.23 .06 -.04 004 .10 .03

36 -.07 .05 -.07 -.06 -.07 .03 -.00 .12 -.05 .48 -.04 .39

37 -.06 .. 01 .08 .04 .12 .04 .OJ -.01 .08 .68 .22 -.04\..U""'-J\..U

APPENDIX B



Variable Factor

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

38 .03 .13 -.28 -.19 -.12 .11 .11 -.20 -.05 -.22 -.06 -.51{

39 .01 -.06 -.09 .16 .05 -.06 .18 -.02 -.03 -.22 -.00 .68

40 .07 -.05 .48 -.14 -.05 .11 -.11 .14 .07 -.12 -.05 -.05

41 -.22 -.09 -.04 .14 .2) -.12 -.06 .14 .10 -.06 -.07 -.19

42 -.04 -.04 .22 .07 .16 -.01 -.02 -.06 .12 .17 .04 -.01

4) .02 -.01 -.05 .01 .0) .05 -.94 -.11 .04 -.02 -.04 .01

44 .05 -.0) .01 -.04 .01 .00 .92 -.04 .02 -.0) -.0) .01

45 -.11 .11 .04 ~.08 -.04 -.11 .04 .)0 -.12 .09 .14 -.02

46 -.04 .0) .06 -.01 -.02 -.05 -.01 -.)1 .8) .02 -.02 -.01

47 .01 .09 .02 .10 .0) .07 .05 -.25 -.87 -.01 .0) -.05

48 .04 -.12 -.11 -.09 .02 .00 -.04 .63 .02 -.01 -.01 .06

49 .0) .20 .07 .15 .04 -.02 -.08 .07 .08 -.01 ·)5 .05\..JJ--J.{::"

APPENDIX B



Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

50 .09 -.03 -.06 .46 .12 .11 .17 -.00 .35 .07 015 -.06

51 -.19 .13 -.25 .13 -.18 .12 .01 .19 -.15 .19 -.25 -.06

52 -.01 .18 .09 -.08 .03 .07 .09 .37 -.01 -.10 -.06 -.04

53 .25 -.30 .12 -.41 .13 -.30 -.15 -.34 -.20 -.14 .17 .17

\.JJ-...J\..t\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVb. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 .02 .04- .01 .01 -.04 -.05 .63 -.09 -.03

2 -.04 -.03 .06 .09 -.10 -.08 .69 .09 -.04

3 .22 .12 .10 .12 .55 -.03 -.01 .08 -.13

4 -.14 .25 .09 .22 -.04 -.03 .20 .11 .42

5 -.01 .04 -.17 .01 -.01 .33 -.02 -.04 .02

6 -.11 .02 .06 .10 -.07 .10 .02 .18 -.07

7 .26 -.22 .25 .21 -.11 .20 -.21 -.03 -.01

8 .58 -.05 -.04 -.02 .01 .03 .08 .02 -.04

9 -.17 -.17 .54 -.03 .33 -.04 -.05 .44 -.07

10 .00 -.06 .10 -.06 -.08 ·33 .01 -.10 -.05

11 .01 -.05 -.06 .90 .11 .02 -.02 -.03 .01

12 .11 .62 -.02 -.08 .01 .24 .05 -.03 .17\.;J

"""-J0'\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 ] 4 5 6 7 8 9

I] .11 .09 .01 -.01 .01 -.14 -.10 .]8 .19

14 -.09 .1] .1] -.04 -.08 .75 -.0] .05 -.15

15 -.14 -.07 .02 -.01 .41 -.07 -.15 -.02 .00

16 .11 .11 ·5] -.11 .17 -.02 .19 -.26 .07

17 .16 .24 -.08 .00 .08 -.04 .22 .21 -.08

18 .04 -.12 -.0] -.04 .01 -.00 .15 .59 -.04

19 .15 -.10 .09 -.12 -.08 .01 -.1] .1] .61

20 .08 .21 .1] -.18 .46 -.24 -.04 -.2] -.14

21 .42 -.44 .05 -.17 -.05 .16 .24 .04 .16

22 -.02 .10 -.07 -.01 -.02 -.05 -.09 .86 .0]

2] -.09 .06 -.01 -.0] .01 -.09 -.0] -.1] .70

24 -.09 -.16 -.]2 -.02 .69 .47 .19 .05 .26\.....l

""

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVb. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25 -.03 .24 .20 -.05 -.18 .18 -.01 .23 -.15

26 -.10 -.0) .43 .19 - .. 12 .10 -.01 -.10 .19

27 .56 .2) -.0) .15 -.00 -.05 -.16 .02 -.00

28 .0) .01 .04 .)6 -.0) -.0) .05 -.01 -.04

29 -.06 -.02 .00 -.04 -.04 -927 .06 -.01 -.02

\.0--:len

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVc. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 .00 .09 -.01 .04 .74 -.06 .05 .01 .01

2 -.07 .03 .02 -.12 .66 -.05 .05 .13 -.05

3 -.00 -.18 -.17 .61 .05 -.07 -.31 .05 ·51

4 .07 -.13 -.07 -.03 .10 .06 .86 -.02 .10

5 -.20 -.01 .02 -.11 -.12 .48 -.09 .12 .08

6 -.04 .61 -.00 .04 .09 .00 -.03 -.12 .06

7 .02 .13 .69 .06 -.12 -.00 -.14 -.01 .00

8 .22 .06 .01 -.14 -.07 -.05 .09 -.02 .66

9 -.51 .04 .40 .41 -.07 -.39 .35 .13 -.04

10 .16 -.16 .09 .32 .11 .86 .05 -.01 -.21

11 -.12 -.09 .02 .00 .16 .06 -.28 -.03 .66

12 -.13 .30 -.07 -.10 -.14 .63 .18 - .Ol~ .16

13 .55 -.05 -.00 .04 .02 -.15 .19 -.09 .15\..U

14 .24 -.04 .22 .16 .16 .15 -.01 .00 -.19 --J'-0

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIVc. (Continued) CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15 .04 -.00 -.15 .07 .21 .00 -.05 -.10 .01

16 .04 -.20 .08 .03 .12 .03 .08 -.15 .21

17 .62 .05 .24 .06 -.07 -.06 -.10 .18 -.00

18 -.03 .08 .07 -.02 -.14 .05 .25 .12 .61

19 -.00 -.16 .39 -.08 .16 .06 -.04 -.18 .08

20 .02 .48 .03 -.04 .07 .01 -.05 .03 -.01

21 .00 -.01 -.01 .59 -.02 .05 -.01 -.0] -.19

22 .17 .39 -.16 .52 -.05 -.03 .17 -.0] .04

23 -.25 -.05 .22 .05 .18 .25 -.01 -.04 .27

24 .14 -.03 .40 -.11 -.07 -.01 .08 .03 .05

25 .07 .19 .11 -.12 .18 .04 -.10 .63 .02

26 .02 .02 -.05 .02 -.04 .04 -.01 .94 .02

27 -.04 -.18 -.07 .05 -.04 -.02 .08 .83 -.02 \....0

co0

381

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXV. TEACHER RATINGSHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4- 5 6

1 -.03 .22 .11 .78 -.07 -.19

2 -.09 .06 -.24 .06 -.03 .98

3 .18 .02 .08 -.00 -.75 .08

4 .04 -.06 .03 .79 .08 -.01

5 .05 .46 .02 .12 ·32 .30

6 .18 .09 .08 .16 .70 .06

7 .00 .10 ·57 .17 -·33 .16

8 -.05 .83 .13 .15 -.02 -.03

9 -.01 .07 .72 -.06 .13 -.19

10 .87 .20 -.11 .03 -.15 .06

11 -.04 -.11 -.07 .80 .06 .20

12 .14 -.13 .18 .03 ':.06 .64

13 -.05 -.22 .16 -.18 .65 .01

14 .04 .01 ·30 -.15 .25 .28

15 -.14 -.55 .30 .25 .08 .12

16 -.07 -.19 .25 -.07 -.54 .05

17 .37 -.10 -.06 .15 .20 -.36

18 .12 -.41 -.13 .32 .03 .03

19 -.00 .10 .14 -.33 .20 .26

20 .91 -.18 .14 -.11 .06 .05

382

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXVI. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 -.09 .19 .07 .42 -.34 .38 -.02

2 .04 -.07 -.12 .37 -.20 .51 .21

3 -.07 .09 ·31 -.05 -.01 .71 -.39

4 .05 -.30 -.03 -.08 .28 .90 .09

5 -.05 -.20 .06 .71 .13 .05 .04

6 .23 .05 -.10 .76 -.22 -.16 .02

7 -.14 .17 -.35 .03 -.21 .85 .49

8 .10 .07 .13 .00 .13 .74 -.37

9 .89 .19 -.04 .28 .01 .03 -.38

10 -.22 .27 .85 -.11 .13 .05 -.19

11 .42 -.06 .29 -.15 .15 -.07 .31

12 .19 -.01 .86 -.06 -.06 .00 .01

13 .05 -.01 -.02 -.02 .86 .03 -.11.14 .09 -.22 .67 .08 .02 .01 .31

15 -.01 .54 -.02 -.11 .43 .17 -.06

16 -.02 .01 .82 .11 -~07 .03 .01

17 -.24 .11 .26 .56 .55 -.18 -.11

18 .07 .35 -.35 .01 .62 -.04 -.14

19 -.04 .22 .15 .02 .08 -.07 .47

20 .31 -.24 -007 -.18 .38 .19 .50

21 004 .16 -.05 006 .02 -.08 077

3.83

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXVI. (Continued) BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSHARRIS-KAISER


Variable Factor

1 2 ) 4 5 6 7

22 .09 .55 -.22 .00 .17 -.10 .10

2) .18 .41 .24 -.04 -.21 .01 .)0

24 .08 .05 .05 -.17 .58 .07 .09

25 -.01 -.21 .2) -.02 .0) .02 .82

26 -.19 -.14 .05 .)0 .77 -.0) .)0

27 -.1) .8) .12 .01 -.22 .04 .18

28 -.12 .06 -.11 .14 .05 -.06 .88

29 .17 .08 -.00 -.15 -.16 .05 .75

384

APPENDIX B

TABLE EXVII. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHYHARRIS-KAISER

PRIMARY FACTOR CORRELATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

2 .02

3 .19 .05

4 -.11 .06 .00

5 -.05 -.09 -.03 -.05

6 .19 -.35 -.03 -.23 -.05

7 .02 .10 .04 -.00 .01 .09

8 .28 .24 .34 .08 -.17 -.10 .04

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXVIIIa. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - GENERAL ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1

2 ,,05

3 .11 -.02

4 -.02 .02 -.11

5 .10 -.07 .05 -.12

6 .09 .07 .05 -.07 -.02

7 -.11 .03 -.06 -.09 -.01 -.01

8 .16 .00 -.09 .03 -.03 .10 -.08

9 .07 -.12 .09 .01 .04 -.11 .07 -.08

10 .05 .06 .02 -.03 .15 .03 .02 .07 .06

11 -.03 .02 -.08 -.0'7 -.03 -.14 -.01 .05 -.07 -.05

12 -.03 -.04 .06 -.12 .07 .01 -.02 .09 .14 .18 -.04

\...Jco\.n

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXVIIIb. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - MALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

2 .04

3 .02 .04

4 -.06 -.15 -.12

5 .17 -.03 .05 -.05

6 -.14 .12 .03 -.10 .06

7 -.16 -.21 -.14 .03 .09 -.07

8 .04 .19 .12 -.15 .07 .02 .15

9 .13 .28 .05 -.03 -.07 -.00 -.01 .18

\..UOJ0'\

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXVIIIc. CHILD REARING PRACTICES - FEMALE ANALYSISHARRIS-KAISER

PRIMP.RY FACTOR CORRELATIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

2 -.14

3 .11 -.07

4 -.07 .14 .07

5 -.04 -.10 -.00 -.03

6 .07 -.05 .08 .08 .02

7 .12 .14 .13 .05 -.12 .08

8 .15 -.10 -.02 -.11 .22 -.02 .02

9 .10 -.17 -.02 .18 -.03 .07 .17 -.05

\.A>0)---J

388

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXIX. TEACHER RATINGSHARRIS-KAISER


1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2 -.12

3 -.22 .45

4 .48 -.46 -.19

5 .51 .20 -.26 .13

6 -.24 .62 .65 -.42 -.10

389

APPENDIX B

TABLE BXX. BEHAVIOR PROBLEMSHARRIS-KAISER


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1

2 .26

3 .47 .43

4 .41 .07 .25

5 .23 .58 .32 .03

6 .25 -.11 .08 .41 -.22

7 .41 .43 .67 .15 ·37 -.09

390

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldvlin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., & Breese, F. H. Patterns

of parent behavior. Psychological Monographs, 1945,

5§ (3, Whole No. 268).

Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., & Breese, F. H. The

appraisal of parental behavior. Psychological

MQno~raphs, 1949, Q1 (4, Whole No. 299).

Becker, W. C., & Krug, R. S. A circumplex model for

social behavior in children. Child Development, 1964,

15, 371-396.

Becker, W. C., & Krug, R. S. The parent attitude research

instrument--a research review. Child Development, 1965,

1£, 329-365.

Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Hellmer, L. A., Shoemaker,

D. J., & Quay, H. C. Factors in parental behavior and

personality as related to problem behavior in children.

Journal of Consulting Psycho~, 1959, £2, 107-118.

Bell, R. R. Marriage and Family Interaction. Homewood,

Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1967.

Bell, N. W., & Vogel, E. F. (Eds.). The American Family.

Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960.

Bell, R. Q. Retrospective attitude studies of parent

child relationships. Paper read at American Psycholog

ical Association, Chicago, September, 1956.

391

Bottenberg, R. A., & Ward, J. H., Jr. Applied multiple

linear regression. PRL-TDR-63-6, 6570th Personnel

Research Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division,

Air Force Systems Command, Lackland AFB, Texas, 1963.

Burt, C. L. The factors of the mind: An introduction to

factor analysis in psychology. New Yorkz Macmillan,

1941.

Cattell, R. B. The scree test for the number of factors.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, I, 140-161. (d)

Cattell, R. B. Teachers' personality description of

six-year oldsz A check on structure. British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 1963, 11, 219-235.

Cattell, R. B., & Coan, R. A. Child personality structure

as revealed in teachers' ratings. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 1957, 11, 315-327.

Cattell, R. B., & Coan, R. A. Objective test assessment

of the primary personality dimensions in middle child

hood. British Journal of Psychology, 1959, jQ, 235-252.

Cattell, R. B., & Coan, R. A. Personality dimensions in

the questionnaire responses of six and seven-year olds.

British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 28,

232-24-2.

Cattell, R. B., & Dreger, R. M. The development of the

pre-school personality questionnaire. In press.

392

Cattell, R. B., & Gruen, W. The personality factor struc

ture of II-year old children in terms of behavior

rating data. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1953,

2, 255-266.

Cattell, R. B., & Gruen, W. The primary personality

factors in II-year old children by objective tests.

Journal of Personality, 1955, £l, 460-478.

Cattell, R. B., & Gruen, W. Primary personality factors

in the questionnaire medium for children eleven to

fourteen years old. Educational and Psychological

Measurement. 1954, 14, 50-76.

Cattell, R. B., and Foster, M. J. The rotoplot program

for multiple single plane, visually guided rotation.

Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 156-165.

Cattell, R. B., & Peterson, D. R. Personality structure

in four and five year olds in terms of objective tests.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1959, 12, 355-369.

Cattell, R. B., & Schaie, K. W. Personality factors in

the questionnaire responses of four and five year old

children. In press.

Cattell, R. B., and Schuerger, J. M. Objective test

dimensions of personality in adolescence. In press.

Coan, R. A., & Cattell, R. B. Reproducibls personality

factors in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 1958, 14, 339-345.

393

Darwin, C. A biographical sketch of an infant. Mind,

1877, £, 285-294.

Dielman, T. E. Convergent and discriminant validity of

three measures of ability, aspiration-level, achievement,

adjustment, and dominance. Unpublished M.A. thesis;

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1965.

Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. The early school

personality questionnaire: Form B. In press.

Dielman, T. E., Cattell, R. B., Lepper, C. S., & Rhoades,

P. A. A check on the structure of parental reports of

child rearing practices. In press.

Dielman, T. E., Schuerger, J. M., & Cattell, R. B.

Prediction of junior high school achievement from IQ

and the objective-analytic personality factors U.I. 21,

r.I. 23, U.I.24, and U.I. 25. In press.

Dielman, T. E., Cattell, R. B., & Lepper, C. S. DimensiorB

of problem behavior in the early grades. In press.

Digman, J. M. Child behavior ratings: Further evidence

of a multiple-factor model of child personality.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25,

787-799.

Digman, J. M. Principal dimensions of child personality

as inferred from teachers' jUdgments. Child Development,

1963, ~, 43-60.

Digman, J. M. Reproducible personality factors in the

behavior rating domain. Unpublished manuscript,

University of Hawaii, 1970.

Emmerich, W. Continuity and stability in early social

development. Child Development, 1964, 12, 311-332.

Emmerich, W. Continuity and stability in early social

development: II. Teacher ratings. Child Development,

1966, 12, 17-27.

Gallimore, R. G., Howard, A., & Jordan, Cathy. Indepen

dence training among Hawaiians. Paper read at Western

Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco,

1967.

Glick, P. C. American families. New York: Wiley &

Sons, 1957.

Guttman, L. A new approach to factor analysis: The

Radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld ~d.) Mathematical thinking

in the soc~l sciences. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press,

1954.

Hall, G. S. The contents of children's minds on entering

school. Pedagogical Seminary, 1891, 1, 139-173.

Harris, C. W., & Kaiser, H. F. Oblique factor analytic

solutions by orthogonal transformations. Psychometrika,

1964, £2, 347-362.

Hays, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. o. PRO~~X: A quick

method for rotation to oblique simple structure.

British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 1964,

11, 65-70.

Hev:ltt, L. H., & Jenkins, R. L. Fundamental patterns

of maladjustment: The dynamics of their origin.

State of Illinois, 1946.

Howard, A. Bishop Museum Community Research Program:

A progress report. Mimeographed paper, Bernice P.

Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 1967.

Howard, A., & Gallimore, R. G. Social and cultural

processes in a Hawaiian community. PHS Grant No.

S-R-ll-tlli01899, 1968.

Kaiser, H. F. The varimax criterion for analytic rota

tion in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, £1,187-200.

Kaiser, H. F., & Caffrey, J. Alpha factor analysis.

Psychometrika, 1965, lQ, 1-14.

McNemar, Q. On the number of factors. Psychometrika,

1942, 2, 9-18.

Milton, G. A. A factor analytic study of child-rearing

behaviors. Child Development, 1958, £2, 381-392.

395

396

Minturn, L., Lambert, VI. VI., Fi scher, J., Fischer, A.,

Romney, K., Romney, R., Nydegger, W., Nydegger, C.,

Maretzki, T., Maretzki, H., Levine, R., & Levine, B.

Mothers of six cultures: Antecedents of child rearing.

New York: Wiley, 1964.

Mussen, P. H., Conger, J. J., & Kagan, J. Child Develop

ment and Personality. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Peck, R. F. Family patterns correlated with adolescent

personality structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 1958, ::il, 347-350.

Pestalozzi, G. A father's diary, 1774. Cited by R. de

Guimps, Pestalozzi, his life and work. New York:

Appleton, 1906.

Peterson, D. R. Behavior problems of middle childhood.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1961, ,gj" 205-209.

Peterson, D. R. The scope and generality of verbally

defined personality factors. Psychological Review,

1965, :z.g" 48-59.

Peterson, D. R., & Cattell, R. B. Personality factors

in nursery school children as derived from teacher

ratings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959,

£1, 562.

Peterson, D. R., Quay, H. C., & Cameron, G. B. Personality

and background factors in juvenile delinquency as infer

red from questionnaire responses. Journal of Consulting

Psychology, 1959, ~' 395-399.

397

Pimm, J. B., Quay, H. C., & Werry, J. S. Dimensions o£

problem behavior in first grade children. Psychology

in the Schools, 1967, 4, 155-157.

Quay, H. C. Personality patterns in pre-adolescent delin

quent boys. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

1966, 26, 99-110.

Quay, H. C., Morse, w. C., & Cutler, R. L. Personality

patterns of pupils in special classes for the emotion

ally disturbed. Exceptional Children, 1966, ]g,

297-301. (a)

Quay, H. c., Sprague, R. L., Shulman, H. S., & Miller,

A. L. Some correlates of personality disorder and

conduct disorder in a child guidance clinic sample.

Psychology in the Schools, 1966, 1, 44-47. (b)

Quay, H. C., & Quay, L. C. Behavior problems in early

adolescence. Child Development, 1965, 12, 215-220.

Schaefer, E. S. A circumplex model for maternal behavior.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 22,226-235.

Schaefer, E. S. Converging conceptual models for maternal

behavior and for child behavior. In J. C. Glidewell

(Ed.) Parental attitudes and child behavior. Springfield,

Ill.: Thomas, 1961.

Schaefer, E. S., & Bayley, N. Consistency of maternal

behavior from infancy to preadolescence. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 1-6.

398

Schaefer, E. S., & Bayley, N. Maternal behavior, child

behavior, and their intercorrelations from infancy

through adolescence. Child Development Monographs,

1963, 28, (Whole No. 87).

Schaefer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q. Structure of attitudes

toward child rearing and the family. American

Psychologist, 1955, 10, 319-320.

Schaefer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q. Development of a parental

attitude research instrument. Child Development, 1958,

£2, 339-361.

Schaefer, E. S., Bell, R. Q., & Bayley, N. Development

of a maternal behavior research instrument. Journal of

Genetic Psychology, 1959, 22, 83-104.

Schuerger, J. M., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B.

Objective-analytic personality factors (U.I. 16, U.I. 17,

U.I. 19, and U.I. 20) as correlates of school achieve

ment. In press.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, Eleanor E., & Levin, H. Patterns

of Child Rearing. Evanston, Ill.: Rowand Peterson,

1957.

Sears, R. R., Rau, Lucy, & Alpert, R. Identification and

child rearing. Stanford: Stanford University, 1965.

Sewell, W. H., Mussen, P. H., & Harris, C. W. Relation

ships among child training practices. American

Sociological Review, 1955, 20, 137-148.

399

Shoben, E. J., Jr. The assessment of parental attitudes

in relation to child adjustment. Genetic Psychology

Monographs, 1949, 39, 101-148.

Slater, R. E. Parent behavior and the personality of the

child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1962, 101,

53-68.

Sokal, R. R. A comparison of five tests for completeness

of factor extraction. Transactions of the Kansas

Academy of Science, 1959, 141-152.

Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Psychological

Review, 1931, 1§, 416-427.

Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago:

University of Chicago, 1947.

Tucker, L. R. A method of synthesis of factor analysis

studies. Personnel Research Section Research Report

No. 984, 1951.

Zuckerman, M., Ribback, B. B., IvIonashkin, I & Norton, J. A.

Normative data and factor analysis on the PARI. Journal

of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 165-171.

university of hawaiʻi...table of contents preface........................................... ii...

Documents