Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A Study Of The Attitudes Of Mothers Of Mentally Retarded Children As Influenced By Socioeconomic Status
(USC Thesis Other)
A Study Of The Attitudes Of Mothers Of Mentally Retarded Children As Influenced By Socioeconomic Status
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 63-4216 BARBER, Bernard, 1929- A STUDY OF THE ATTITUDES OF MOTHERS OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN AS INFLU ENCED BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. U niversity of Southern California, Ph.D ., 1963 Social Psychology University Microfilms, Inc., A nn Arbor, M ichigan 3--4 2 1 6 E * " * TJrl E K S O K E D A S I N E H J - - - - ^ X E S . F h . O . , 1 9 0 3 Dor, Michig ^r» A STUDY OP THE ATTITUDES OF MOTHERS OP MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN AS INFLUENCED BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS by Bernard Barber A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Sociology) January 19^3 UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ERN CALIFORNIA G RA DUATE SC H O O L U N IV ER SITY PARK L O S A N G E LE S 7 , C A L IFO R N IA This dissertation, written by ...........................B ernard ...B arb sx........................... under the direction of his.....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y .j ................ f ■ Dean Date Jan.u.ar.yx.1.9.6.3........... DISSERTATION COMMI Chairman LIST OP TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page lv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 The Problem Significance of the Problem Limitations of the Study Definitions of the Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...................... 13 Summary III. COMPOSITION AND SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE . . . 48 Selection of the Sample Socioeconomic Status Levels Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Children and Their Families Summary IV. TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES.................... 80 Statistical Methodology Definition of Scales, Statements and Locations Summary V. FINDINGS........................................ 90 Analysis of Variance Normative Data Scale Values Summary VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................137 Methods Used in This Study Selected Characteristics of the Sample Findings Conclusions ii Page BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 150 APPENDIXES.................................................158 ill LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Differences In Child-training Practices Between Mothers of Two Social Classes .... 42 2. Characteristics of Families of Educable Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status ........................ 53 3. Characteristics of Families of Severely Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status ........................ 54 4. Characteristics of Families of Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status ............ 56 5. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Educable Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status, Sex of Child, and School L e v e l ............................. 58 6. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Severely Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status, Sex of Child, and School L e v e l ............................. 59 7. Per Cent Distribution of School Age Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Levels and Intelligence Levels ............. 6o 8. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Educable Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status, I.Q., and Sex of C h i l d ................................. 62 9. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Severely Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status, Functional Intel ligence Level and Sex of C h i l d ............. 63 10. Frequency Distribution of Mentally Retarded Children by Age of C h i l d .................... 65 11. Percentage Distribution by Ordinal Position of Mentally Retarded Child by Socioeconomic Status ................. . . . 66 iv Table Page 12. Percentage Distribution by the Number of Children In the Families of the Mentally Retarded Child by Socioeconomic Status . . . 68 13. Percentage Distribution of Mothers of Mentally Retarded Children by Age of Mothers at Time of Birth of Child by Socioeconomic Status . . 69 14. Percentage Distribution of Marital Status of Mother by Socioeconomic StatuB........... 70 15. Percentage Distribution of Mentally Retarded Children by Education of Mother and Father and by Socioeconomic Status ......... 12 16. Percentage Distribution of Number of Organiza tions Belonged to by Husband or Wife by Socioeconomic Status ............. 73 17. Percentage Distribution of Religious Prefer ence of Mothers of Mentally Retarded Children by Socioeconomic Status ........... 7^ 18. Percentage Distribution of Retarded Childrens’ Fathers and Mothers Residence in California by Y e a r .......................... 76 19. Percentage Distribution of Families of Mentally Retarded Children by Birthplace of Child, Father and Mother.................. 77 20. Normative Data on the Parent Attitude Research Instrument .......................... 93 21. Differences in Scale 1, Encouraging Verbaliza tion According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .................... 95 22. Differences in Scale 2, Fostering Dependency, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .................... 97 23. Differences in Scale 3, Seclusion of the Mother, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e r s .................... "2 Table Page 24. Differences in Scale 4, Breaking the Will, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, P Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................100 25. Differences in Scale 5, Martyrdom, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, P Scores, and Test Items ................... 102 26. Differences in Scale 6, Pear of Harming the Baby, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ....................... 103 27. Differences in Scale 7, Marital Conflict, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................105 28. Differences in Scale 8, Strictness, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ............................ . 106 29. Differences in Scale 9, Irritability, Accord ing to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ...................... 108 30. Differences in Scale 10, Excluding Outside Influences, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ........... 109 31. Differences in Scale 11, Deification, Accord ing to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................Ill 32. Differences in Scale 12, Suppression of Aggression, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ........... 112 vi Table Page 33. Differences in Scale 13, Rejection of the Homemaking Role, According to SES, EMR- SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test Items .... 114 3^. Differences in Scale 1^, Equalitarlanism, According to SES, EMR-SMR, and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ...................... 116 35. Differences in Scale 15, Approval of Activity, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test Items .... 117 36. Differences in Scale 16, Avoidance of Com munication, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test Items .......... ..... 119 37. Differences in Scale 17, Inconsiderateness of Husband, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................121 38. Differences in Scale 18, Suppression of Sex, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................123 39. Differences In Scale 19, Ascendance of the Mother, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, and Test I t e m s ................................. 125 40. Differences in Scale 20, Intrusiveness, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................127 *H. Differences in Scale 21, Comradeship and Sharing, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s .......................128 vii Table Page 42. Differences In Scale 22, Acceleration of Development, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ............ 130 43. Differences in Scale 23, Dependency of the Mother, According to SES, EMR-SMR and SEX: Mean, Variance, Analysis of Variance, F Scores, and Test I t e m s ....................... 132 viil CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The study of child development has become in creasingly a matter of concern to behavioral scientists. Considerable study has been devoted to learning processes, family interaction, education, and the nature and needs of children. Yet, there has been a minimal amount of study of parents of exceptional children. Most sociologists, educators and psychologists at tach much significance to the circumstances and conditions of the child's home life. Strangely though, it was not until 19^9 that the first systematic information concerning the practical operations, issues, and day-to-day emotional and general behavioral aspects of child rearing resulted from an investigation of these experiences.1 The process used was that of studying the parent in relation to the child instead of the child in relation to his parents, and is illustrative of an approach which may yield good de- Arthur T. Jersild and Associates, Joys and Problems of Child Rearing (New York: Bureau of Publications, teach ers College, Columbia University, 19^9). velopmental data from the context of family circle. Fur thermore, such material haB a certain advantage in being expressed in the language of the child rearers themselves. The fact that most studies of this nature tend to stress concern with children's problems is understandable. It is somewhat more unique, though, to view the expression of theBe problems through the eyes of the parents. Even more so would the problems and satisfactions of rearing mentally retarded children stand out as an area for inves tigation. Hie mere suggestion that having and raising a mentally retarded child can yield pleasant, happy, and satisfying experiences may challenge the credulity of those who are accustomed to viewing mental retardation as a pa thology only. Such persons may be enlightened to find a wide discrepancy between their concepts regarding children who are mentally retarded as compared with the viewpoints of the parents of these children. Hie importance of the socioeconomic position of the family is receiving more attention by authorities concern- 2 ing child development and personality. Much of this work, however, has been theoretical and somewhat fragmentary. 2 Paul Henry Mussen and John Janeway Conger, Child Development and Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, There have been few research projects that have attempted to isolate the influence of socioeconomic status in the parent-child relationship. The Problem The purpose of this study was to identify what, if any, influence socioeconomic status has in the rearing of mentally retarded children as related to specific mother- child social-psychological variables: i.e., dependency, aggression, rejection, socialization, and acceptance. The attitudes of parents are one of the most sig nificant determinants of child development and behavior. This holds true not only for physically normal and mentally healthy children, but would seemingly be more significant when a child is mentally retarded. Even if all psychological factors of the parents of mentally retarded children were such that they felt se cure and confident before the onset of noticeable differ ence in their children, it would not be too long before they would be exposed to the difficulties and unusual tasks imposed by the relationship with a mentally retarded child.^ There are very few areas of compensation in this ^Bernard Farber and Jenne and Romolo Toigo, "Family Crisis and the Retarded Child," CEC Research Monograph No. 1, i960. relationship. Oftentimes parents suffer intensively from frustration and guilt. They may feel socially ostracized; oftentimes the degree of acceptance and rejection of a mentally retarded child will depend to a large extent on how the parents perceive themselves in relation to their Bocial group.^ The questions which were considered for in vestigation in this research deal with the expressed at titudes of mothers of mentally retarded children. In this research, an attempt was made to note the differences be tween the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded chil dren and those of parents of normal or other exceptional children. Differences were noted as to what variables were significantly different between the various socio economic status groups. Significance of the Problem The rapid increase in the total number of mentally retarded children, as well as the growth of the number of special classes, clinics and institutions for these chil dren, imposes an obligation on all who work with children and parents to make as complete an evaluation as possible of the influences which surround the rearing of such chil dren. Although there has been much research done in the ^Ibid. 5Ibid. area of parent-child relationships, more is needed. The study of parenb-chlld relationships is important for all parents, but perhaps it may be even more striking and more imposing when we deal with the mentally retarded child. In the United States alone, over five million children have been classified as mentally retarded.^ The importance of the home in the life and develop ment of children, Including the mentally retarded, is now commonly accepted. Hie importance of the child's concept of self as being essentially a function of his experiences in the home has been expressed by social psychologists. Many studies have revealed that the experiences during the first five to seven years of a child's life are those that determine his later ego strengths, his identification and his usefulness as a citizen. Toilet training, weaning practices, feeding practices, influence of the father dur ing the preschool years, the importance of sibling re lationships and more such fragmentary behavioral relation ships have all been studied. However, a child's experi ences are all conditioning variables in toto that influence J. E. Wallace Wallin, "Prevalence of Mental Retar dates," Hie Exceptional Child, ed. James P. Magary and John R. Eichorn (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., i960), Chap. II, No. 10. his self-worth and self-esteem. It is the full range of chiId-parent-family relationship that is the all influenc ing one. Thorpe wrote: Modern psychology is vitally concerned with the determination of conditions under which the child will develop physically, emotionally, socially, and morally. Since it is so often claimed that early family life lays the foundation for later adjust ments, the question of the effects of specific home conditions becomes an acute one.7 Thorpe further adds that any consideration and any discussion of the welfare of the child must be based upon the emotional attitudes of parents toward the child and the extent to which they are able to offer affectionate se- Q curity. The major body of literature on the subject of the child and home life has tended to view the child and his relationships from the frame of reference of everyone except that of the parents themselves. However, even when research has dealt with child-rearing from the sole stand point of parents it has done so only in relationship to specific child rearing problems. This study was initiated to explore a large range of parent-child relationships and to note within this range what attitudes seemingly are significantly different ^Louis P. Thorpe, Child Psychology and Development (New York: Hie Ronald Press Company, l95o), p. £1W. 8Ibid. 7 between the various socioeconomic status groups. Indeed, the importance of this restB in the fact that a better understanding of the differences of families and their socioeconomic status would promote greater skill in counseling, educational, and institutional situations. As a result the information obtained of specific social psychological data may be applied to areas of sensi tivity worthy of further study. What Jersild concluded for "normal" children in the following quotation may apply equally to mentally retarded children: Studies of the practical and behavioral details of the rearing of children within the home will not, of course, solve all of the problems of child rear ing. The findings such as those in the present study, indicating as they do the values that parents derive from their children and, along with these, problems that parents face in the upbringing of their children, emphasizes the point that unless and until the home situation iB made the subject of a realistic study the offerings of child development, child psychology, and mental hygiene will continue to fall far short of the needs of parents.9 Uie importance of socioeconomic status would be significantly related to the mother's conception of her sociocultural group. Who she is and what she does are products of her own past experiences and are related to ^Arthur T. Jersild and Associates, Joys and Prob- lems of Child Rearing (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 19^9)> P. 126. 8 the values of the social group of which she Is a member.'*'0 Certainly the value of participating in such activities as parent-teachers associations, charitable works, cultural activities and the like would be related to her particular membership in certain social-economic group. Her aware ness and her past experience are related to her socio economic class position. Differences amongst families in respect to these variables would suggest the assumption of variations in child rearing as well. The importance and the nature of social stratifica tion in the United States upon child development and family social-economic position is well interpreted by Davis and Havighurst: To students of learning, and especially to those who wish to study the processes of socialization, a detailed understanding of American social-class cul tures and motivational patterns is now a sine qua non of both research and therapy. For the social class of the child1s family determines not only the neighbor hood in which he lives and the playgroups he will have, but also the basic cultural acts and goals to ward which he will be trained. The social-class sys tem maintains cultural, economic, and social barriers which prevent intimate social intermixture between the slums, the Gold Coast, and the middle class. We know that human beings can learn their culture only from other human beings who already know and exhibit that culture. Therefore, by setting up barriers to social participation, the American social-class sys tem actually prevents the vast majority of children of the working classes, or the slums, from learning any culture but that of their own groups. Thus the 10Nathan W. Ackerman, The Psychodynamics of Family Life (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958;, pp. 172-176. pivotal meaning of social class to students of human development is that it defines and systematizes dif ferent learning environments for children of differ ent classes.11 The cultural aspects of the mothers* personality are learned in conformity with incentives, values, and de mands of her particular human group in its sociocultural setting. Limitations of the Study This study was made concurrently with one supported by the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Project OE 175* Contract number SEE 71^-6. Through the cooperation of the project director, the data for this study were included in the in vestigation and interview process of the sponsored inves tigation. Due to the difficulties of obtaining large repre sentative samples of mothers of mentally retarded children this cooperation afforded an opportunity of more complete and intensive study than would have been otherwise pos sible. Each parent of the mentally retarded child was se lected on the basis of having a child who had been classi- Allison Davis and Robert P. Havighurst, "Social Class and Color Differences in Childrearing," Readings in Social Psychology, ed. Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and feugene L. hartley (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952), p. 5^0. 10 fled by a physician or psychologist as being mentally re tarded. The I.Q. scores ranged from 25 to 84. All chil dren were sufficiently endowed so that they might be trained for useful Jobs. The names of families selected for participation were randomly drawn from lists of parents of children in classes for the retarded, special nursery schools, and the Los Angeles Childrens' Hospital. Each of the participating mothers was given, prior to the onset of the sponsored research and during the first part of the interview, the Parent Attitude Research Instru ment and a questionnaire requesting "Census Type" data. The interview and research inventory was concerned with the retarded child only. The Parent Attitude Research Instrument does not rely on recall but evaluates the on going social psychological climate existing between the 12 mother and the child. Definitions of Terms The term mother refers to the biological mother of the mentally retarded child. 12 Earl S. Schaefer and Richard Q. Bell, "Develop ment of a Parent Attitude Instrument," Child Development, XXIX (September, 1958)* 339-361. 11 The term socioeconomic Btatus refers to a weighted position obtained by classifying the father’s occupation, education, and economic level. The term mentally retarded (abbreviated to MR) is used generically in this study to include all levels of retardation. Educable mentally retarded (EMR) refers to those children who, because of mental retardation, cannot profit efficiently from a regular class, but can be expected to gain from a special class program designed to provide them with sufficient academic, social and occupational skills needed to live as independent, productive citizens. In this study, their I.Q. scores ranged from 46 to 84. Severely mentally retarded (SMR) children are not able to acquire a functional level of ability in academic subjects, but can benefit from special class instruction designed to educate and train them to further their in dividual acceptance, social adjustment and economic useful ness in their homes or within a sheltered environment. In this study, I.Q. scores range from 25 to 50 for the pre school SMR children, and from 4o to 50 for the public school SMR children. 12 " Outline of the Following Chapters Chapter I haB Introduced the problem and its limi tation, and Indicated ltB Importance In relation to the socialization process existent In the mother-chlld rela tionship. Chapter II presents a review of the literature on factors associated with parent-chlld relationships and concomitant conditions In families where mental retardation exists, Including specific studies that reflect problems In rearing children classified as mentally retarded. In Chapter III Is offered descriptive data concerning the groups studied in this research, while Chapter IV Is con cerned with the methodology used in the research and in terpreting the data. Chapter V records the findings of this study. Chapter VT is devoted to a summary of the study, the conclusions based on the findings and recom mendations for further research in the field. The Appendix contains the Parent Attitude Research Instrument and the Questionnaire asking for "Census Type" data. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE Various studies on parent attitudes and child rearing practices attempt to identify or establish a cause- effect relationship between the way parents understand, feel about, and treat their children on the one hand, and the way these children evolve physically, socially, and emotionally on the other hand. Much attention has been given to the difficulties in the parent-chiId relationship. There are many investigations relating to: (1) overpro tection and rejection of children by their parents; (2) the influence of parental practices and attitudes on children's behavior and development; and (3) comparisons between par ents and mental hygiene experts concerning the significance or problem behavior in children. Only recently has there been any major undertaking that would permit an analysis of the influence of social-economic status on child rear ing. There have been few published reports of systematic studies in which attitudes of mothers as influenced by social status is associated with rearing mentally retarded children. 13 14 A review of the related literature over the past quarter of a century establishes primarily the paucity of systematic research concerned with any aspect of relation ship between parent and mentally retarded child. What is available may be credited mainly to the initiative of the social work discipline which has appraised the significance of the lifetime problem confronting parents who must cope with the reciprocal effects of retardation in their chil- 1 dren. The full scope or range of expressed feeling in volved in the care and training of a retarded child is revealed only when due consideration is given to the many influences which mold the relationships and reactions. In terms of family understanding parents must realize that their responsibility lies not only with the defective child, but with each other, with their married home life and with their other children. Not only the parents, but the siblings, uncles, aunts, and grandparents must be helped to understand and ac cept the problems.2 Thorne and others^ emphasize the importance of the stable home environment by pointing out the close relation- ^Winifred Wardell, "Case Work with Parents of Men tally Deficient Children, American Journal of Mental De ficiency, LII (1947), 93. p Margaret Richards, "The Retarded Child in a State School and the Problems He Presents from a Parent's View point," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (19535. 56-57• ^Frederick C. Thorne and Jean S. Andrews, "Unworthy Parental Attitudes Toward Mental Defectives," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, L (1946), 411. 15 ship between the behavior of the mental defective and the stability of the environment. Where imbeciles and morons are able to continue in the community, it has been found they are protected by an adequate home environment. As community resources for care and education become increas ingly available for the defectives who have parental pro tection, institutions for residential care will be limited more and more to custodial cases and emotionally unstable types with an inability to adjust. A Thorne stresses the importance of making detailed studies of the parent-child relationships of mental defec tives in order to determine the factors which contribute to maladjustment. Schumacher^ also stresses the importance of coping with the parental attitudes and anxiety by helping the parents. Levy^ designates the condition of maternal overprotection as being rather typical of the relationship of mothers with deformed or defective children. Wardell' finds that if a family is overprotecting the mentally re- 4 Ibid. ^H. C. Schumacher, "Contribution of the Child Guidance Clinic to Problems of Mental Deficiency," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. L (19^5)* 277-282. ^D. M. Levy, Maternal Overprotection (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^3)* P. &9. ^Winifred Wardell, "Tlie Mentally Retarded in Family and Community," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (1952), 23W. 16 tarded child It is usually well fortified with reasons why it is doing so. Some parents are even more unrealistic by denying that any retardation exists and by finding a variety of reasons for the handicapped person's difficul- Q ties. Kanner views the parental reactions with greater circumspection by recognizing different levels of adjust ment to the condition in their children. These are: 1. Mature acknowledgement of actuality makes it possible to assign to the child a place in the family in keeping with his specific peculiarities. 2. Disguises of reality create artificialities of living and planning which tend to disarrange the family relationships. 3. Complete inability to face reality in any form leads to its uncompromising denial. q A recent study by Grebler^ on eleven cases of chil dren with I.Q.*s below 75 analyzed the problems of their parents and delineated them from problems of parents of normal children. It was shown that parents of mentally re tarded children were exposed to more trying experiences than the parents of the normal children. She concluded Q Leo Kanner, "Parents Peelings About Retarded Chil dren," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVII (1953)* 382. ^Anne Marie Orebler, "Parental Attitudes Toward Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVI (1952), 475-483: 17 that: (l) many of the experiences of frustration by par ents of the mentally retarded children are due to elements inherent in the child's condition and limitations imposed by the outside world; (2) parents react to this frustration in terms of their own personality difficulties; (3) the parents' reaction to the condition of mental retardation was interwoven with their general attitude toward the child. She pointed out further that parents who tend to condemn the outer world for the child's condition also tend to reject the child. Those who react with feelings of guilt and condemn themselves show ambivalence towards the child, and those who do not express any blame show accept ance of the child. She also takes the position that it is because of unfavorable parental attitudes that mentally re tarded children show behavior problems. Thorne"^ describes this type of reaction as an "unworthy" parental attitude and reports on a study of parental relations with children committed to a state institution for the mentally deficient. Here it was found that the longer the period of institu tionalization, the less attention was received from the parents or relatives. When intelligence level was con sidered, no significant differences were discovered in the amount of attention received by idiot, imbecile, and moron groups. 10Thorne and Andrews, op. cit., p. 4ll. 18 Wardell^ also reports on experiences In dealing with parents of Institutionalized children. In this caBe, she was concerned with parental anxieties and expressed the observation that extra therapeutic case work affords much reward in its help to the parent, and in its contribution to a greater ease of institutional adjustment for the 12 child. In a later writing she discusses the effect of the attitude of the community in helping or hindering the family in its adjustment to the mentally retarded child. Whenever the family thinks that its standing in a community has become precarious because of the mentally retarded member, instead of facing the real issue of disharmony in the family, the less gifted member is blamed. Shelino^ subscribes to this point by emphasizing that the attitudes and pressures from other children and neighbors, both to ward the defective child as well as toward the parents, add to and aggravate existing inner turmoil and sense of dis satisfaction. A guilt and anxiety reducing approach to the parent would be for the person counseling the family to have the attitude that parents would have to be "super- ^Hfardell, "Casework With Parents of Mentally De ficient Children," loc. cit.. pp. 91-97. ^Srardell, "The Mentally Retarded in Family and Community," loc. cit., pp. 229-242. •^s. L. Sheimo, "Problems in Helping Parents of Mentally Defective and Handicapped Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVI (1951)» 46. human" to derive the same degree of satisfaction from a de- lii fective child as from a more normal child. Teska en courages the clinician to accept the parents* rationaliza tion of the subnormality as long as it indicates acceptance of subnormality as well as recognition of it. Thus the parents' explanation which attributes the retardation to brain injury may help to remove the social stigma from the parent. Westlund and Palumbo^ report on the parental at titudes of parents with crippled children. They discuss the tendency toward increased parental rejection of the child as the severity or chronicity of. the debility in- creases. According to Thorne's index of acceptance, this tendency does not apply to institutional cases of men- 17 tally deficient children. Roe in a study of cerebral palsied children in the family substantially corroborates that the cerebral palsied is a type that has been found Percy T. Teska, "Some Problems in the Adjustment of the Mentally Handicapped," Journal of Consulting Psy chology, XI (September, 194-7), 27B. ^N. Westlund and A. Palumbo, "Parental Rejection of Crippled Children," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XVI (1946), 271-281. Thorne and Andrews, op. cit., p. 418. ■^Harvey Roe, "The Psychological Effects of Having a Cerebral Palsied Child in the Family" (unpublished Doc toral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952). 20 with the mentally retarded In the areas of parental feelings and actlonB including guilt, overprotection, rejection, and inability to adjust to the fact that the child is handi- 18 capped. Coughlin takes a somewhat different position by holding that these parental attitudes are no different from those of parents of so-called "normal" children. The differences, if found, would be the consequence of the dis ability causing deepseated feelings to come to the surface, instead of being suppressed. She found in studying the attitudes of parents of fifty-one orthopedlcally handi capped children that undesirable attitudes were more fre quently displayed by the mothers than by the fathers. This 19 finding was also discovered in a recent pilot study, ^ on trainable mentally handicapped children i Illinois. Each parent was interviewed in the fall and spring of school year 1953-1954 for the purpose of comparing the attitudes of mothers with those of fathers. The findings suggested that the fathers were not so emotionally involved in the 20 children's retardation. Teska mentions there is better acceptance by parents of mentally handicapped when the I Q Ellen W. Coughlin, "Some Parental Attitudes Toward Handicapped Children, Child, 19^1* PP* 6, 41-45. ■^Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois, Report of Study Projects for Trainable Mentally Handicapped Children, November 1,1954. 20Teska, op. cit., p. 278. child is both physically handicapped and mentally retarded or is obviously a biological accident. Hie parents' ac ceptance of the subnormality comes earlier in the child*s life and there is not as likely to be as much pressure on 21 him to achieve the standards of the average group. Teska holds that the feebleminded child is likely to be more seriously harmed than a normal child by lack of parental confidence, sympathy, and understanding. The difficulty increases as the shortcoming is one which may be hereditary, hence reflecting upon the parent by possibly carrying the weight of social stigma. Since the family is such an im portant part of the child's environment, especially during the early formative years, the adjustment of the parent is considered very significant. The subnormal child, it is explained, especially during the preschool and early school yearB, is so seldom a credit or source of Joy to his par ents, that this fact is likely to be at once the cause of his parents' frustration and humiliations and the recipient 22 of the harmful effects. Walker states that the emotional structure of the parent must be relatively sound to with stand psychiatric disturbances. The defective child may 21Ibid., pp. 276-277. 22 Gale H. Walker, "Some Considerations of Parental Reactions to Institutionalization of Defective Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LIV (19^9)* 112. 22 arouse feelings or accusation in both parents which would greatly Jeopardize the Intactness of the home. She adds,23 however, that the intellectual level of the parent is a factor in identification with the defective child whereas the less intelligent parent finds it easier to relate to the child. Reporting on a parent education project in Flint, 24 Michigan, Popp and others listed the concerns of twenty- two parents of severely retarded children. Among the prob lems experienced were the need for special training facili ties; problems of insecurity, hostility, undesirable habitB, and sexual feelings in the child; recreational outlets and social experience for the children; and better understand ing by the parents of such thingB as compulsive disorders and brain injury, and family and community relationships. 25 26 27 28 Nugent, ^ Horsefield, Rautman, ' and JohnBtone emphasize 23Ibid. 24 Cleo Popp, Vivien Ingram, and Paul Jordan, "Help ing Parents Understand Their Mentally Handicapped Child," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (1954), 530-534. 28 ^M. A. Nugent, "Home Training and Teaching of Mentally Deficient Children by Parents in Home," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, XLV (1940). 26 E. Horsefield, "Suggestions for Training Mentally Retarded by Parents in the Home," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, XLVI (19^2), 533-537. 23 the importance of facilities and services including foster home placement programs, parent and public education, and home training to help the parents come to a better under standing of the broader implications of each child's mental capacity. Among certain groups, it is as Sheimo2^ found in his clinical experience: parents are not lacking as to some idea of their child's intellectual level even though the parental behavior toward the child may be inconsistent with the knowledge. C o l e m a n , reporting another therapy project with parents of mentally retarded children who attend a private school in Los Angeles, goes into more detail about the specific problems raised by the parents. This group was of lower middle class socioeconomic status with an average educational level of tenth grade. Among the major problems they observed were: 2?A. L. Rautman, "Mental Deficiency as a Problem in General Practice," Wisconsin Medical Journal, XLV (19^2), 771-776. 2®E. L. Johnstone, "What Should We Do With the Mentally Deficient?" Mental Deficiency, XXX (19^2), 296-302, 2^Sheimo, op. cit., pp. 54-45. 3°James C. Coleman. "Therapy with Parents of Men tally Deficient Children," American Journal of Mental De ficiency, LVII (1953)* 700-705: 1. Acceptance of themselves as parents of mentally deficient children without feeling guilty or devaluated. 2. Acceptance of the mentally retarded child. 3. Adjusting the parental level of aspiration con sistent with the child*s actual abilities. 4. Over-indulging the child and making all kinds of special concessions for him. 5. Relations with normal siblings. 6. Sexual problems of the mentally deficient child. 7. Keeping the child in the home or the decision to place him in an institution. 8. Providing for the child's future. 9. Providing things for the child to do in the home. 10. Things the parents might do to help the school. A study of how the parent views the action of the relatives, neighbors, school, acquaintances, and friends-- should throw some light on the extent to which the parent himself feels at variance with the demands which society imposes indirectly on him through the retarded child. If the parent did not need the approval of society through meeting these standards, he would tend toward unawareness or unconcern for them. American parents send their children to school, to nursery school or kindergarten or first grade, to measure up and to be measured against their contemp oraries. . . . How does my child stand In relation 25 to his age mates? becomes the only question which can be asked with any hope of an intelligible answer. . . . When the school, like the pediatrician and the child health center, can offer American parents only a rela tive standard, parents cling to it; they punish and reward in its name.31 Sarason-^ points out that the culture of the'fearden variety defective" has not been studied and analyzed in a systematic manner. In their own cultural milieu the be havior of these children would not appear unusual. It is when they are Judged by the values of other cultural set tings and forced to adjust to situations such as in the school in which they lack interest and necessary social and Intellectual skills that their functioning becomes "inade quate." A study by Mickelson^ Qn the adequacy of child care by feebleminded parents failed to establish any par ticular relationship between the degree of the mother's retardation and the adequacy of child care. However, there were other factors which may have been important. Among them were the facts that the parents were under social agency supervision and were residing in rural areas. The fact of rural residence is considered significant by ^Margaret Mead, And Keep Your Powder Dry (New York: (New York: William Morrow and Co., 1942J, p. I03. •^Sarason, op. cit., p. 162. Mlckelson, "The Feebleminded Parent: A Study of 90 Cases," American Journal of Mental Deficiency. LI (1947), 644-653. 26 Cohen.^ He found that adjustment of mentally retarded boys to foster home placement In rural areas was better than adjustment In urban areas. However, the location of the home seemed to have little effect on the girls' adjustment. Many cultural factors in child rearing practices in family constellations as they affect variations in behavior would appear to be equally applicable in the study of special groups such as the mentally retarded. Writings of Bene dict,^ iXibois,^ Kardiner,^ Mead,and Whiting^ illus trate the increasing attention given to the relation be tween child training practices and behavioral patterns. While cultural anthropology has not given equal attention to the problems of child training practices and mental retardation, it would seem logical that a study of differ ences between parents of retarded children may yet yield ^Jacob Cohen, "Survey of a School Program for Family Care of School Age Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LI (1947)* 508. 3^Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934). 3^C. Dubois, The People of Alor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1944;. A. Kardiner, The Individual and His Society (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939). ^Margaret Mead, Coming of Age in Samoa (New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc., 19^8;7 39J. whiting, Becoming a Kwoma (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941). 27 Information bearing on the effect of socioeconomic status as a key factor in problems and satisfactions In rearing the children. One of the few systematic studies of parental at- 4o titude toward retardation classified parents according to degrees of awareness of retardation. Forty-four case records (twenty-four boys and twenty girls) classified as mentally retarded (I.Q.'s above 34 and below 70) were examined. The study limited the cases to those In which at least 1 parent was living with the child at the time of testing and to those situations in which the case records contained Interviews with one or both parents at intake and at the time of interpretation. The parents were studied at intake in terms of three sets of criteria: (l) considerable awareness; (2) partial awareness; and (3) minimal awareness. The same breakdown at interpreta tion (of retardation), e.g. considerable awareness was used. The result of the study showed the following: 1. Mental retardation tended to isolate the par ents from other parents and make them feel guilty. 2. The child was used negatively in problems of marital adjustment. Marguerita M. Stone, "Parental Attitude to Re tardation" (unpublished Master's thesis, Washingtin, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1947). 28 3. Each parent blamed the other marital partner. 4. lhe social stigma and blame from others make it difficult for the parents. 5. Hie child may feel the ridicule of his play mates and may fall to make a social adjustment. 6. Parents of boys were better able to accept the fact of retardation. (Hiere is a question of whether this could be classified a significant trend.) Mental retardation represented to these parents varying degrees of reaction's (l) psychic pain of the parents--thinking and talking about the children is painful; (2) a feeling of identity with defectiveness of the child; (3) a feeling of mobility due to the presence of a defective child; (4) a feeling of alienation due to social stigma; (5) a feeling of non-competitiveness due to the child's inability to measure up to the norm; and (6) a feeling of restrictive love due to the limited response of the child. 4l A later study by Gilroy dealt with parent atti tudes in relation to the adjustment of their mentally re tarded children. Hie case records of nine boys and six girls between the ages of five and twelve and within the ^Patricia Ann Gilroy, "Hie Social Adjustments of Fifteen Mentally Deficient Children1 ' (unpublished Master's thesis, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1947X 29 I.Q. range of 50 to 70 were analyzed to afford data de- 42 scribing the social adjustments In the cases studied. Gilroy saw parents for a minimum of two sessions in the clinic and during these interviews their "attitudes" toward their children were expressed. Among the factors which may influence the children's adjustments were: "Parental at titudes, sibling relationships, school expectations, and play relationships with siblings and other children." Behavior differences described by the parents included . . . assertiveness, disobedience, enuresis, stub- borness, negativism, and temper tantrums. Develop mental differences . . . involved either one or a combination of physical, mental or emotional irregu larities . . . [until] . . . difficulties in school adjustments . . . were recognized by the school, the^~ parents had not been aware of any differences. . . . - 5 The study showed that the home adjustments of the mentally deficient children tended to vary with the degree of par ental understanding, awareness and acceptance they received in the household. Children who were allowed to function more or less within their limited capacities seemed to present little concern to the parents. This seemed to be true with those parents who had little awareness of their children's retardation and the implications involved.44 42 Hie primary objective of the Gilroy study was to record the adjustments of the parents as seen by themselves and independent investigators. ^3Ibid., p. 81, 82-83. ^Ibid., p. 84. 30 None of the children in the study had satisfactory relations with normal ability children. They preferred in dependent play, lhe mentally retarded children were evalu ated by normal ability children as being too aggressive, slow or destructive. ^ The sibling relations were better when the siblings were younger, while with higher age level, a threatening competitive factor entered to produce some ) \ f j 4 7 rebellion or negativism. Roe's study ' of parents of cerebral palBied children demonstrated that in many respects this type of physical handicap haB an effect similar to retardation in the dynamics of parent-child relations. One hundred and thirteen individual interviews were held with eighty parents (forty-two mothers and thirty-eight fathers) of forty-Bix cerebral palsied individuals of whom twenty- three were under eighteen and twenty-three were eighteen or older. Strong evidence indicated the enduring effects a handicap in a child had upon the attitudes toward the child by both parents. Like parents of mentally retarded, there were indications of unrealistic parental management of the child due to ignorance or inability to accept and adjust to the child's handicap. Some parents expressed feelings of guilt while others were overprotective or had 45 Ibid., 85. ^6Ibid., p. 86. 31 tendencies toward "rejection." Ihe supportive effect of the father was found to be especially important to the mother and in the handling of the child. One of the problems of great interest is that of the effect of the severely retarded child on his parents and siblings, and the attitudes that parents have developed as a result of having a retarded child in the family. In line with this interest is a report of the first year of a two-year study project of trainable mentally handicapped children in Illinois. TTiere were 198 children enrolled in twenty-two classes in twelve districts. The study covered the following areas: 1. The intellectual status of the children. 2. An evaluation of the behavior of the children. 3. Changes in parental attitude. 4. Incidence of trainable mentally handicapped. 5. Attitudes of school administrators. 6. The characteristics of the children who were recommended for school placement as well as those who were excluded. 7. The cost of operating classes. 4q 8. The curriculum. 48 Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois, loc. cit. ^Ibid., p. 8. 32 Each parent was interviewed separately in the fall and spring of school year 1953-195^. Attitudes of mothers were compared with attitudes of fathers. Discussions centered primarily on the topics of school, community, family, and life plans for the child. The majority of parents had anticipated help for the retarded child by the school in academic skills; the area in which the severely retarded child is likely to be most limited. In the spring interview the mothers had even higher aspirations for the academic development of their children. *nie fathers ex pected more achievement only in the area of speech. Accept ance of the retarded child in the neighborhood was not re ported to be a problem by the parents. It was not felt, either, that the presence of the child affected the selec tion of a place of residence or vocation, although about half of the parents indicated that the child was an addi tional financial burden. The effect on the parents of school enrollment of the child was indicated by an increase in P.T.A. attendance by the mothers. Hiere were no in creases in the social participation of the fathers. As pirations of at least partial self-sufficiency for their retarded children at a later age were held by both mothers and fathers. There was considerable unfamiliarity with institutions for the retarded and strong biases against 33 them. The area of highest disagreement between mothers and fathers occurred on matters pertaining to the discipline of the child.50 Mothers' understanding of their mentally retarded children was studied by Rosen.5' 1 ’ Hie mothers of thirty-six retarded children (twenty-six boys and ten girls) with I.Q.'s between 4o and 80 were choBen for the study after they had met the criteria of: (1) being able to admit their children were retarded; (2) no longer sleeking a cure; and (3) trying to act constructively for their children's pres ent and future welfare. Hie children were all ambulatory, had no physical stigmata of mental retardation, had never been placed in a training school for mentally retarded, and had never been reported to have had severe behavior problems. The p a re n ts vrere American born of average socio economic status. The marital status of each family was intact. Using a system of classification of interview ma terial patterned after John Dewey* s analysis of problem «52 development-' Rosen arranged the responses of parents 5°Ibld., pp. 33-42. 51Leonard Rosen, "Selected Aspects in the Develop ment of the Mothers' Understanding of Her Mentally Retarded Child," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LIX (1955), 522-328. 5^John Dewey, How We Think (New York: D. C. Heath and Co., 1933)* P* 72. 34 according to five "developmental phases.'* Biese were: (l) awareness of the problem; (2) recognition of the prob lem; (3) seeking for cause; (4) seeking for solution; and (5) acceptance of the problem.it was found that there was no significant correlation between the intelligence and schooling levels of the mothers with estimated chrono logical ages of the children when awareness and recognition of their retardation occurred. This research failed to show that the child's level of intelligence was a factor affecting awareness and recognition by these parents. E C This finding is not in agreement with Gilroy. ^ The fac ing tors that led to recognition according to the Rosen study-^ were in order of importance: (l) slowness in developmental aspect of the child; (2) poor behavior; and (3) school failures. Like Sheimo's observation,these parents were able to estimate the mental level of their retarded chil- dren with a fair degree of accuracy.-' In contrast to frequent mention by other writers of the significance of sibling relationships, most of the mothers In this group -^Rosen, op. cit.. p. 523. 54Ibid., pp. 524-525. -’- ’Gilroy, op. cit., p. 4. ^Rosen, op. cit., p. 524. ^Sheimo, op. cit.. pp. 44-45. -^Rosen, op. cit.. p. 526. 35 did not report any unusual problems due to the presence of retarded children when there were siblings.^ However, the fact of having a retarded child caused the majority of mothers to fear the re-occurrence of mental deficiency in subsequent offspring.^0 T3ie discrepancy in this thinking waB indicated by the fact that more than half felt there waB a physical basis for the retardation even though only three of the children had a physical basis for their handi- 6 T cap. Mental retardation for these mothers was symbolized by slowness of reaction. Knowing the cause of the retarda tion did not seem to be essential to the mothers' acceptance of her child's handicap. The two factors primarily respon sible for impeding acceptance of retardation in their chil dren was reported to be divided equally between those mothers who felt their own feelings were the greatest obstacle and by those who explained the difficulty in rela- 62 tion to the child's behavior. In general, the attitudes of mothers were positive toward the schools when there was acceptance of the retardation. Hostile feelings arose mostly in conjunction with the recognition of difficulties in teaching the children.This finding appears signifi cant in view of the fact that the schools ranked highest in 59Ibid. 6olbid. 6lIbid., p. 525. 62Ibid., p. 526. 63Ibid., p. 527. 36 frequency of referring mothers to sources of help 64 The medical profession, on the other hand, came in for more criticism. Evidence of the need by physicians to know more about the problem of mental retardation is indicated in the frequency with which parents turn to them for help. Ihe mothers reported the majority of physicians reflected evasiveness, and disregard for the mother's feelings or ZTp- £?£ lack of knowledge. 5 As Rosen's research shows if the timing of the parents' awareness and recognition of the retardation occurs at the child's most critical formative stage, the result of the parents' observation may be a Bubtle alienation of the delicate and highly essential physical and emotional gratification of the retarded child. Consequently, when the child fails to respond in a typical way the reciprocal emotional interdependency is threatened. If maladjustive behavioral patterns have been acquired be fore the formation of the attitudes toward self and others has crystallized, they seem to have a more insidious in fluence on development than when such patterns are acquired Because of the findings concerning the rearing of "normal'* children, the research by Jersild and associ- later.67 64Ibld., p. 527. 66Ibid., p. 524. Ibid., p. 528. Sarason, op. cit., p. 135 37 /TO £q ateB and Del Solar y has special significance for this Investigation. The Jersild study included interviews with 5^^ urban families primarily of middle clasB status who were encouraged to discuss their children on the basis of problems and Joys in rearing them. All children (571 boys and 5&6 girls) in the families were considered in the study. Ihe subjects of the Del Solar study were thirty-six chil dren included in the Jersild group. Thirty-five mothers and twenty-three fathers of these children were inter viewed, and the responses were compared with the childrens teachers. The subjects were of the middle or upper middle classes. Ages of the children ranged from five years and seven months to twelve years and one month. I.Q.'s were from 110 to 138 with a mean of 128.7<" * This study differed from the larger study in that the parent was asked to com ment only on a certain child. More parents of the Del Solar study discussed their children1s difficulties in the areas of social relationships and intellectual deficiencies, whereas problems concerning living quarters, and their children's relationships with relatives were discussed by 68 Arthur T. Jersild, and others, Joys and Problems of Child Rearing (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 19^9). 6q ^Charlotte Del Solar, Parents and Teachers View the Child (New York: Bureau of Publications teachers College, Columbia University, 19^9). 70Ibid., p. 5. the parents in the Jersild study. There was evidence from hoth studies to indicate a tendency for parents from low socioeconomic circumstances to place less emphasis on the qualities within the child himself than did the higher social class groups. Hie lower socioeconomic class groupB would rather emphasize the problems or satisfactions af forded them by the characteristics of their spouse or their 71 relatives and feelings relative to living quarters. 72 7^ 74 Parber in studies' ' of the impact of a mentally re tarded child in the family noted that there was added stress placed on all members. He did not attempt to in vestigate in detail the attitudes pertaining to child rear ing practices of the retarded child. 71Ibid., p. 18. 72Bernard Parber, "Effects of a Severely Mentally Retarded Child on the Family Integration," Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development. X5dv7 too. 2; Serial 71, 1959. ^Bernard Parber, "Family Organization and Crisis: Maintenance of Integration in Families with a Severely Mentally Retarded Child," Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, X%V, IWo. 1: Serial75,19^0. 74 Bernard Parber, William C. Jenne, and Romolo Toigo, "Family Crisis and the Retarded Child," CEC Research Monograph No. 1, i960. 39 7*5 Davis and Havighurstin a study of Caucasian and Negro mothers of middle and lower social classes in Chicago reported there were significant differences in child rear ing practices and that the same type of differences existed between the middle and lower class of Negroes as between the middle and lower classes of Whites. They found that middle class parents were more rigorouB in their training for feeding and cleanliness habits. Middle class mothers expected their children to take responsibility for them selves earlier than parents of lower social-economic classes. White1 in a study of the south San Francisco Penninsula area noted the following differences between middle class mothers and lower class mothers: middle class mothers were less severe in toilet training, permitted more aggression against themselves, were more responsive to the baby’s crying, and more often mentioned experts, such as Spock, in trying to establish a frame of reference for their child rearing practices. ^Allison Davis and Robert E. HavighurBt, "Social Class and Color Differences in Childrearing," Readings in Social Psychology, ed. Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952), p. 5^0. ^Martha Sturm White, "Social Class, Child Rearing Practices, and Child Behavior," American Sociological Re view, XXII (December 1957), 10b. 4o 77 The study of Littman, Moore and Jones' dealing with differences in child rearing, compared three communi ties; Chicago, Newton and Eugene, Oregon. It was shown that the lower class is not as permissive of aggression as the middle class. The middle class has higher expectations regarding the following of home requirements and rules than do the lower class parents. Lower class parents were more prone to deprive the children of privileges and utilized physical punishment as a means of discipline. It was also noted that middle class fathers are relatively warmer and less rejecting, have a much better relationship with their child than lower class fathers. Sewell and Haller^® in a study dealing with the relationship between social status and personality adjustment of the child, noted that lower status children are far less well-adjusted than those chil dren coming from middle and high status families. Lower status children seemed to internalize the behavior of their family and neighborhood and extended their activities into the larger social environments of school and community. 77 Richard A. Littman, Robert Moore and John Pierce- Jones, "Social Class Differences in Child Rearing: A Third Community for Comparison with Chicago and Newton," American Sociological Review, XXII (December, 1957)* 69^. ^William H. Sewell, A. 0. Haller, "Factors in the Relationship Between Social Status and the Personality Adjustment of the Child," American Sociological Review, XXIV (August, 1959), 511. hi They encountered many values In behavioral expectations that were quite different from those of their family and neighborhood. They were inclined to feel that values other than their family and neighborhood were more important. 79 Commenting further on the expectations of children, Rosen'^ indicated that mothers have higher expectations for their child when they belonged to the middle class. Perhaps the most extensive study on patterns of child rearing was the one compiled by Sears, Maccoby and 80 Levin. This report, published in 1957, was the result of intensive investigation of 379 American mothers living in an urban community. The sample was composed of working class and middle class wives. The following table demon strates the differences between many of the socialization practices. According to this study there were some notable differences between the middle and working classes. Among these differences, the following stand out: working class mothers were more severe in their toilet training, and used more punishment, scolding and shaming for accidents than mothers of the middle class, were stricter and less permis sive than the middle class and were inclined to be more ^Bernard c. Rosen, "Family Structure and Achieve ment Motivation," American Sociological Review, XXVI (August, 1961), 57iH 80 Robert R. Sears, Eleanor E. Maccoby and Harry Levin, Patterns of Child Rearing (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 195V’ T* TABLE 1 DIFFERENCES IN CHILD-TRAINING PRACTICES BETWEEN MOTHERS CP TWO SOCIAL CLASSES Middle Working Scales Class Class P Median age at completion of 18.8 16. k .01 hovel training months months Percentage rated high onl 15* 26* Severity of toilet training .01 Permissiveness for dependency 1+2* 29* .02 Punishment, irritation, for dependency kk$ 56* .02 Sex permissiveness (summary) 53* 22* < .01 Permissiveness for aggression toward neighborhood children 38* 31* n.s.* Permissiveness for aggression toward parents 19* 7* < .01 Severity of punishment for aggression toward parents 36* 51* < .01 Amount of restriction on the use of fingers for eating 66* 8i* < .05 Pressure for conformity with table 23* 39* < .01 standards and restrictions Restrictions on care of house and furniture 65* 78* < .01 Pressure for neatness and orderliness ^3* 57* < .01 Strictness about bedtime 28* 38* < .05 Strictness about noise 28* 38* < .05 Keeping track of child (frequency of checking whereabouts) 26* 33* n.s.* Extent of father's demands for instant obedience 53* 67* < .05 Importance of child'b doing well in school 35* 50* < .01 Percentage who expect child to go to college 70* 2*+* < .01 Percentage rated high on; Use of praise if child gives no trouble at table 1+9* 63* < .05 Use of ridicule 31* 1+7* < .01 Deprivation of privileges 3^* 1+2* n.s.* Use of physical punishment 17* 33* < .01 Amount of caretaking of infant by person other than mother or father 18* 11* n.s.* Mother's warmth to child 51* 37* .01 Father's warmth to child 60* 56* n.s.* ^3 TABUS 1— Continued Scales Middle Class Working C l a B s P Percentage showing some rejection of child 2 1** 1*0* < .01 Percentage of mothers "delighted" over pregnancy 75* 65* .05 Percentage rated high om Mother's esteem for father Parents' disagreement on child rearing policies 5M& 15* 57* 19* .01 n.s.* Pamily authority exercised primarily by: Father Both equally Mother 29* 62* 9* 25* 59* 16* n.s.* n.s.* n.s.* * The difference between percentages is not significant, but the difference "between mean ratings, as evaluated by a t test, is significant at the p = .05 level or better. 44 irritated by dependency behavior rejecting it with a pun ishing attitude. Middle class mothers tended to discourage active forms of sex play by separating the children rather than by puniBhment and scorn that was demonstrated by the working class mothers. They were more likely to overlook incidences of aggression against them. They were likely to impose fewer restrictions and demands on their children and assumed that their children would go on to college, whereas working class mothers were contented to apply pres sure to their children to do well in school. Working class mothers used physical punishment, deprivation of privileges and ridicule in more frequent cases than the middle class. Middle class mothers were more demonstrative towards their children with whom they had warmer relationships. Pew cases of clear pattern of rejection were reported. In considering the possibility of consistency of maternal behavior toward the child, a recent study by Schaefer and Bailey demonstrated that a mother's behavior with her infant is significantly related to her behavior with the same child at preadolescence, there being a con sistency of maternal behavior. Q-i Earl S. Schaefer and Nancy Bayley, "Consistency of Maternal Behavior from Infancy to Preadolescence," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXI (i960), 1-6. 45 82 In another study by the same authors dealing with socioeconomic variables and the behavior of mothers towards their young children, there was again tendency for mothers of higher socioeconomic status to be warmer, more under standing and accepting than those of the lower status. Lower status mothers were more controlling, irritable and punitive. In conclusion, the authors strongly indicated that any effort to relate maternal child rearing practices to children's personality must take into account socio economic status variables and the sex of the child. Miller and Swanson,®^ in a study of child rearing practices in Detroit, did not show statistical significant differences between Entrepreneurial middle and lower status group and Bureaucrat middle and lower status groups. The authors felt that the Detroit area was significantly culturally different from other studied areas, but concluded there was some statistical tendency to confirm Detroit area research. 82 Nancy Bayley and Earl S. Schaefer, "Relationships Between Socioeconomic Variables and the Behavior of Mothers Toward Young Children," Journal of Genetic Psychology, XCVI (i960), 61-77. ^Daniel r . Miller and Guy E. Swanson, The Changing American Parent (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 195^). Summary Up to this writing, there has been no report of systematic study in the literature of attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded children along a "total'' social psy chological range. Most of the research that has been done tends to view parent-child relationships in terms of the adjustment of the child. Since studies originate from problems, it is not unusual that emphasis should be given to the difficulties of parent-child relationships. Con sequently, the factors responsible for the selection of the populations--chlldren taken on the basis of referral to social agencies, clinics, or institutions--should be con sidered in the interpretation of the findings. When other samples are considered, the selective factor is frequently the expression of some determination which forms the matrix of community groups, e.g., the various local associa tions for retarded children. Hence, studies of parental attitudes based upon these groups should be cognizant of two significant conditions: (l) the socioeconomic level of the groups with which parents of the majority of "garden variety" mentally handicapped children cannot feel at ease or identify, and (2) the condition that the parents in these organized groups are already supporting an effort to cope with the manifestations of mental re tardation in their children. It is known that mental kl retardation as a "state-of-being" is a dynamic property within the family relations. The available literature suggests that mental retar dation tends to threaten or weaken the structure upon which parents build their love for their children. TSie failure of the child to offer the means through which the parent may indirectly attain personal ideals must be dealt with in some manner. The methods of coping with the implications of mental retardation have been described in ways ranging from denial of the condition or rejection of the child to outright acceptance of the child with or without recogni tion of the condition. Among factors that have been con sidered as the most significant determinants of maternal attitudes are: (l) stability of the home; (2) intelligence level of the parents; (3) level of intelligence of the child; (U) attitude of the community; (5) sex of the child; (6) cultural influences; and (7) economic pressures. Studies dealing with the influence of socioeconomic status on parental attitudes support the significance of social-cultural group position in child rearing. Middle class parental attitudes are seemingly more permissive, em brace higher expectations, promote warmer relationships, are less rejecting, expect more response, and are more child oriented than those of lower socioeconomic status groups. CHAPTER III COMPOSITION AND SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE Selection of the Sample The mothers and their children who participated in this study were drawn from three counties: San Diego, Lob Angeles and Orange. The children were enrolled in special classes under supervision of 15 school districts, three County Superintendent of Schools offices, three private parent group organizations providing services for pre school severely mentally retarded children, and the De velopmental Study Clinic of the Los Angeles Childrens Hospital. All children had been given individual psycholog ical examinations to determine their intelligence quotient. In the case of pre-schoolers, this group was obtained from the Los Angeles Childrens Hospital and had already been classified as containing the severely mentally retarded. Children and their parentB were selected for this study based upon the following criteria: 1. Each child enrolled in a public school class was examined by a psychologist or physician to determine eligibility for admission to the 48 49 study. Each child in the pre-school group was examined by a physician to determine the diag nosis of severe mental retardation. 2. Each child was living with its biological mother. 3. Each child was Caucasian. Where a child was of Mexican-American lineage, evidence was required that both the American culture and language were part of the home. It was necessary to screen several thousand chil dren before a sample could be obtained to meet the afore mentioned criteria. The present lack of sophistication of the diagnostic test made it difficult to ascertain a final determination of each child's intellectual and functional level in the severely mentally retarded group. Conse quently, when I.Q. scores were available, they were used in making a determination of a child's functional level. In other cases, the psychologist, principal, and teacher aided in placing a child into one of the following func tional levels: highest potential, middle potential, and lowest potential. The process for placement was as follows: the children were first divided into two groups: (1) those with the highest potential, I.Q.'s between 4o and 50, who would probably function well in a program of work training or in a sheltered workshop; and (2) those with the lowest 50 potential, for whom it was impossible to arrive at a reli able I.Q. score and who were so severely retarded that they needed custodial care which might be best provided by a hospital or a special home. The children-that did not fall into one of the aforementioned categories were placed in the middle potential group. As adults, these children would remain at home since they could not succeed in a work training program or in a sheltered workshop but were not sufficiently retarded for the family to consider placement in an institution or a special home. Socioeconomic Status Levels Data were gathered on the characteristics of each family to ascertain its social, cultural, economic, and educational backgrounds. In order to study the differences in social classes in child rearing practices for comparative purposes, it was necessary to identify each parent with a particular socio economic status group. The method used in this study Is similar to the method used by Sears.1 Three measures were used to arrive at an index of socioeconomic statuB: father's education, occupation and income level. The Robert R. Sears, Eleanor E. Maccoby, and Harry Levin, Patterns of Child Rearing (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Pe ter son and Company , 195?). 51 p father's occupation as rated by Warner was scored on a scale of occupational status with the highest rating given to those occupations carrying the highest status or pres tige. This score of occupational status was given a weight of two, and was combined with a score on father's education, weighted one, and the score on his income, weighted one, to produce the socioeconomic status level. Occupational Status Level Warner's Revised Scale 1. Major professionals, major managerial, CPA 2. High School teachers, undertakers, medium sized entrepreneurs, department managers of large businesses, accountants, salesmen or real estate, insurance 3. Contractors, auto salesmen, bank clerks, minor business officials, optometrists, untrained ministers 4. Small businesses, ticket agents, factory foremen, self-employed plumbers, or carpenters, or etc., dry cleaners, butchers, R.R. conduc tors, salesmen in stores 5. Tiny businesses, wage-earning skilled workers, barbers, firemen, bartenders, policemen 6. Semi-skilled workers, watchmen, taxi and truck drivers, gas station attendants 7. Unskilled workers, heavy laborers, Janitors, odd-job men Annual Income--Present Husband unless Married Less than One Year 1. $15,000 or more 5. 4,000-4,999 2. 10,000-14,999 6. 3,000-3,999 3- 7,500-9,999 7. 2,000-2,999 4. 5,000-7,^99 8. Less than $2,000 2 W. Lloyd Warner, M. Meeker and K. Eells, Social Class in America, A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949). 52 Husband's Education--Present Husband unless Married Less than 1 Year 1. College plus grad school, post-college pro fessional (medical school, law school) 2. College grad 3. Some college 4. High school plus business, vocational school 5. Completed high school 6. Some high (including some high plus vocational) 7. Grade school or less Consequently, if the father was a physician or an attorney, he would receive an occupational status score of 1, given a score of 1 on the educational scale. Fifteen thousand dollars a year, he would be given a score of 1 on the in come level if income was above $15,000. The total weighted score would be 4. The range of weighted scores for class placement are as follows: weighted scores of 4 through 12— Upper Class, 13 through 18--Middle Class, and 19 through 27--Lower Class. Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Children and 'Kieir Families Tables 2 and 3 present data by socioeconomic status (SES) level for the major groups, the educable mentally re tarded (EMR) and severely mentally retarded (SMR) groups. The size of the groups by SES levels for the EMR indicates 48 per cent for the lower SES, 36 per cent for the middle, and 16 per cent for the upper. For the SMR group, the lower SES shows 31 per cent, the middle 39 per cent, and the upper 30 per cent. 53 TABIE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES CP EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Total EMR Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Families 1. Number of mothers 32 7k 99 205 2. Median age of mother at birth of child 28.2 27.4 27.1* 27.5 3. Median age of father at birth of child 30.3 29.4 29.6 29.5 h. Total number of children in families at time 90 217 313 620 of interview 5. Average number of children per family 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0 6. Number of families with one child 1 7 11 19 7* Number of families with two children 12 27 29 68 8. Number of families with three or more children 19 to 59 118 9. Median I.Q. of child 67.8 69.5 70.0 69.9 10. Number of mothers Urban background 22 50 40 112 Rural background 10 2k 59 93 11. Number of fathers Urban background 22 53 33 108 Rural background 10 21 66 97 54 TABLE 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES OF SEVERE LI MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Total SMR Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Families 1. Number of mothers 60 79 63 202 2. Median age of mother at birth of child 28.8 28.2 29.9 28.6 3. Median age of father at birth of child 31.8 30.8 32.3 30.8 4. Total number of children in families at time of 185 22k 200 609 interview 5. Average number of children per family 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.0 6. Number of families with one child 4 5 11 20 7. Number of families with two children 20 24 10 54 8. Number of families with three or more children 35 49 4i 125 9. Median I.Q. of child * # * # 10. Number of mothers Urban background 39 51 30 120 Rural background 21 28 33 82 11. Number of fathers Urban background 43 52 34 129 Rural background 17 27 29 73 Functional intelligence levels used instead of I.Q.'s. 55 The median age of the parents shows that the mothers and the fathers of the SMR group are older than those in the EMR group. The total number of children in both major groups is about the same, with an average of three children per family. The lower SES families have more children per family (3.2) than the upper and middle classes, although the upper SES families of the SMR group are almoBt the same, with 3.1 children per family. The number of families with an only child is simi lar, with the larger number in the lower SES families. The median IQ of the EMR children is close to 70, with the lowest IQ children in the upper SES level, and the highest IQ children in the lower SES level. The IQ's of the SMR children are not shown because a functional IQ level was preferred, as arrived at by Joint agreement of professional personnel working with the child. Table 4 is the combined data of Tables 2 and 3. The urban-rural backgrounds of the parents where they had spent their most formative years from childhood through adolescence, indicates that most parents of both major groups came from urban areas of citieB of 10,000 or more, or suburbs of such cities. However, significantly more lower SES fathers of the EMR group came from rural areas. 56 TABIE 1 4 - CHARACTERISTICS OP FAMILIES OF RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Total EMR Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Families 1. Number of mothers 92 153 162 407 2. Median age of mother at birth of child 28.1 27.8 28.7 28.1 3. Median age of father at birth of child 31. 1 50.1 30.9 50.2 4. Total number of children In families at time of 275 L-i+l 513 1229 Interview 5. Average number of children 5.0 2.9 3.2 3.0 per family 6. Number of families with one child 5 12 22 39 7. Number of families with two children 32 51 59 122 8. Number of families with three or more children 54 89 100 243 9. Median I.Q. of child See Tables 1 and 2 10. Number of mothers Urban background 6l 101 70 232 Rural background 31 52 92 175 11. Number of fathers Urban background 65 105 67 237 Rural background 27 48 95 170 Distribution of mentally retarded children clasBlfled bysoclo- economic status of family and sex of chlKT As shown in Table 5# the number of EMR boys and girls in this study is almost equal. By SES levels, the largest number are of lower SES (48 per cent). In con trast are the data for Table 6, the distribution of the SMR sample, classified with 48 per cent for the EMR, and 30 per cent in the upper SES group compared with 16 per cent for the upper EMR group. Although the sex ratio for the school group of SMR children is almost equal, this is not true for the children in the pre-school SMR group, where 62 boys and 4o girls are shown. Comparison of socioeconomic status and intelligence levels of educable and severely men tally retarded children In Table 7, the two groups of MR children are com pared by three SES levels and three intelligence levels: (a) those children with IQ's of 46 to 59* (b) those be tween 6o and 69, and (c) those with IQ's of 70-84. Hie SMR group was divided into highest, middle and lowest functional intelligence levels. It can readily be seen that in the EMR group the differences between the SES upper, middle and lower levels with IQ's from 46-59 are not too great. For the children with IQ's between 60-69* a greater difference begins to 58 TABIE 5 FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCABIE MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, SEX OF CHILD, AND SCHOOL LEVEL Upper SES No. Per cent Middle SES ; No. Per cent Lover SES No. Per cent No. Total Per cent Elementary Educable Mentally Retarded Children Boys 12 11 19 18 22 21 53 50 Girls 9 9 17 17 25 2k 51 50 Total 21 20 36 55 47 43 10I 4 - 100 Secondary Educable Mentally Retarded Children Boys 6 6 21 21 32 31 59 58 Girls 5 5 17 17 20 20 1*2 142 Total 11 11 58 58 52 51 101 100 Total Educable Mentally Retarded Children Boys 18 9.0 i < - 0 19.5 5 l 4 - 26.0 112 5^.5 Girls ik 7.0 3k 16.5 k$ 22.0 93 ^5.5 Total 52 16.0 Ik 56.0 99 ^.0 205 100.0 59 TABIE 6 FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SEVERELY MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, SEX OF CHILD, AND SCHOOL LEVEL Upper SES No. Per cent Middle SES No. Per cent Lover SES No. Per cent No. Total Per cent Pre‘ -School Severely Mentally Retarded Children Boys 21 20 ro 00 ro 13 15 62 60 Girls 13 13 18 18 9 9 1+0 40 Total 3k 33 k6 1+5 22 22 102 100 School-age Severely Mentally Retarded Children Boys 16 16 11 11 21 21 1 + 8 48 Girls 10 10 22 22 20 20 52 52 Total 26 26 33 33 1 + 1 1+ 1 100 100 Total Severely Mentally Retarded Children Boys 37 18.5 39 19.5 3I + 16.5 110 54.5 Girls 23 11.5 1 + 0 19.5 29 14.5 92 45.5 Total 60 30.0 79 39.0 63 51.0 202 100.0 6o TABLE 7 PER CENT DISTRIBUTION OP SCHOOL AGE MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC LEVELS AND INTELLIGENCE LEVELS Educable Mentally Retarded Children Intelligence Levels Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Total 70-84 6.5 18.0 24.0 48.5 60-69 6.5 9.0 16.0 31.5 46-59 3.0 9.0 8.0 20.0 Total 16.0 36.0 48.0 100.0 Severely Mentally Retarded Children Functional Intelligence Levels Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Total Highest potential 15.0 14.0 24.0 53.0 Middle potential 9.0 14.0 12.0 35.0 Lowest potential 2.0 5.0 5.0 12.0 Total 26.0 33.0 41.0 100.0 61 show between the upper and the lower SES levels. Differ ences between the upper and the lower SES levels become evident In the groups with IQ's of 70-84. Of the 16 per cent of the children In the upper SES level, 3 per cent have IQ's from 46-59; 6.5 per cent have IQ's 60-69; and 6.5 per cent have IQ's 70-84. For the lower SES level, 8 per cent have IQ scores from 46 to 59j 16 per cent have IQ's 60-69; and 24 per cent have IQ's 70-84. For the lower SES level, 8 per cent have IQ scoreB from 46 to 59; 16 per cent have IQ’s 60-69; and 24 per cent, IQ's 70-84. Noteworthy Is the preponderance of higher IQ's in the lower SES level, where 34 per cent of the 205 children have IQ's 65-84, and only 14 per cent have IQ's 46-64. On the other hand, for the upper SES level, the children with IQ's 65-84 constitute 10 per cent, and those for IQ's 46-64, 6 per cent. For the middle SES level, the percentages are more like those for the lower SES level, with 24 per cent of the children with IQ's between 65 and 84, and 12 per cent with IQ's from 46 to 64. Table 9 shows that about 25 of the pre-school SMR children are in the lowest potential group, whereas only 12 are in the similar school group. Many of these "not as certained" or lowest potential SMR pre-school children are ordinarily placed in foster homes or institutions before they reach school age. 62 TABLE 8 FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EDUCABLE MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, I.Q., AND SEX OF CHILD I.Q. Upper SES Middle' SES Lower SES Total Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls 46-50 0 1 1 1 6 0 9 50-54 1 3 3 1 1 1 10 55-59 1 0 6 6 5 3 21 60-64 3 3 2 4 6 7 25 65-69 4 3 6 7 8 12 4o 70-74 2 5 8 15 6 17 53 75-79 2 2 5 5 11 11 36 80-84 1 1 3 1 2 3 11 Total 14 18 34 4o 45 54 205 Percentage Distribution of Educable Mentally Retarded Children I.Q. Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Total No. % No. % No. % No. % 46-50 1 0.5 2 1.0 6 3.0 9 4.5 50-54 4 2.0 4 2.0 2 1.0 10 5.0 55-59 1 0.5 12 6.0 8 4.0 21 10.5 60-64 6 3.0 6 3.0 13 6.0 25 12.0 65-69 7 3.5 13 6.0 20 10.0 40 19.5 70-74 7 3.5 23 11.0 23 11.0 53 25.5 75-79 4 2.0 10 5.0 22 10.5 36 17.5 80-84 2 1.0 4 2.0 5 2.5 11 5.5 Total 32 16.0 74 36.0 99 48.0 205 100.0 63 TABLE 9 FR EQ UENC Y A N D PER CEN TAG E DISTRIBUTION O F SEVERELY M E N T A L L Y RET A R D ED CHILDREN BY SO CIO ECO NO M IC STATUS, FUNCTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IEVEL* AND SEX O F CHILD Functional* Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Total Level Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Boy Girl Number of Pre-school Severely Mentally Retarded Children (N = 102) Highest potential 6 6 9 5 7 2 22 13 Middle potential 5 2 2 3 1 1 8 6 Lowest potential 7 2 6 1 + 1 + 2 17 8 Not ascertained 3 3 11 6 1 1 + 15 13 Total 21 13 28 18 13 9 62 1*0 Number of School-age Severely Mentally Retarded Children (N = 100) Highest potential 3 12 6 8 3 21 12 1+1 Middle potential 1 8 12 2 9 3 22 13 Lowest potential 0 2 0 5 l 1 + 1 11 Total b 22 18 15 13 28 35 65 Percentage Distribution of All Severely Mentally Retarded Children Highest potential 27 13.5 38 ll+.O 33 16.0 88 ^3.5 Middle potential 16 8.0 19 9-5 ll+ 7.0 1*9 21*.5 Lowest potential 11 5.5 15 7.5 11 5.5 37 18.5 Not ascertained 6 3.0 17 8.0 5 2.5 28 13.5 Total 60 30.0 79 39.0 63 31.0 202 100.0 ^Decision as to functional intelligence level was made by Joint action of Psychologist, Teacher and Principal. Age distribution of children Table 10, the age distribution of the children at the time of the Interview with the mother, shows the widest disparity in the three-to-five and six-to-eight age brack ets. Where 126 of the SMR group average under age nine, only 17 of the EMR group are in the comparable age groups. The median age of EMR is 13.7; that of the SMR group, 7.3* Only SMR pre-school children are included since it is al most impossible to diagnose EMR children of pre-school age. It was not possible to find SMR children in the secondary age level in the same frequency as the EMR because of early mortality, prior foster home or institutional placement, and lack of special classes for older SMR children in the public schools. Ordinal sequence of the chil dren by SlES levels Comparison of the ordinal sequence of the children is shown in Table 11. The only child, oldest, youngest, and middle children are shown, with about the same number of only and middle children in both major groups. One might well expect more SMR children to be in the youngest group since parents who have several normal children and then have an SMR child are not likely to have more chil dren. This seems to be truer of the middle SES level SMR group than of any other SES level. 6 5 TABLE 10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY AGE OF CHILD Age by Years Educable Mentally Retarded Children N = 205 Severely Mentally Retarded Children N = 202 3-5 0 59 6-8 17 67 9-12 69 46 13-17 107 26 18-19 12 4 Total 205 202 Median age 13.7 years 7.3 years 66 TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY ORDINAL POSITION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILD BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Socioeconomic Status Only Child Oldest Youngest Middle Total Per Cent of Educable Mentally Retarded Children Upper SES 1 k 6 5 16 Middle SES 3 16 8 9 36 Lower SES 6 15 16 11 1*8 Total EMR (N=205) 10 35 30 25 100 Per Cent of Severely Mentally Retarded Children Upper SES 3 9 11 7 30 Middle SES k 8 16 11 39 Lower SES 5 9 9 8 31 Total SMR (N=202) 12 26 36 26 100 67 Total number of all children by bocioeconomic status of family The distribution of the sample population by the total number of children in each family is shown in Table 12. In the EMR group, the largest number of families (34 per cent) have two children; in the SMR group, the largest number (36 per cent) have three children. As already men tioned, the number of only children for the two groups is quite similar. Other selected characteristics of the families'^ Shown in Table 13 are the ages of the mothers at the time of birth of the child by SES levels. The largest number of mothers of EMR children is in the middle SES level, ages 25-29, followed very closely in the same age group by the mothers of lower SES. For the mothers of SMR children, the largest number is also in the same age group for the middle SES, followed in the same age group by the mothers of upper SES. In the over-4o group there are no mothers of EMR children of upper SES, only half-of-one per cent of middle SES, but three per cent in the lower SES level. For the mothers of SMR children, three per cent of the upper SES mothers are 4o and over, one per cent of middle SES and four per cent of lower SES level. Table 14 presents the marital status of the mothers at the time of the interview by SES levels. Of families 68 TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN IN THE FAMILIES OF THE MENTALLY RETARDED CHILD BY SOCICECONOMIC STATUS Socioeconomic Status Only Child Two Three Four or More Total Per Cent of Educable Mentally Retarded Children Upper SES 1 6 5 1 + 16 Middle SES 3 10 9 36 Lower SES 6 Ik 12 16 1+8 Total EMR (N=205) 10 3k 27 29 100 Per Cent of Severely Mentally Retarded Children Upper SES 3 9 8 10 30 Middle SES 1 + 11 18 6 39 Lower SES 5 5 10 11 31 Total SMR (11=202 ) 12 25 36 27 100 69 TABLE 13 PERCEN TAG E DISTRIBUTION O F M O T H E R S C F M E N T A L L Y R E T A R D ED CHILDREN BY A G E C F M O T H E R S AT TIME O F BIRTH O F CHILD BY SO C IO ECO NO M IC STATUS Per Cent of Educahle Retarded Mothers of Mentally Children Per Cent of Mothers Severely Mentally Retarded Children of Age Upper SES Middle SES Lower SES Total Upper Middle SES SES Lower SES Total Under 20 0.0 3.0 6.5 9.5 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 20-24 3.5 9.0 12.5 25.0 6.5 9.5 6.5 22.5 25-29 7.5 15.0 14.5 37.0 11.0 13.5 5.5 30.0 30-34 3-5 6.0 8.0 17.5 4.5 8.5 7-0 20.0 35-39 1.5 2.5 3-5 7.5 5.0 5.5 4.0 1^.5 40 and over .0 .5 3-0 3-5 3.0 1.0 • 0 8.0 Total 16.0 36.0 48.0 100.0 30.0 39.0 31.0 100.0 70 TABLE Ik PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP MARITAL STATUS CF MOTHER BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Marital Status Upper SES N « 32 Middle SES N = 7^ Lower SES N = 99 Total N * 205 Per Cent of Mothers of Educable MR Children Married 15.5 32.5 1*0.0 88.0 Divorced S t remarried 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.5 Widow S t remarried 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 Divorced 0.5 0.5 2.5 3-5 Separated 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Widow 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Unknown 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Total 16.0# 36.0# 1 * 8.0# 100.0# Per Cent of Mothers of Severely MR Children Married 29.0 36.5 28.5 9^.0 Divorced S t remarried 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Widow and remarried 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Divorced 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 Separated 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Widow- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unknown 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 Total 50. 0# 39. 0# 31. 0# 100. 0# 71 with EMR child, 91•5 per cent are Intact, while 95.5 per cent of families with a SMR child are intact. Only 8 per cent of the EMR parents are separated, divorced or widowed, with 4 per cent of the SMR parents in the same status. The greatest disparity between the Btable and relatively un stable families1 pattern occurs in the EMR lower SES level. In Table 15 the educational level of the father and mother by SES level is shown. Almost twice as many mothers in the SMR group have been to college or are college gradu ates than is the case for the EMR group. For the fathers this disparity is not so great, with ^2 per cent of the SMR fathers having attended college as compared to 29 per cent of the EMR group. In Table 16 the number of organizations belonged to by husband and wife is shown by SES levels. Many more upper SES level families with EMR children belong to one or more organizations than do lower SES level EMR families. This is not as true among parents of SMR children. For instance, only three per cent of the wives In the upper SES level EMR group to not belong to any organization, whereas 22 per cent of the lower SES level EMR have no organization affiliations. The percentage distribution of the religious pref erence of the mothers by SES levels is shown In Table 17. A higher percentage of Protestant mothers is found among 72 TABIE 15 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY EDUCATION OF MOTHER AND FATHER AND BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Education Level Educable Mentally Retarded N = 205 Severely Mentally Retarded N * 202 Upper Middle Lower Total SES SES SES Upper Middle Lower Total SES SES SES Father College plus 4 4 6 6 College graduate 6 2 8 10 1 11 Some college 5 12 17 11 14 25 High school plus 5 5 1 3 2 6 High school grad 1 10 12 23 2 14 13 29 Some high school 7 18 25 5 8 13 Grade school or less 18 18 2 8 10 Total 16 36 48 100 30 39 31 100 Mother College plus 1 1 2 2 College graduate 2 1 3 4 3 7 Some college 4 4 3 11 10 7 1 18 High school plus 4 3 5 12 3 5 6 14 High school graduate 5 17 13 35 10 J-9 10 39 Some high school 9 18 27 1 3 10 14 Grade school or less 2 9 11 2 4 6 Total 16 36 48 100 30 39 31 100 73 TABIE 16 PERCEN TAG E DISTRIBUTION C F N U M B E R O F ORGANIZATIONS BE LO N G ED TO BY HUSBAND O R WIFE BY SO CIO ECO NO M IC STATUS Socioeconomic Status Number of Organizations None One Husband Wife Husband Wife Two or Husband More Wife Total Husband Wife Edueable Mentally Retarded Upper SES I f 3 k 6 8 7 16 16 Middle SES 10 13 16 16 10 7 36 36 Lower SES 16 22 23 22 9 k k& 1 * 8 Total l 30 38 U3 I f I f 27 18 100 100 Severely Mentally Retarded Upper SES i f k 12 11 llf 15 30 30 Middle SES 5 9 16 16 18 14 39 39 Lower SES 5 4 Ik 15 12 12 31 31 Total Ik 17 k2 l f 2 kk l+l 100 100 7k TABIE 17 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION CF RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OF MOTHERS OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Religious Preference Upper SES Middle SES Lover SES Total Per Cent of Mothers of Educahle Mentally Retarded Children Protestant 12.0 26.0 i + 0.0 78.0 Catholic 3.5 8.5 6.5 18.5 Jevish 0.5 1.5 1.5 3.5 Total EMR (N = 205) 16.0 36.0 U8.0 100.0 Per Cent of Mothers of Severely Mentally Retarded Children Protestant 21.0 22.0 18.0 61.0 Catholic 6.0 1^.5 11.5 32.0 Jewish 3.5 2.5 1.0 7.0 Total SMR (N = 202) 30.5 39.0 30.5 100.0 75 the EMR than SMR, Conversely, a higher percentage of SMR mothers Is found among Catholics as well as among Jews. In Table 18 the length of residence In California of the father and mother Is shown. Over 75 per cent of the parents have lived In California better than 6 years, and over 4o per cent for 20 years, demonstrating a relatively stable non-interstate mobility. In Table 19 are shown the data for the birthplace of the child, of his father and of his mother by the follow ing geographical areas: California, Western States, North Central, North Eastern, Southern, and other and foreign born, 80 per cent of SMR children, and 64 per cent of EMR children being born in California. Summary The composition of the children and parents of the educable and severely mentally retarded study population has been presented. Viewed in the social and economic setting in which family events occur, the two groups have been analyzed as to their essential characteristics. Among the factors considered about the children were their IQ’s in relation to socioeconomic status levels, their ages, sex, educational levels, ordinal position and number of siblings. Among the parents were considered such variables as parent-child differences, socioeconomic status levels, 7 6 TABLE 18 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP RETARDED CHILDRENS' FATHERS AND MOTHERS RESIDENCE IN CALIFORNIA BY YEAR Husband’s and Wife's Residence in California by Years Mother Father 1-5 years 13.0$ 12.0$ 6-10 years 12.0 11.0 11-19 years 22.5 22.5 20 years 42.0 43.0 Unknown 2.5 2.5 Less than 1 year 1.0 1.0 Did not answer 7.0 8.0 Total 100.0 100.0 77 TABLE 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILIES OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN BY BIRTHPLACE OF CHILD, FATHER AND MOTHER Educable Mentally Retarded Birthplace Child Father Mother California 64 14 16 Western States 5 12 11 North Central 19 4o 39 North Eastern 5 15 10 Southern 5 15 18 Other and Foreign Born 2 4 6 Total 100 100 100 Severely Mentally Retarded Birthplace Child Father Mother California 80 17 21 Western States 2 11 11 North Central 4 38 4o North Eastern 3 18 12 Southern 2 7 9 Other and Foreign Born 9 9 7 Total 100 100 100 78 TABLE 19— continued Western States (Minus California) North Central States Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Oregon Utah Washington Wyoming Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin North Eastern States Connecticut Maine Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Vermont Rhode Island Washington, D.C, Southern States Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Mississippi North Carolina Oklahoma South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia West Virginia Other and Foreign Born Alaska Hawaii Foreign Born membership in organizations, religious preference, mobility and residence in California, and birthplace. In addition to the variable of intelligence of the children a number of other differences in families of educable and severely re tarded were noted. CHAPTER IV TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES Through the use of the Parent Attitude Research Instrument, information from mothers relating to their at titudes in rearing of their mentally retarded children was secured. The theoretical background for the concept of per sonality as used is one dealing with interpersonal relation ships as the all inclusive variable. This is consistent with the theories advanced by Mler, Sullivan, Horney, Mead and others. In essence, personality develops as a result of social interaction with significant people, primarily family members. An instrument was employed that would per mit a wide range of investigation Into the dynamic every day attitudes of mothers toward their children, as well as meet the necessary criteria of high reliability, validity, sensitivity, practicality, and experience. The Parent At titude Research Instrument met the demands of this inves tigation. The Parent Attitude Research Instrument is composed of 115 questions. There are 23 scales and five items for each of the scales. The Items are composed of general 80 opinion statements with which the subject is asked to strongly or mildly agree or disagree on a four-point scale. The instrument attempts to increase the social acceptability of the statements by wording them in the form of rational ization, truisms, and cliches. The items are arranged in cyclical order, one item from each of the 23 scales in se quence, the next item from each of the scales followed and the order is repeated. Consequently, the first item rep resents a scale which would be questions 1, 24, 47, 70, and 93; the second scale would be statements 2, 25, 48, 71* and 94, and so forth. The scoring procedure is comparatively simple: if there is strong agreement, the item would be scored as four; if there is mild agreement, is scored as three; if there is mild disagreement the item is scored as two; and if there is strong disagreement the item is scored as one. After the Parent Attitude Research Instrument was completed by the mothers, individual item scores were punched on IBM cards. Two cards were used for each case in order to accommodate the scores and other data necessary for electronic data processing. A special program was written for this data for processing on the IBM 7090 at Western Data Processing Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California.^ ^Richard Kronmal, Biostatistics Department, U.C.L.A. The program processed the data as if all operations were done manually. Totals were taken for the five items on each scale, and group means were arrived at for each of the classification groups. (SES, EMR-SMR, SEX.) Statistical Methodology For each variable a 3 x 2 x 2 design was set up for analysis of variance. The analysis of variance was done on the means of the cells. The means are used because: (1) there are unequal numbers of cases in each cell so that analysis of variance based on the individual cases would require a complicated procedure of adding observations which is difficult to justify statistically and nearly impossible to implement on this large a study, (2) it is assumed that the means in each cell are from a normal dis tribution, while it is not quite so reasonable to assume the individual cases are from a normal distribution. Since the basic assumptions for analysis of vari ance are acceptable for this experiment, it is best to use this type of analysis, in preference to the various non- 2 parametric statistics. 2 Discussion with Richard Kronmal, Fellow in Bio statistics, and in conjunction with Professors Dixon and Massey, Tfte Biostatistics Department, U.C.L.A., June 7> 1962. 83 Definition of Scales, Statements and Locations The scales and the five-item questions for each of the scales are listed below. A definition of each scale is included prior to the actual statements and number loca tion of the item. SCALE NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION 1. Encouraging verbalization Values highly freedom of expression for adults or children, including expres sion of differences of opin ion. This scale also deter mines to vhat degree the parent permits or encourages the child to talk about his anxieties, conflicts, hostili ties and disagreement vith parental policies. 2. Fostering dependency Measures the degree of over protection and overpossessive— ness of the parent. 3. Seclusion of the mother Primary locus of interest is in the hamemaking role and vas designed to measure the SCALE NO. ITEM 1 4 - . Breaking the will 5. Martyrdom 6. Fear of harming the baby J. Marital conflict 8. Strictness 8^ DESCRIPTION social adjustment of the mother, since it would pre sumably influence the social ization of the child. Tendency to release tensions by directing overt aggression towards the child. Identifies with the complain ing mother who draws attention to her own suffering. Evaluates the unconscious de structive impulse toward the baby or sees the baby as a symbol of uncontrolled ag gression. Recognizes tension in the marriage. Desires more control and regulation during her own childhood and assumes this to be the desire of her own children. 85 SCALE NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION 9. Irritability Measureb within the parent explosive discharges of ag gression and latent dissatis faction with her homemaking role. 10. Excluding outside influences Identifies the need to be pro tected against comparison or criticism and measures family ethnocentrism as related to parental control and authori tarian attitudes. 11. 12. Deification Suppression of aggression Desires a parental role which is relatively unchallengeable, and supported by a dominant and submissive hierarchy. Fears loss of control over aggression. 1J. Rejection of the homemaking role Evaluates the state of the mother at being shut up in the home, and her dissatisfac tion with the duties of caring for the home and children. SCALE NO. ITEM l^. Equalitarianism 15. Approval of activity 16. Avoidance of communication 17. Inconslderateness of the husband 18. Suppression of sexuality 86 DESCRIPTION Resists letting others control one's behavior or functioning vithin a social organization In which security is exchanged for loss of freedom. Approves of solitary achieve ment oriented functions for the child. Has low concern with estab lished communication or con trol over the child. This scale is also related to scale number one. Tendency to maximize conflict with the husband, peer or authority figures in order to effect release of aggression with such figures. Also per mits a projection of feelings about the husband. Measures the degree to which the mother will tolerate asocial impulses. SCALE NO. ITEM 19. Ascendance of the mother 20. Intrusiveness 21. Comradeship and sharing 22. Acceleration 87 DESCRIPTION Identifies with the mother seen as a powerful or compe tent in managing intra-family relations, and measures the extent to which the mother plans to dominate the family. (Another scale to possibly evaluate degree of marital conflict.) Evaluates the extent that the mother uses knowledge about the personal problems of others as a means of hurting or gain ing symbolic power over them. Comfortable In free play with children or makes a compensa tory effort to achieve harmony in a difficult parent-chiId relationship. Rejects the child's dependency on the mother. 88 DESCRIPTION Measures the extent to which the mother looks to others for security and support. It evaluates how the mother feels in performing her role alone. That is if she feels adequate or anxious or not up to the performance that may he re quired from her. Summary Mothers of educable and severely mentally retarded children were requested to complete a "census type" ques tionnaire and the Parent Attitude Research Instrument. This instrument measures the attitudes of mothers toward their children in 23 social psychological areas: Encouraging verbalization Postering dependency Seclusion of the mother Breaking the will Martyrdom Pear of harming baby Marital conflict Strictness Irritability Excluding outside influences Deification Suppression of aggression Rejection of the homemaking role Equalitarlanism Approval of activity Avoidance of communication SCAIE NO. ITEM 23. Dependency of the mother 89 Inconsiderateness of the husband Suppression of sex Ascendance of the mother Intrusiveness Comradeship and sharing Acceleration of development Dependency of the mother Information obtained from the mothers was placed on IBM cards and processed on the IBM 7090 at Western Data Processing Center. A special program was written to perform Analysis of Variance. This procedure allowed investigation of the influences of socioeconomic status, sex of the chil dren, and degree of retardation of the children. CHAPTER V FINDINGS In this Investigation, the influences of socio economic status, sex of the child, and degree of retarda tion on the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded chil dren were sought. To accomplish this three socioeconomic status groups were formed: (l) the upper, (2) the middle and (3) the lower, two groups based on sex, and two groups based on the degree of retardation, educable mentally re tarded and severely mentally retarded. Analysis of Variance The analysis o'f variance statistical technique as sumes a null hypothesis; that there is no difference be tween and within the aforementioned groups. The F test is used in conjunction with the analysis of variances because it deals with ratios and the use of a two-tail value. Listed below are the values for .05 and .01 levels of sig nificance for the F test. If the F scores are higher than the values given for .05 then the significance of the dif ference between the groups may be Judged as a rejection of the null hypothesis. 90 91 01 SES PI,7 = 9.55 EMR-SMR FI,7 = 5.59 PI,7 = 12.2 SEX FI,7 = 5.59 PI,7 = 12.2 Hie range of scores for each scale are from five to twenty. The direction of differences may be observed by noting the mean scores for each of the groups. The higher the score the more it is in a direction of the scale vari able. High scores indicate the connotation of the scale in question. For example, the higher the mean score in scale 1, the more the mother has the attitude of encouraging verbalization. This also holds for the remaining 22 scales. Normative Data larged on the normative data on the Parent Attitude Re search Instrument. It is reported that the representative ness of this sample is not too deviant from mothers of the general population although it contains a greater represen tation of women with college educations and older mothers. Marvin Zuckerman, Beatrice Barrett Ribback, Irwin Monashkin and James A. Norton, Jr., "Normative Data and Factor Analysis on the Parental Attitude Research Instru ment," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXII (1958), 165- 171. Zuckerman, Ribback, Monashkin and Norton, 1 have en- 92 No attempt was made to test the significance of the scores obtained by Schaefer and Bell and by Zuckerman and his associates with the scores obtained in this investiga tion. The normative data is offered to provide a frame of reference and to note the degree of similarity or differ ence with this study sample. Each scale, with means, variances and items used for measurement purposes is reported separately along with the analysis of variance values. Ihe number of mothers, with percentages, is constant for all scales and is again reported as follows: EMR SMR Male Female Male Female N % N % N % N % SES 1 18 9.0 14 7.0 37 18.5 23 11.5 SES 2 40 19.5 34 16.5 39 19.5 4o 19.5 SES 3 54 26.0 45 22.0 34 16.5 29 14.5 Scale Values According to the analysis of variance technique for Scale 1, Encouraging Verbalization, the null hypothesis was not rejected for the influence of SES and EMR-SMR. An F score of 5.58 was noted for the influence of sex. A higher mean within each sub-group between the sexes, except EMR- 93 TABLE 20 NORMATIVE DATA ON THE PARENT ATTITUDE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT* Mean Variance 1. Encouraging verbalization 17.93 3*80 2. Postering dependency 10.82 9*48 3. Seclusion of the mother 11.39 11.42 4. Breaking the will -10.54 10.82 5. Martyrdom 9.44 12.53 6. Pear of harming the baby 12.81 11.5o 7. Marital conflict 15.04 11.08 8. Strictness 13*71 ^*3^ 9. Irritability 14.22 7.89 10. Excluding outside influences 10.90 12.53 11. Deification 12.80 13*61 12. Suppression of Aggression 10.03 7.56 13. Rejection of the nomemaking role 11.62 10.43 14. Equalitarianism 17.40 4.12 15. Approval of activity 12.84 9.12 l6r- Avoidance of communication 10.81 10.24 17. Inconsiderateness of husband 11.96 13*03 18. Suppression of sex 8.71 8.82 19. Ascendance of the mother 11.83 12.60 20. Intrusiveness 10.39 -^*3^ 21. Comradeship and Sharing 18.67 2.89 22. Acceleration of development 11.67 12.67 2 3 . Dependency of the mother 12.00 10.49 *Marvin Zuckerman, Beatrice Barrett Ribback, Irwin Monashkin, and James A. Norton, Jr., "Normative Data and Factor Analysis on the Parental Attitude Research Instru ment," Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXII (1958), 167. SES 2, favoring females, was observed. It would appear that mothers Identify more with their daughters than their sons and permit their daughters more freedom of expression than their sons. The exception, EMR-SES 2, showB an op posite direction of free expression, M = 17.03 for boys, and M = 16.97 for girls. This group also has the largest variance for each sex. The highest M is 17.79 and the lowest 16.84, while the norm is 17.93* a bit higher than the study sample. Mothers promote verbal exchange and interaction more with their retarded daughters than with their sons, yet not as much as mothers with normal chil dren regardless of sex. This attitude, close to the .05 level of statistical significance, on the part of mothers of mentally retarded children is little, if any, influenced by socioeconomic status or degree of mental retardation. Statistical results for Scale 2, Fostering Depend ency, indicates a very significant influence of SES, F = 31.03, beyond the .01 level. A linear regression is noted in all groups: EMR, males, SES 1 M = 10.19* SES 3, M = 12.16, females SES 1, 10.00, SES 3, 12.24, SMR males SES 1, 9.03, SES 3, 11.87 and females SES 1, 9.95; SES 3, 11.84. Mothers from upper status groups place less dependency on their children than mothers from lower status groups. There is more overprotection and perhaps more guilt felt by mothers of lower status groups. The norm M is 10.82, 95 TABLE 21 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 1, ENCOURAGING VERBALIZATION, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean 17.56 17.79 16.94 17.66 Variance 3.196 2.951 5.621 1.929 SES 2 Mean 17.03 16.97 17.25 17.92 Variance 7.270 5.530 4.421 3.048 SES 3 Mean 17.12 17.38 16.84 17.48 Variance 4.802 5.120 7.168 4.343 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 0.117 1.1174 EMR-SMR 1 0.017 O.1583 SEX 1 0.536 5.5831 ERROR 7 0.105 Questions 1. Children should be allowed to disagree with their par ents If they feel their own Ideas are better. 24. Children should be encouraged to tell their parents about it whenever they feel family rules are unreasonable. 47. A child has a right to his own point of view and ought to be allowed to express it. 70. A child's ideas should be seriously considered in making family decisions. 93. When a child is in trouble he ought to know he won't be punished for talking about it with his parents. 96 and would be closer to the mean of EMR-SES 2. Consequently, the null hypothesis is rejected for no Influence of SES but accepted for sex and degree of retardation. In EMR-SES 1 and SES 2 there Is more protection of the son while this is the reverse for the same SES levels In the SMR group. Data for Scale 3, Seclusion of the Mother, in dicates a rejection of the null hypothesis for SES and EMR- SMR. The F for the former being 40.99 and 9.24 for the latter. Rejection of no difference beyond .01 for SES and beyond .05 for EMR-SMR is determined. A linear regression appears for the influence of SES. The M for EMR, male SES 1, 11.87 to 13.80 for SES 3, and females 11.36 to 13-95. For SMR-SES 1 males, 10.24 to 13.41 for SES 3, and females 10.67 to 13.72. Lower socioeconomic status mothers feel more interested in the homemaking role than mothers in higher groups and mothers of EMR children have a higher Interest in their homemaking role than the SMR mothers. There Is a direct correlation between the degree of retar dation of the child and the satisfaction received in the homemaking role. This appears in all SES levels. The mean for normal mothers is 11.39, this comes closest to EMR-SES 1 females. The acceptability of the homemaking role is not influenced by the sex of the child. However, In general, there is a greater variance within SES 3 than groups 1 or 2, Indicating a wider range of conflict over the homemaking role requirement. 97 TABLE 22 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 2, FOSTERING DEPENDENCY, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 10.19 7.629 1 0 .0 0 9.03 6 .615 8.468 9.95 5.748 SES 2 Mean Variance 10.92 6.399 10.27 9.53 8.892 5.456 1 0 .6 8 9.087 SES 3 Mean Variance 12.1 6 8.627 12.24 11.87 4.186 8.952 11.84 8.640 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 5.43.5 0 .6 8 6 O .I 38 0.175 31.0303 3.9329 0.7897 Questions 2 . A good mother should shelter her child from life's little difficulties. 2 5 . A mother ment for should do her her child. best to avoid any disappoint- 48. A child should be protected from jobs which might be too tiring or hard for him. 71. Parents should know better than to allow their dren to be exposed to difficult situations. chil- 94. Children might be should be kept away from all hard jobs which discouraging. 98 TABLE 23 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 3, SECLUSION OF THE MOTHER, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 11.87 5.583 II.36 10.24 10.67 3.786 1.439 1.333 SES 2 Mean Variance 13.37 2.3^7 12.24 12.22 11.92 5.939 8.921 2.291 SES 3 Mean Variance 13.8° 8.980 13.95 13.^1 13.72 9.656 9.733 1.960 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 7.211 40.9516 1.626 9.2418 0.093 0.5272 0.17b Questions 3. The home Is mother. the only thing that matters to a good 26. Women who want lots of parties seldom make good mothers. ^9. A woman has to choose and hobnobbing around between having a well run home with neighbors and friends. CO t- Too many women forget the home. that a mother's place Is In 95. A good mother will find enough social life within the family. 99 In Scale 4, Breaking the Will, the data reveals a rejection of the null hypothesis for SES at .01, P = 9.62. A linear regression is evident. The mean scores increased as follows: EMR-SES 1 male, 10.75* female 10.14, and SES 3, 11.28 male and 11.98 female. For SMR the score ranges are from 9.15 to 11.19 for males and 8.81 to 11.72 for fe males. SES 3 for both groups, EMR-SMR, has the greatest variance. As the socioeconomic levels move downwards, there is more of a tendency to release tension by overt ag gression toward the mentally retarded child regardless of the sex or degree of retardation. The norm mean of 10.52 ■ is closest to the middle SES group. There is no statis tical difference between sexes or EMR-SMR. Martyrdom, Scale 5* is measured by the tendency of the mother to be self-pitying. As related to SES, the reported P of 8.84 is beyond the .05 yet not quite the .01 level of statistical significant difference. A linear regression appears. Mean scores range from SES 1 EMR, male 9*99* female 7.57* SMR 7.03 and 7.43 to SES 3* EMR, 10.10 male and 10.55 female, SMR, 10.00 and 9.80. The null hypothesis is accepted for the influence of sex and degree of mental retardation. The norm mean is 9.44 which ap proaches the scores observed between the middle and lower SES groups. The EMR-SES 1 group variance is far less than the SMR group within the same status level, indicating a 100 TABLE 24 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 4, BREAKING THE WILL, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 10.75 3.000 10.14 9.15 3.363 8.945 8.81 9.362 SES 2 Mean Variance 10.61 5.489 9.70 9.86 1.593 5.894 10.55 2.038 SES 3 Mean Variance 11.28 8.042 11.98 11.19 9.438 9.254 11.72 9.710 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 3.607 ^.837 0.000 0.375 9.6249 2.2330 0.0009 Questions 4. Some children are just fear adults for their so bad they must be own good. taught to 27. It Is frequently necessary to drive the mischief out of a child before he will behave. 50. A wise parent will teach a child early just boss. who Is 73- Children need some of out of them. the natural meanness taken 96. It Is sometimes necessary for the parents to break the child's will. 101 wide range of attitude difference on this scale for SES 1 mothers of severely retarded children. In summary, mothers of the mentally retarded children do not use the defense of martyrdom to the degree that normal mothers may. Ihe data for Scale 6, Pear of Harming the Baby, reveals a rejection of the null hypothesis for SES beyond the .01 level of significance, F = 18.47. A linear regres sion Is apparent with mothers of EMR-SES 1, males, the mean is 12.19 and females 12.29 while SES 3 mothers of males l4.4o and females 13.98. Higher scores are also ob tained by SMR mothers; SES 3, males 13.56 females 14.20 as compared with SES 1, males 11.82 and 11.90 females. Lower status mothers have more aggression toward their retarded child than do upper status mothers. Sex of the child or the degree of mental retardation does not appear to affect the mother's attitude. The norm mean is 12.81 with a vari ance of II.56 which is higher than any individual group variance found in the study sample. This indicates a more centralized attitude for mothers of mentally retarded chil dren. Scale 7, Marital Conflict, measures the awareness of tension In the marriage. Having a retarded child creates certain frustration in some marriages. However, the data reported on acceptance of the null hypothesis across the board, no statistical difference between the 102 TABLE 25 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 5, MARTYRDOM, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean 9.19 7.57 7.03 7.43 Variance 0.029 1.033 4.280 5.657 SES 2 Mean 8.92 7.79 8.67 9.55 Variance 4.399 6.672 6.629 0.632 SES 3 Mean 10.10 10.55 10.00 9.80 Variance 3.031 2.010 1.161 2.500 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 5.393 8.8498 EMR-SMR 1 0.223 0.3666 SEX 1 0.124 0.2027 ERROR 7 0.609 Questions 5. Children should realize how much parents have to give up for them. 28. A mother must expect to give up her own happiness for that of her own child. 51. Few women get the gratitude they deserve for all they have done for their children. 74. Children should be more considerate of their mothers since their mothers suffer so much for them. 97. Mothers sacrifice almost all their own fun for their children. 103 TABLE 26 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 6, FEAR OF HARMING THE BABY, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance SES 2 Mean Variance SES 3 Mean Variance 12.19 12.29 4.029 0.681 13.29 12.12 9.022 9.922 14.50 13.98 0.214 0.121 11.82 11.90 9.466 2.390 13.06 13.34 7.654 1.420 13.56 14.20 7.802 7.167 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 4.057 0.019 0.028 0.220 18.4794 0.0865 0.1293 Questions 6. You must always keep tight hold of baby during his bath for in a careless moment he might slip. 29. All young mothers are afraid of their awkwardness In handling and holding the baby. 52. Mothers never stop blaming themselves if their babies are injured in accidents. 75. Most mothers are fearful that they may hurt their babies In handling them. 98. A mother's greatest fear is that in a forgetful moment she might let something bad happen to the baby. 104 groups either by SES or sex, or EMR-SMR. The normative data Bhowed the mean of 15*05 while the sample of this in vestigation shows only three groups out of twelve surpass ing that value, and none of the groups came too close to the variance of the norm group. The retarded child in the family of the study sample does not produce an awareness of tension within the marital relationship. According to the data obtained for Scale 8, Strict ness, the null hypothesis must be accepted for all three variables: SES, EMR-SMR and SEX of the child. This scale measures the desire the mother had during her own childhood for more control and regulation from her parents and would project this on to her children. Mothers regardless of the degree of control or permissiveness from their own parents, are not prone to project this on to their mentally retarded children. The highest and lowest means and variances are 15.64 and 9.47 for EMR, SES 1 females and 13.70 and .45 for EMR-SES 3 males. The norm mean is 13.71 and 10.36 for the variance, the study sample variance being generally far less than the norm variance. There is a centralized atti tude on the part of mothers of mentally retarded children. In Scale 9, Irritability, no statistical significant difference was found between any of the groups in all three variables of influence, the null hypothesis is accepted for this scale, a measurement of latent dissatisfaction with the homemaking role. The highest mean and variance 14.89 105 TABLE 27 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 7, MARITAL CONFLICT, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 14,75 5.000 15.07 2.841 14.82 9.403 14.67 4.333 SES 2 Mean Variance 14.87 1.631 14.55 3.006 14.25 9.107 15'§3, 0.834 SES 3 Mean Variance 14.86 8.939 16.02 5.829 14.97 7.386 14.80 3.667 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 0.152 0.081 0.412 0.237 0.6413 0.3398 1.7352 Questions 7. People who think they can get along in marriage out arguments just don’t know the facts. wi th 30. Sometimes husband in it's necessary for a wife order to get her rights. to tell off in er 53. No matter how well a married couple love one another, there are always differences which cause irritation and lead to arguments. 76. There are some things which just can't be settled by a mild discussion. 99. It's natural to have quarrels when two people who both have minds of their own get married. 106 TABLE 28 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 8, STRICTNESS, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 14.25 2.600 15.64 15.06 9.478 7.371 13.95 1.948 SES 2 Mean Variance 13.89 3.664 13.73 15.03 8.017 3.971 14.34 8.718 SES 3 Mean Variance 13.70 0.459 14.50 14.06 9.720 8.835 14.88 9.777 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 0.283 0.216 0.092 0.468 0.6052 0.4620 0.1960 Questions 8. A child will be grateful later on for strict training. 31. Strict discipline develops a fine strong character. 54. Children who are held the best adults. to firm rules grow up to be 77. Most children should they get. have more discipline than 100. Children are actually happier under strict training. 107 and 1.34, SMR-SES 2 females, Is not too statistically dif ferent from the lowest mean 13.18 and the variance 2.52 for EMR, SES 2 females. The norm mean is 14.22 with a variance of 7.89 which is higher than the mean of nine out of the twelve groups in this study; while the variance is sur passed by five out of the twelve groups in this investiga tion, again demonstrating a more central attitude than is reported in the normal sample. Scale 10, Excluding Outside Influences, notes the degree the mother feels the need to be protected against comparisons and the degree of control she desires to have over her family. The analysis of variance technique clearly shows a high statistical significant difference by SES, F = 33.78, beyond .01. A trend also appears in dif ferences between EMR and SMR, with SMR having a lower mean score for all groups with consistency by sex. That is, females of both EMR and SMR have lower mean scores than males. However, variance scores for EMR are generally higher than SMR. A linear regression by SES is seen. SES 1, EMR male M = 10.25, female M = 10.41, and SMR male 9.55 and 9.62 for female, compared with the same groups in SES 3: 13.14, 12.4o, 12.59, and 11.76. The mother becomes more defensive of the self, and to some degree this is more prominent in the case of mothers of EMR children. The norm mean is 10.90 which falls between SES 1 and SES 2. 108 TABLE 29 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 9, IRRITABILITY, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 14.19 2.029 13.86 0.286 13.67 9.542 13.57 9.157 SES 2 Mean Variance 13.76 9.699 13.18 2.528 14.53 8.371 14.89 1.340 SES 3 Mean Variance 13.62 2.975 13.43 3.031 14.25 8.710 13.52 2.593 SOURCE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR DF 2 1 1 7 MEAN SQUARE 0.158 0.477 0.203 0.247 0.6403 1.9331 0.8234 Questions 9. Children will get on any woman’s nerves If she has to be with them all day. 32. Mothers very often feel that they can't stand their children a moment longer. 55. It’s a rare mother who can be sweet and even tempered with her children all day. 78. Raising children Is a nerve-wracking job. 101. It’s natural for a mother to "blow her top" when children are selfish and demanding. 109 TABLE 30 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 10, EXCLUDING OUTSIDE INFLUENCES, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean 10.25 10.14 9.55 9.62 Variance 7.667 5.209 0.381 7.548 SES 2 Mean 11.74 10.73 10.78 11.66 Variance 7.659 6.705 2.349 1.312 SES 3 Mean 13.14 12.90 12.59 11.76 Variance O.898 3.942 2.765 3.190 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 T 7.346 0.724 0.127 0.217 33.7827 3.3303 0.5818 Questions 10. It's best for the child If he never gets started wondering whether his mother's views are right. 33. A parent should never be made to look wrong in a child's eyes. 56. Children should never learn things outside the home which make them doubt their parents' ideas. 79. The child should not question the thinking of his parents. 102. There is nothing worse than letting a child hear criticisms of his mother. 110 A desire for an unchallenged parental role is ex amined in Scale 11, Deification. An F of 7.51 demonstrates a rejection of no influence or difference beyond the .05 level for SES, while accepting the null hypothesis for EMR- SMR and SEX, Linear regression exists for all groups: EMR, SES 1, male 10.75* female 12.00, SMR male, 11.88, female 10.86, and for SES 3, EMR 14.40 male, 13.88 female, and SMR male, 12.94, and 13.12 for female. The norm mean is 12.80 with a variance of 13.61, which exceeds all vari ance scores for the study sample. Th^se data indicate the desire for dominance of mothers of mentally retarded chil dren is influenced by socioeconomic status of the family. The desire for dominance of the self is higher in SES 3, and becomes less moving up the status ladder, This atti tude is not influenced by the sex or the mental character istics of the child. Results from the analysis of variance technique for Scale 12, Suppression of Aggression, which evaluates the degree the mother may feel the loss of self-control when involved with aggressive behavior, shows an F score of 14.39, significant beyond the .01 level of statistical significant differences. The null hypothesis is strongly rejected for the influence of SES. In addition, there is a trend for difference based upon EMR-SMR, F = 3*72, but no difference for the sex of the child. A linear regres- Ill TABLE 31 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 11, DEIFICATION, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 10.75 7.400 12.00 2.923 11.88 0.172 10.86 1.429 SES 2 SES 3 Mean Variance Mean Variance 13.68 9.087 14.40 2.571 11.52 8 .6 3 3 1 3 .8 8 0.449 13.03 1.171 12.94 5.609 13.11 4.529 13.12 7.193 SOURCE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR DF 2 1 1 7 MEAN SQUARE 5 .0 6 6 0.142 0.403 0.674 7.5151 0.2102 0.5983 Questions 11. More parents should teach their children to have unquestioning loyalty to them. 34. The child should be taught to revere his parents above all other grown-ups. 57. A child soon learns that there Is no greater wisdom than'that of his parents. 80. Parents deserve the highest esteem and regard of their children. 103. Loyalty to parents comes before anything else. 112 TABLE 32 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 12, SUPPRESSION OF AGGRESSION, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 SES 2 SES 3 Mean Variance Mean Variance Mean Variance 10.37 7.983 10.68 7.411 11.16 7.117 9.14 5.209 10.06 6.246 11.33 2.764 9.39 8.371 9.75 5.679 10.59 7.217 05 848 '.58 .899 11.44 4.007 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 2.810 14.3982 EMR-SMR 1 0.726 3.7205 SEX 1 0.153 0.7823 ERROR 7 0.195 Questions 12. A child should be taught to avoid fighting no matter what happens. 35. A child should be taught to always come to his par ents or teachers rather than fight when he is in trouble. 58. There is no good excuse for a child hitting another child. 8l. Children should not be encouraged to box or wrestle because it often leads to trouble or injury. 104. Most parents prefer a quiet child to a "scrappy" one. 113 slon appears with higher scores for SES 3: EMR, male, 11.16, female 11.33# and SMR male 10.59# and female 11.44, SES 1 means for the same sub-groups are as follows: 10.37, 9.14, 9.39 and 9*05. The norm mean for this scale Is 10.03. It would seem, based on this data, that feelings of loss of control over aggression are strongly Influenced by socio economic status with mothers from SES 1 having less fear over this than mothers from SES 2 or SES 3. It would also appear that as the characteristics of the child are more normal, the more or greater the fear of this loss of con trol would be. In other words, the more severely retarded the child, regardless of sex, the less fear of loss of control has the mother. Rejection of the Homemaking Role, Scale 13, meas ures the degree of dissatisfaction the mother may have for the duties involved in her relationship with children and home. The analysis of variance technique demonstrates the null hypothesis was not rejected for all three variables. The highest mean score is 11.55# for SES 2, SMR, female and the lowest mean score is for SES 2, EMR, female, 10.09. The norm mean is 11.62, with a variance of 10.43. The norm variance exceeds all variance scores for the study sample. In noting the variance scores for the study popu lation, In general, the widest range appears for males in both the EMR and SMR groups. There Is less ambivalent 114 TABLE 33 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 13, REJECTION OF THE HOMEMAKING ROLE, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance SES 2 Mean Variance SES 3 Mean Variance 11.25 10.64 6.867 9.786 10.61 10.09 9.921 0.273 10.80 11.07 8.082 0.117 10.39 10.71 7.371 0.614 11.19 11.55 9.418 3.767 10.87 10.92 7.790 0.327 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 0.029 0.1290 EMR-SMR 1 0.118 0.5306 SEX 1 0.001 O.OO63 ERROR 7 0.222 Questions 13. One of the worst things about taking care of a home is a woman feels that she can't get out. 36. Having to be with the children all the time gives a woman the feelings that her wings have been clipped. 59. Most young mothers are bothered more by the feeling of being shut up in the home than by anything else. 82. One of the bad things about raising children is that you aren't free enough of the time to do just as you like. 105. A young mother feels "held down" because there are lots of things she wants to do while she is young. 115 feeling on the part of mothers of mentally retarded chil dren if the child is a girl and certainly much less ambi valence than in the norm group. Statistical data for Scale 14, EqualitarianlBin, points to an acceptance of the null hypothesis for SES, EMR-SMR and SEX. This scale attempts to measure the degree of resistance to control by others. The norm mean is 17.4o, with a variance of 4.12. The highest mean of the study sample is 17.16 for SES 2, SMR female, and the lowest is 15.67, for SMR male of SES 1. The norm variance is ex ceeded by all groups except SMR female SES 2 and SES 3. Mothers of normal children have stronger feelings of let ting others control their behavior and have in general less ambivalence, as a group, over this feeling than would be true of mothers of mentally retarded children. According to the data obtained for Scale 15, Ap proval of Activity, the null hypothesis for SES is rejected beyond the .01 level of statistical significant difference. The SES F is 10.66. The null hypothesis is accepted for the two remaining variables: EMR-SMR and SEX. This scale measures the mother's approval of solitary achievement. The norm mean is 12.84, and variance is 9.12. A linear regression of mean scores appears for the study sample: EMR, SES 1, male 12.94, and female 11.43 for SES 3, 13-90 for male and 13.67 for female; for SMR SES 1, male, 11.55 116 TABLE 34 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 14, EQUALITARIANISM, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR, AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 16.56 16.21 15.67 16.24 Variance 5.329 6.027 7.354 6.090 SES 2 Mean 15.97 15.97 15.69 17.16 Variance 5.107 7.030 7.475 3-542 SES 3 Mean 16.26 16.24 16.28 16.04 Variance 5.870 8.235 5.757 4.040 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 0.001 0.002 0.168 0.223 0.0066 0.0081 0.7549 Questions 14. Parents should adjust to the children some rather than always expecting the children to adjust to the parents. 37. Parents must earn the respect of their children by the way they act. 60. Children are too often asked to do all the compro mising and adjustment and that is not fair. 83. As much as is reasonable a parent should try to treat a child as an equal. 106. There is no reason parents should have their own way all the time any more than that children should have their way all the time. 117 TABLE 35 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 15, APPROVAL OF ACTIVITY, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 12.94 11.43 11.55 11.19 Variance 5.662 7.033 1.068 7.262 SES 2 Mean 13-29 11-97 12.25 12.95 Variance 7.238 7.030 7.221 9.673 SES 3 Mean 13-90 13-67 13.31 13.76 Variance 8.337 9-154 9.125 6.523 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 3.565 10.6617 EMR-SMR 1 O.398 1.1913 SEX 1 0.430 1.2869 ERROR 7 0.33^ Questions 15. There are so many things a child has to learn In life there Is no excuse for him sitting around with time on his hands. 38. Children who don't try hard for success will feel they have missed out on things later on. 6l. Parents should teach their children that the way to get ahead is to keep busy and not waste time. 84. A child who is "on the go" all the time will most likely be happy. 107. The sooner a child learns that a wasted minute Is lost forever the better off he will be. 118 female 11.19; for SES 3* 13*31 and 13*76 for male and fe male respectively. The norm mean is closest to SES 2. Mothers from SES 3 favor more solitary achievement for their child or perhaps they desire less involvement with the child, regardless of sex and degree of mental retarda tion than is the case with mothers in SES 2 and SES 1. Apparently mothers of SES 1 might feel a closer relation ship and involvement with their children than do mothers from the other two groups. Having little desire or interest to communicate with the child is measured in Scale 16, Avoidance of Com munication. An F of 9.76 for socioeconomic status in dicates a rejection o~ the null hypothesis slightly beyond the .01 level of significance, a significant trend for the rejection of the null hypothesis for EMR-SMR is apparent, while the null hypothesis for the influence of SEX is . accepted. Mean scores for male and female are as follows: EMR, SES 1, 10.87 and 9*43; for SES 3, 11.10 and 12.57; for SMR, SES 1, 8.97 and 8.24; SES 3, 11.3^ and 10.96. The norm mean is 10.81 and the variance is 10.24. The norm variance exceeds the variance scores for the sub-groups of this investigation, while the norm mean is exceeded only by EMR, SES 1, male. The influence of socioeconomic status is significant on the interest and/or the concern with com munication with the mentally retarded child, as moving up the status ladder, there is more interest in communication. 119 TABLE 36 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE l6, AVOIDANCE OF COMMUNICATION, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 10.87 9.43 8.97 8.24 Variance 1.717 0.110 5.343 4.490 Mean 10.68 10.06 9.89 10,13 Variance 8.762 6.059 4.616 8.280 Mean 11.10 12.57 11.3^ 10.96 Variance 8.908 0.739 0.297 7.457 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 4.557 2.2% 0.180 0.466 .7689 .8080 0.3867 Questions 16. If you let children talk about their troubles they end up complaining even more. 39. Parents who start a child talking about his worries don't realize that sometimes it's better to just leave well enough alone. 62. Children pester you with all their little upsets if you aren't careful from the first. 85. If a child has upset feelings it is best to leave him alone and not make it look serious. 108. The trouble with giving attention to children's problems is they usually just make up a lot of stories to keep you interested. 120 Tills lack of* communication is felt by more mothers of sons than with daughters. This feeling, as demonstrated by the range of variance scores, is more centralized with mothers of mentally retarded children than mothers of normal chil dren. Scale 17, Inconsiderateness of the Husband, evalu ates the tendency to maximize conflict with their husbands, peer and authority figures, as well as to measure the pro jective feelings toward the husband. Statistical analysis for the data obtained for this scale rejects the null hy pothesis for the influence of SES slightly beyond the .05 level with an obtained F of 5.^. A tendency for Influence of EMR-SMR with an obtained F of 3*92, is observed although It cannot be rejected at the .05 level. The null hypothe sis is accepted for the influence of sex. A linear regres sion Is observed for SES: EMR-SES 1, male, 11.56, female 12.14 as compared with SES 3 male 13.08 and 13.83 female. This also holds true for SMR male 9.24, and female 10.00 for SES 1 and 12.34 and 12.04 for male and female respec tively for SES 3. Apparently, mothers of SES 1 feel less conflict with their husbands or others in the handling of their family relationship than Is the case for mothers In SES 3. It also seems that mothers of educable mentally retarded children feel more frustration and less coopera tion from their husbands and others than do mothers with 121 TABLE 37 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 17, INCONSIDERATENESS OF HUSBAND, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 11.56 12.14 9.24 10.00 Variance 2.929 3.516 9.439 1.400 SES 2 Mean 12.18 10.67 11.56 12.13 Variance 1.776 0.667 5.511 1.469 SES 3 Mean 13.08 13.83 12.34 12.04 Variance I.830 3.118 I.652 3.873 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 ^.385 3.158 0.060 0.806 5.^42 3.9209 0.0741 Questions 17. Mothers would do their job better with the children If fathers were more kind. 40. Husbands could do their part If they were less selfish. 63. When a mother doesn't do a good job with children it's probably because the father doesn't do his part around the home. 86. If mothers could get their wishes they would most often ask that the husband be more understanding. 109. Few men realize that a mother needs some fun in life too. 122 severely mentally retarded children regardless of the sex of the child. The norm mean score for this scale is 11.96 with a variance of 13.03. Only four sub-groups out of twelve have a lower mean score than the normal population, while none of the sample group had as wide a variance as the norm. The degree to which a mother tolerates asocial im pulses on the part of her children, is measured by Scale 18, Suppression of Sex. An P of 22.23 for the influence of SES is highly significant beyond the .01 level of statistical significant difference. The P for EMR-SMR is 5*55 and will be considered a rejection of the null hypothesis. The hy pothesis is accepted on the basis of sex. A linear regres sion appears for the influence of socioeconomic status. The mean for EMR-SES 1, male 8.62 and 7.29 for female as compared with means obtained from SES 3 of 10.46 and 10.88 for male and female respectively. The mean for SMR males and females is 7.30 and 7.24 for SES 1, and for SES 3j 9.12 and 9.92. Higher scores are obtained from mothers of EMR children than SMR children. The norm mean on this scale is 8.71 and a variance of 8.82, within the range of SES 2. The amount of sexual permissiveness or control is influenced by SES. Mothers from SES 3 are less permissive toward their child's sexual development than mothers in the upper groups and are more concerned about asocial sexual feeling than mothers of SMR children. 123 TABLE 38 DIFFERENCE IN SCALE 18, SUPPRESSION OF SEX, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 8.62 7.29 7.30 7.24 Variance 9.583 4.220 4.968 3.390 Mean 9.18 8.36 8.31 8.58 Variance 7.560 7.739 8.733 7.061 Mean 10.46 10.88 9.12 9.92 Variance 2.131 3.376 0.048 0.743 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 6.249 22.2311 EMR-SMR 1 1.562 5.5555 SEX 1 0.045 0.1605 ERROR 7 0.281 Questions 18. A young child should be protected from hearing about sex. 41. It is very Important that young boys and girls not be allowed to see each other completely undressed. 64. Children who take part in sex play become sex criminals when they grow up. 87. Sex is one of the greatest problems to be contended with in children. 110. There is usually something wrong with a child who asks a lot of questions about sex. 124 An P of 7.38 is obtained for the influence of SES in Scale 19, Ascendancy of the Mother. This scale meas ures the feeling of dominance on the part of the mother in her intra-family relations. The null hypothesis is re jected for SES beyond the .05 level of statistical signifi cant difference. An P of 3.19 is obtained for EMR-SMR. The null hypothesis is accepted for sex and EMR-SMR, al though the latter indicates only a tendency. A linear regression exists in this scale: EMR-SES 1, means for male and female are 11.8l and 10.79, within the same sub group for SES 3, 12.58 and 13.09. For the SMR group, SES 1, male 9.82 and 10.14 for female as compared with SES 3 male 11.58 and 11.68 for female. The norm data reveals a mean of 11.83 with a variance of 12.32. llie variance score in the study sample is far less than exists with the norm group. This indicates a more centralized feeling on the part of the study sample. It appears that when move ment is down the socioeconomic status ladder, the mother increasingly feels herself as a powerful dominant authori tarian figure. Another measuring device of the symbolic power as sumed by mothers is Scale 20, Intrusiveness. The null hy pothesis is strongly rejected by an F of 12.42 for SES be yond the .01 level of statistical significant difference. However, the null hypothesis is accepted for the influence 125 TABLE 39 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 19, ASCENDANCE OF THE MOTHER, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 11.81 1.229 10.79 7.874 9.82 9.466 10.14 7.029 SES 2 Mean Variance 10.74 8.578 10.18 0.716 11.25 9.450 10.68 1.681 SES 3 Mean Variance 12.58 4.330 13.19 6.207 11.56 9.996 11.68 9.310 SOURCE EMR-SMR SEX ERROR DF 2 1 1 7 MEAN SQUARE 3.320 1.435 0.100 0.449 F 7.3866 3.1925 0.2224 Questions 19. If a mother doesn't go ahead and make rules for the home the children and husband will get Into troubles they don’t need to. 42. Children and husbands do better when the mother Is strong enough to settle most of the problems. 65. A mother has to do the planning because she is the one who knows what’s going on in the home. 88. The whole family does fine if the mother puts her shoulders to the wheel and takes charge of things. 111. A married women knows that she will have to take the lead in family matters. 126 of sex or degree of mental retardation of the child. A linear regression appears for SES: mean scores for EMR SES 1, male 10.50, female 8.93* SMR male 9. **8, and 9.38 for female, as compared with SES 3 male, 12.32 female 11.93, and for SMR male 11.00 and 12.08 for female. The norm mean is 10.93 with a variance of 12.32. The norm variance greatly exceeds any of the variance scores for the study sample, again indicating a more central attitude on the part of mothers who had participated in this investiga tion. It is accepted that as movement from the higher SES group proceeds downward, the more power or aggression is felt by mothers of mentally retarded children, regardless of the degree of intelligence or sex of the child. Scale 21, Comradeship and Sharing, measures the amount of harmonious activity in which the mothers partici pate with their children. The null hypothesis is accepted for all three variables: SES, EMR-SMR, and SEX. The high est mean and variance is obtained from SES 3, SMR female 18.8*1, and the lowest is 17.52 for EMR, SES 2, female. The norm mean is 18.67 with a variance of 2.89. The norm mean and the mean for this study do not differ significantly. Scale 22, Acceleration of Development, measures the degree of rejection of the child's dependency of the mother. An P of 25.21 for SES, and an P of 21.38 for EMR-SMR es tablishes a rejection of the null hypothesis well beyond 127 TABLE 40 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 20, INTRUSIVENESS, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 10.50 8.93 9.^8 9-38 Variance 9.067 9.Job 7.508 7.5^8 SES 2 Mean 11.00 9.33 10.36 iO.^ Variance 0.703 7.979 1.209 4.83^ SES 3 Mean 12.32 11.93 11.00 12.08 Variance 2.916 6,702 8.839 3.160 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 5.356 0.149 0.583 0.431 12.4284 0. 3^7 1.3540 Questions 20. A mother should make It her business to know every thing her children are thinking. 43. A child never should keep a secret from his parents, 66. An alert parent should try to learn all her child’s thoughts. 89. A mother has a right to know everything going on in her child's life because her child is part of her. 112. It is a mother's duty to make sure she knows her child's innermost thoughts. 128 TABLE 4l DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 21, COMRADESHIP AND SHARING, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 18.81 18.71 17.58 17.90 Variance 2.296 1.451 3*689 2.990 SES 2 Mean 17.97 17.52 17.86 18.76 Variance 3*810 4.570 4.009 3.267 SES 3 Mean 18.08 18.52 18.81 18.84 Variance 5.544 3.134 1.448 2.l4o SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE SES EMR-SMR SEX ERROR 2 1 1 7 0.290 0.002 0.109 0.315 0.9208 0.0053 0.3479 Questions 21. Children would be happier and better behaved If parents would show an interest in their affairs. 44. Laughing at children's jokes and telling children jokes makes things go more smoothly. 67. Parents who are interested in hearing about their children's parties, dates and fun help them grow up right. 90. If parents would have fun with their children, the children would be more apt to take their advice. 113. When you do things together, children feel close to you and can talk easier. the .01 level of statistical significant difference. This is not the case for the variable of sex. A linear regres sion is noted for SES. Mean scores for EMR-SES 1, male 12.12, and 11.50 for female compared with 14.46 male and 14.24 for female of SES 3. The mean scores for the SMR group male and female are as follows: 9.88 and 8.81 for SES 1 and 12.97 and 13.28 for SES 3. The norm mean is 11.67 with a variance of 12.67. The norm mean falls be tween the mean scores of EMR and SMR and the norm variance exceeds any variance score of the study sample. The mean scores reveal that as movement occurs from SES 1 to SES 3, there is more rejection of dependency on the mother re gardless of the sex of the child. There is also a greater amount of rejection of the retarded child's dependency on the mother in the EMR group than the SMR group. Higher scores were obtained from mothers of sons in the EMR group than from mothers of daughters, while this was not true for SES 2 and SES 3 in the SMR group. According to the statistical data for Scale 23, Dependency of the Mother, which measures the mother's feel ing of adequacy or desire for security and support from others, the null hypothesis is rejected for SES with an P of 6.16. The null hypothesis is accepted for the influence of degree of mental retardation and sex of the child. The norm mean is 12.00 with a variance of 10.49. A linear re- 130 TABLE 42 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 22, ACCELERATION OF DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR Male Female SMR Male Female SES 1 Mean Variance 12.12 7.450 11.50 9.346 9.88 9.235 8.81 9.762 SES 2 Mean Variance 12.89 8.367 12.76 2.939 10.78 9.892 12.18 2.857 SES 3 Mean Variance 14.46 5.315 14.24 3.991 12.97 3.967 13.28 7.210 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 9.975 25.2101 EMR-SMR 1 8.461 21.3832 SEX 1 0.009 0.0239 ERROR 7 0.396 Questions 22. Most children are toilet trained by 15 months of age. 45. The sooner a child learns to walk the better he’s trained. 68. The earlier a child Is weaned from its emotional ties to its p rents the better It will handle its own problems. 91. A mother should make an effort to get her child toilet trained at the earliest possible time. 114. A child should be weaned away from the bottle or breast as soon as possible. 131 gresslon is again observed from the study sample: EMR-SES 1, male 12.37, female 10.79 and in SES 3, male 12.90 and fe male 13.^3, while in the SMR group, SES 1, male 10.36 fe male 9*90, and 12.03 male and 12.60 female for SES 3. The norm mean seemingly falls in the center of means of this sample, with the norm variance being greater than any of the variance scores from the sample. Mothers of mentally retarded children regardless of sex or the degree of retar dation feel more confident when they are members of SES 1 than if they are members of SES 3. Upper status mothers feel adequate to handle the problems associated with a mentally retarded child, and perhaps as adequate as mothers of normal children, while this is not the case for mothers of the lower status groups. Summary In this chapter, results of the selected statis tical methodology, analysis of variance, and F Test, were presented with mean scores, variances, and items making up the projected scale values. Normative data for the Parent Attitude Research Instrument were Included as a reference for noting similarities or differences of scores obtained in this investigation. Rejection of the null hypothesis was made when F values exceeded the .05 level of statistical significance. Considered in this study were the influence of socio- 132 TABLE 43 DIFFERENCES IN SCALE 23, DEPENDENCY OF THE MOTHER, ACCORDING TO SES, EMR-SMR AND SEX: MEAN, VARIANCE, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, F SCORES, AND TEST ITEMS EMR SMR Male Female Male Female SES 1 Mean 12.37 10.79 10-36 9.90 Variance 0.383 7.104 9.864 9.090 SES 2 Mean 11.87 11.36 11.64 12.50 Variance 7.739 2.614 9.437 2.473 SES 3 Mean 12.90 13.^3 12.03 12.60 Variance 2.541 0.007 8.031 5.333 SOURCE DF MEAN SQUARE F SES 2 3.547 6.1688 EMR-SMR , 1 1.130 1.9658 SEX 1 0.030 0.0514 ERROR 7 0.575 Questions 23. There is nothing worse for a young mother than being alone while going through her first experience with a baby. 46. It isn’t fair that a woman has to bear just about all the burden of raising children by herself. 69. A wise woman will do anything to avoid being by herself before and after a new baby. 92. Most women need more time than they are given to rest up in the home after going through childbirth. 115. Taking care of a small baby is something that no woman should be expected to do all by herself. 133 economic status, sex and the degree of mental retardation on the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded children. The sample was composed of ^07 mothers divided into two groups for degree of mental retardation, two groups based on sex of the child, and three groups for socioeconomic status. Rejection of the null hypothesis on the basis of sex was made on the following scale: Scale 1--Encouraging Verbalization: mothers promoted more verbal expression with their daughters than with their sons. The null hypothesis was rejected on the basis of degree of mental retardation of the child, EMR-SMR for the following scales: Scale 3--Seclusion of the Mother: mothers of SMR children were less satisfied with their mother role than EMR mothers. Scale l8--Suppression of Sex: significantly higher mean scores were observed for mothers of EMR, indicating less sexual permissive ness than SMR mothers. Scale 22--Acceleration of Development: significantly more mothers of EMR children were prone to reject their children's dependency on them than was the case for SMR mothers. A linear regression was observed in all the follow ing scales that rejected the null hypothesis on the baBis of socioeconomic status with lower mean scores for the upper status groups and higher mean scores for SES 3: Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale 134 2— Postering Dependency: lower status mothers are prone to fostering dependency of their mentally retarded children than higher status mothers. 3— Seclusion of the Mother: higher status mothers have more outside Interests than do lower status mothers. 4— Breaking the Will: higher status mothers are less domineering than lower status mothers. 5—-Martyrdom: self-pitying and more demanding for appreciation and gratefulness on the part of the children is observed for lower status mothers than upper status mothers. 6—-Fear of Harming the Baby: lower status moth ers have more aggression toward their re tarded children than do upper status mothers. 10--Excluding Outside Influences: upper status mothers are far less defensive of the self than lower status mothers. 11--Deiflcation: desire for dominance of the self is higher in the lower status groups than in the upper status groups. 12--Suppression of Aggression: feelings of loss of control over aggression is more typical of lower status mothers than upper status mothers. 15— Approval of Activity: upper class mothers feel a closer relationship and involvement with their children than do mothers from the lower status group. 16—-Avoldance of Communication: upper status mothers feel a stronger interest in communi cation than do lower status mothers. 17— Inconsiderateness of the Husband: lower status mothers tend to maximize conflict with their husbands, peer or authority figures more than upper status mothers. 135 Scale l8--Suppresslon of Sex: lower status mothers are more controlling and less permissive in their child’s sexual development than moth ers in the upper class. Scale 19--Ascendance of the Mother: mothers of lower status groups are more authoritarian and prefer this role than mothers of upper status groups. Scale 20— Intrusiveness: lower status mothers desire more power and control in general than moth ers of upper class status. Scale 22--Acceleration of Development: lower class mothers reject their child's dependency on them more than upper class mothers. Scale 23--Dependency of the Mother: upper status mothers feel more adequate to handle child rearing problems than do mothers of the lower status groups Trends were observed, but were not statistically significant at the .05 level of significance, on the basis of degree of mental retardation, with higher mean scores for EMR on the following scales: Scale 2--Fostering Dependency Scale 10--Excluding Outside Influences Scale 12--Suppression of Aggression Scale l6--Avoidance of Communication Scale 17--Inconsiderateness of the HuBband Scale 19--Ascendance of the Mother In summarizing the results of the statistical tests to ascertain the significance of the variables it was found that (l) only one scale noted a difference between the at- titudes of mothers of boys and girls, (2) three scales showed a difference in the attitudes of mothers based upon the degree of mental retardation of their children, al though, (3) trends were observed in six additional scales, and (4) the influence of socioeconomic status was observed in sixteen of the twenty-three attitudinal scales. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It has been the purpose of this study to determine: the influences of (l) socioeconomic status (2) sex of the child, and (3) degree of mental retardation, on the atti tudes of mothers of mentally retarded children. Within the province of this investigation were 23 social psycho logical variables, all relating to the socialization of the child in the mother-child relationship. The values of such findings are to be measured in the more "intelligent" ways in which parents, educators, doctors, psychologists, social workers and others work together toward a more ef fective method of coping with mental retardation in the home, public school, special Institutions, and community life in general. Prom a research standpoint, such prob lems have been scarcely touched. Viewed in terms of social needs, it is essential to look at temporary trends, which indicate an Increase of mental retardation. The Increase in numbers of organizations of parent groups for retarded children, State and Federal subsidies in the operation of special school classes, institutions, and homes is one of the objective facts, 137 138 Methods Used In This Study Mothers of b07 mentally retarded children partici pated in this investigation. This study was made concur rently with a study supported by the United States Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Project OE 175* Contract No. SAE 71^-6. Each mother of a mentally retarded child was asked to complete the Parent Attitude Research Instrument and "census type" data sheet prior to the onset of the Federal supported investigation. This instrument does not rely on memory. It evaluates the ongoing social psychological climate existing between the mother and her mentally retarded child. It Is composed of 115 items with which the subject is asked to agree or dis agree strongly or mildly on a four point scale. There are 23 attitude scales in this Instrument. The test Items are arranged in cyclical order, one item for each of the 23 scales in sequence. Each of the 23 scale values has a pos sible range from 5 through 20. The statistical methodology employed the Analysis of Variance technique and the F test. All the data was placed on IBM cards, and a special program was written for processing on the IBM 7090 at the Western Data Processing Center, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Warner’s Revised Scale for occupation of the father along with the father’s annual income and education were 139 the Indices to obtain socioeconomic status. Criteria for selection of the children and their mothers were as follows: 1. Each child enrolled in a public school class was examined by a psychologist or physician to determine eligibility for admission to the study. Each child in the pre-school group was examined by a physician to determine the diag nosis of severe mental retardation. 2. Each child was living with its biological mother. 3. Each child was Caucasian. Where a child was of Mexican-American lineage, evidence was re quired that both the American culture and language were part of the home. The classification of the child as either educable or severely mentally retarded was determined on the basis of I.Q. scores when available and if not, a use of func tional level of intelligence which was obtained through the aid of school psychologists, teachers or principals, or physicians who were able to indicate a diagnosis of severely mentally retarded. Selected Characteristics of the Sample The sample was composed of equal numbers of mothers of boys and mothers of girls. The median age of the par ents shows that the mothers and fathers of the severely mentally retarded group are a little older than those of the educable mentally retarded group. The number of chil dren per family In both groups was about the same. Most parents from both groups came from urban areas of cities of 10,000 or more, or suburbs of such cities. The median age for EMR children was 13.7 and 7.3 years for SMR children. About 75 per cent of all the children were born In the State of California while approximately two-thirds of the parents of both groups came from the north and west sec tions of the United States. Approximately 90 per cent of the mothers of our sample were married to the fathers of the mentally retarded child, with the greatest majority of the remaining having married again. The religious prefer ence of mothers of the retarded children shows approxi mately: 70 per cent Protestant, less than 5 per cent Jewish and the remainder Catholic, 25 per cent. Findings Rejection of the null hypothesis was made when F values exceeded the .05 level of statistical significance. The null hypothesis was rejected on the basis of sex for one scale, Scale 1. Results in this scale indicated that mothers of mentally retarded children encourage more verbal ization with their daughters than with their sons, indicat ing a higher degree of identification with their daughters. 141 This was the only scale that showed a difference between the attitudes of mothers relative to the sex of their chil dren. Considering the influence of the degree of retarda tion of the child, three scales were rejected: Seclusion of the Mother, Suppression of Sex, Acceleration of Develop ment. Significant trends for rejection of the null on the basis of degree of retardation was observed for Fostering Dependency, Excluding Outside Influences, Suppression of Aggression, Avoidance of Communication, Inconsiderateness of the Husband, and Ascendance of the Mother. On the basis of the above, the influence of the severity of mental re tardation demonstrates a significant number of differences in attitudes of mothers of EMR children to SMR children. Mothers of EMR children were (l) more defensive of their position, (2) more rejecting of the child, (3) more inter ested in their own dominance, (4) more prone to blame their husbands, (5) more inclined to foster dependency of their children, than was the case for mothers of severely men tally retarded children. The reverse appears in Scale 18-- Suppression of Sex. Ibis may be attributed to the age dif ference between the EMR and SMR children, with SMR children being younger and consequently the problem itself being not as significant for these mothers. Many mothers of severely mentally retarded children (approximately one-half of the sample), were obtained for 142 the study from special nursery schools and the Los Angeles Childrens Hospital Clinic. Many of these mothers accepted the degree of retardation of their children and had ac cepted the child in the home environment. This investiga tion did not include a sample of mothers who had already placed their children in special homes or institutions for the retarded. Consequently, a bias in the direction of acceptance of the severely mentally retarded child for those children living at home is present. In no way can it be said that the attitudes noted in this investigation are generalized to all mothers of severely mentally retarded children. The same consideration may be applied when con sidering socioeconomic status. The sample did not include mothers who had placed their children either in institu tions supported by the government or the private homes and institutions who were able to pay substantial amounts of money for the care and education of their children. The investigation measured only the attitude of mothers of re tarded children who have retained their children at home. Linear regression was observed in all the scales that rejected the null hypothesis on the basis of socio economic status. This was observed in 16 of the 23 scales. They are as follows: Postering Dependency Seclusion of the Mother Breaking the Will Martyrdom Fear of Harming the Baby Excluding Outside Influences Deification Suppression of Aggression Approval of Activities Avoidance of Communication Inconsiderateness of the Husband Suppression of Sex Ascendance of the Mother Intrusiveness Acceleration of Development Dependency of the Mother It appears that for the socialization processes measured in this investigation, lower status mothers of mentally re tarded children are more defensive, aggressive, domineer ing, authoritarian, and rejecting, of their children than is true for the upper status mothers. This may have in fluenced feelings of self-worth and self-esteem felt by mentally retarded children. In order to maintain their position of dominance and authority, mothers fostered their children's dependency on them in order to fulfill their 144 own needs. The stigma of having a mentally retarded child influenced the lower status mothers more than the higher status mothers. Data from this research indicate that having a mentally retarded child tends to heighten some of the attitudes already held by parents of normal children of similar socioeconomic status. Normative data obtained for the Parent Attitude Research Instrument did not for the most part deviate too greatly from the scores obtained from the mothers of mentally retarded children. These results may only be applied to those mothers who have somewhat accepted the condition and are willing to work with it and have not placed the child in a special home or institution. On the basis of socioeconomic status the null hypothesis was accepted for the following scales: Encouraging Verbalization Marital Conflict Strictness Irritability Rejection of the Homemaking Role Equalitarlanism Comradeship and Sharing Consequently, it would seem that marital conflict is not engendered because of the retarded child nor was there an outright rejection of the homemaking role. It also appears 145 that attitudes toward some socialization practices seem to be common through all status levels, for example: Comrade ship and Sharing, Strictness, and Irritability. Perhaps these attitudes are functions of the individual personality development of the mother. Conclusions The results of this study suggest that the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded children are not influenced by the sex of their children but are influenced by the in tellectual capacity, and the propensity of responding to the mother. The influence of socioeconomic status has been statistically verified, and is one of the most important variables influencing the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded children. This data applies only to the "garden variety" mothers of mentally retarded children. The study cannot generalize as to the attitudes of mothers who have placed their children in private or public homes, schools, or institutions, regardless of socioeconomic status. The research indicates a great need for education and counsel ing of parents of mentally retarded children. In this way, perhaps, parents will be able to respect the mentally re tarded child and to accept the area by which he is identi fied (low intelligence) and find in it elements by which he can be praised! Factors of compensatory reaction on the part of parents should receive careful attention from 146 the standpoint of its utility in education and counseling. In some cases it might he better for the doctor, educator, psychologist, social worker, and others, to respect the right of the parent to maintain defense mechaniansin the interest of maintaining family harmony. Careful analysis and methods must be developed for parent education, es pecially with lower socioeconomic classes. It would be essential to ascertain whether such education for lower class mothers would not create more anxiety than to reduce it. Mental retardation means different things to dif ferent people. The educator may view the condition In terms of statistical position on the I.Q. scale, the lay man may confuse It with poor health, and the physician may view it as delayed physical development. The mother, on the other hand, sees the child as a member of her family. Some of these children may not deviate too far from what their parents consider normal. In the family circle, the child is a personality who affects and is affected by other members of the household. The real challenge of the pro fessional worker Is to be equally analytical about the re tarded child’s assets and liabilities in the framework of the family. Helping parents to accept their mentally re tarded children should proceed with the understanding that parents have a need to be loved by their children. Accept ance of the retardation is acceptance of an Individual who 147 is retarded. Professional people working with groups of mentally retarded children and/or their parents should keep in mind that: (1) there are many kinds and degrees of re tardation which mean (2) different things in different ways to different people; but to parents (3) the child's total personality whose retardation is recognized, (4) is only one aspect of the whole being, and (5) because the parent needs to be loved by the child she (6) finds it easier to accept the limitations imposed by the condition when the child can respond to love with love. The fact that almost all parents who were requested to participate in this in vestigation did so, indicates that most parents want to find better solutions to the problems and difficulties as sociated in rearing a mentally retarded child. Community planning, including the cooperation of educators, communica tion experts, state agencies should first be made cognizant of the critical need reflected by parents of mentally re tarded children, as well as the needs of the mentally re tarded child. More research in this area may lead further into the dynamics of the parent-child relationship. It would seem worthwhile to follow up the present investigation with another series of investigations directed toward the atti tudes of fathers of mentally retarded children, parents of mentally retarded children who have placed their child in 148 either private or public institutions, and the results of educational and counseling programs offered to the partici pants of this investigation. It would be Interesting to compare the attitudes of mothers of mentally retarded children living in southern California with mothers resid ing in more rural and more centralized communities in other areas of the United States. It is vital that information pertaining to parent- child relationship be disseminated to persons of different socioeconomic status with an awareness of the needs and dynamics of those particular persons in question. It ap pears from this investigation and other investigations that parent-child relationships are subject to the values and ideals of particular social class subcultures. B I BL IO GRA PH Y SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ackerman, Nathan W. The Psychodynamics of Family Life. New York: Basic Psychodynamics of Family soSfcirlncvy1958" .----- Allport, Gordon W. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, ftinehart and Winston, 19bl. Baker, Harry J. Introduction to Exijptional Children. New York: Macmillan Company, 1944. Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1^34. Berry, Richard J. The Mental Defective: A Problem in Social Inefficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,1931. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 19&0. Carr, Lowell J. Delinquency Control. New York: Harper and Bros., I960. Davis, Allison. Social-Class Influences Upon Learning. New York: Harvard University Press, 1948. ________ , and Havighurst, Robert F. "Social Class and Color Differences in Childrearing," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952. Davies, Stanley. Social Control of Mental Defectives. New York: Crowell, 1950. Del Solar, Charlotte. Parents and Teachers View the Child New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, 1949. Dewey, John. How We Think. New Yoric: D. C. Heath and Co 1933. 150 151 Dewey, Richard, and Humber, W. J. The Development of Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan Co., 1951* Dixon, J. Wilfred, and Massey, Prank J., Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1951'. Dubois, C. The People of Alor. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pr'ess, 1944. Ford, James. Social Deviation. New York: The Macmillan Co., Inc., 1939. Gates, Arthur I. The Improvement of Reading. New York: The Macmi11an Co Inc., lO^TI Goddard, H. H. Psychology of the Normal and Subnormal. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1919. ________ . The Kallikak Family. New York: The Macmillan Co., Inc., 1912. Hall, Calvin, S., and Lindzey, Gardiner. Theories of Per- sonality. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957. Havighurst, Robert J. Developmental Tasks and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1$15* Hollingshead, August B. Elmtownts Youth. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. Hollingworth, Leta. The Psychology of Subnormal Children. New York: The Macmillan Co., Inc., 1921. Jerslld, Arthur T, Child Psychology. New York: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1947. ________ and Associates. Joys and Problems of Childrearing. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col- lege, Columbia University, 1949. Kanner, Leo. Child Psychiatry. Baltimore: C. C. Thomas, 1948. Kardiner, A. The Individual and His Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1939. Lerner, Max. America as a Civilization. New York: Simon and Schuster, 195?. 152 Levy, D. M. Maternal Overprotection. New York: Columbia University Press, 19^3* Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Bros., 195^. Mead, Margaret. And Keep Your Powder Dry. New York: William Morrow and Co., 19^2. Miller, Daniel R., and Swanson, Guy E. The Changing Ameri can Parent. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 195B. Mussen, Paul Henry and Conger, John Janeway. Child De velopment and Personality. New York: Harper and Bro tners, 1956. Penrose, Lionel S. The Biology of Mental Defect. New York: Grune and Stratton, 19^9. Sarason, Seymour B. Sears, Robert, Maccoby, E. E., and Levin H. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row-Peterson and Co.t ^1957. Thorpe, Louis 0. Child Psychology and Development. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 19^5. Spearman, C., and Jones, L. W. Human Ability. New York: Macmillan Company, 1950. Tredgold, A. F. A Textbook of Mental Deficiency. 7th Ed. Baltimore! Williams and Wilkins Co., 19^7. Wallin, J. E. Wallace. Children with Mental and Physical Handicaps. New York: Prentice-Hall, inc., 19^9. Problems of Subnormality. New York: World Book Company, 1921. "Prevalence of Mental Retardates," The Excep tional Child. Edited by James F. Magary, and John R. Eichorn. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19^0, Chap. II, No. 10. Morrow and Co.7 Inc Coming of Age in Samoa. New York: William and Co., Inc., 192b. ficlency. Harper and Brothers, 1953* 153 Warner, W. Lloyd, Meeker, M., and Eells, K. Social Class In America, A Manual of Procedure for the Measure ment o't Social StafoisI Chicago: Sc1enc e Research Associates, Inc., 19^9. Weinberg, Kirson S. Society and Personality Disorders. New York: ?rentice-Hall, Inc., 19£>2. Whiting, J. Becoming a Kwoma. New Haven: Yale University Pre s s, 1941. Bulletins and Monographs Doll, E. Q. Foster Care for Mentally Defectives. Training School bulletin, February, 19^5"," pp. 193”205. Farber, Bernard. "Effects of a Severely Mentally Retarded Child on Family Integration," Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, XXLV, No. 2, Serial 71, c ________ . "Family Organization and Crisis: Maintenance of Integration In Families with a Severely Mentally Retarded Child," Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue Uni versity. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development XXV, No. 1, Serial Y5V lffi>0. ________ , Jenne, William C. and Toigo, Romolo. "Family Crisis and the Retarded Child," CEC Research Mono graph No. 1, i960. Holmes, Ester. Special Activities for Young and Mentally Immature Children. Boston: American Printing Co,, igWT. Articles Bayley, Nancy, and Schaefer, Earl S. "Relationships Be tween Socioeconomic Variables and the Behavior of Mothers Toward Young Children," Journal of Genetic Psychology, XCVI (i960), 61-77. Birch, J. W. "The Public School Approach to Mental Defi ciency," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LII (19^9;, 5tO-57, 6. : 154 Cohen, Jacob. "Survey of a School Program for Family Care of School Age Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LI (1947), 502-509. Coleman, James C. "Therapy with Parents of Mentally Defi- cienct Children," American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, lvii (1953T, "Yo6-Vo4. Coughlin, Ellen W. "Some Parental Attitudes Toward Handi capped Children," Child, 1941, pp. 6, 41-45. Crutcher, H. B. "Family Care of Mental Defectives," Ameri can Journal of Mental Deficiency, LII (1948), 34*5- 35^ Finlayson, Alice B. "Social and Economic Background of Retarded Children," Journal~of Educational Sociol ogy, (September, 1941), pp. 38-45. French, Anne C., Levbarg, M., and Michael-Smith, H. "Par ent Counseling as a Means of Improving the Per formance of a Mentally Retarded Boy: A Case Study Presentation," American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, LVIII (1953), 13-20. Grebler, Anne Marie. "Parental Attitudes Toward Mentally Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, LVI (1952), 475-483. Horsefield, E. "Suggestions for Training Mentally Re tarded by Parents in the Home," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, XLVI (1942), £33-33?". Johnstone, E. L. "What Should We Do With the Mentally De ficient"? Mental Hygiene, XXX (1946), 296-302. Kanner, Leo. "Parents Feelings About Retarded Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII ■(■1953)7 382. ------ -------------------- Littman, Richard, A., Moore, Robert, C. A., and Pierce- Jones, John. "Social Class Differences in Child Rearing: A Third Community for Comparison with Chicago and Newton," American Sociological Review, XXII (December, 1957), 694. Lott, G. M. "Mental Deficiency Can Become Community As sets," Hygeia, XXVII (April, 1949), 548-549. 155 Mickelson, P. "The Feebleminded Parent: A Study of 90 Cases," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LI (1947), hUb-b^T.---------- ------------------ Murphy, M. "The Social Adjustment of the Exceptional Child of Borderline Mentality," Journal of Consulting Psychology (December, 1938), PP. lt>9-175. Nugent, M^ A. "Home Training and Teaching of Mentally De ficient Children by Parents in Home," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, XLV (19**0), 10*1-109. Popp, Cleo, Ingram, Vivien and Jordan, Paul. "Helping Par ents Understand their Mentally Handicapped Child," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (195*0» 530-53**. Rautman, A. L. "Mental Deficiency as a Problem in General Practice," Wisconsin Medical Journal, XLI (19**2), 771-776. Richards, Margaret. "The Retarded Children in a State School and the Problems He Presents from a Parent's Viewpoint," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (1953), 56-5?. Rosen, Bernard C. "Family Structure and Achievement Moti vation," American Sociological Review, XXVI (August, 1961), 5?**. Rosen, Leonard. "Selected Aspects In the Development of the Mathers' Understanding of Her Mentally Re tarded Child," American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, LIX (1955), 522-5^8. Schaefer, Earl S., and Bell, Richard Q. "Development of a Parental Attitude Research Instrument," Child De velopment, XXIX (September, 1958), 339-3&T! ______ and Bayley, Nancy. "Consistency of Maternal Be- havior from Infancy to Preadolescence," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. LXI (i960), 1-b. Schumacher, H. C. "Contribution of the Child Guidance Clinic to Problems of Mental Deficiency," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, L (19**5), 277-283. Sheimo, S. L. "Problems In Helping Parents of Mentally Defective and Handicapped ChiMren," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVI (1951), 4b. 156 Sewell, William H., and Haller, A. 0. "Factors in the Re lationship Between Social Status and the Personality Adjustment of the Child," American Sociological Review, XXIV (August, 1959'),' 511. Stevenson, G. S. "World Implications of Mental Deficiency," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, XLIX (1948), 163-113". Stone, Marguerite M. "Parental Attitudes to Retardation," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LIII (1948), 363-372. Teska, Percy T. "Some Problems in the Adjustment of the Mentally Handicapped," Journal of Consulting Psy chology, XI (September, 19^7), 276. Torne, Frederick C., and Andrews, Jean S. "Unworthy Paren tal Attitudes Toward Mental Defectives," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, V (1946), 411-418. Walker, Gale H. "Some Considerations of Parental Reactions to Institutionalization of Defective Children," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LIV (1949), Wardell, Winifred. "Case Work with Parents of Mentally De ficient Children," American Journal of Mental Defi ciency, LI I (1947), “53^ _________. "Hie Mentally Retarded in Family and Community," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LVIII (1952), Westlund, N., and Palumbo, A. "Parental Rejection of Crippled Children," American Journal of Orthopsy chiatry, XVI (1946), 271-281. White, Martha Sturm. "Social Class, Childrearing Practices and Child Behavior," American Sociological Review, XXII (December, 1957), 704. Whitney, E. A. "Mental Deficiency in the l880's and 1940's," American Journal of Mental Deficiency, LV (19^9), 1$1-1$4. Zuckerman, Marvin, Ribback, Beatrice Barrett, Monashkin, Irwin, and Norton, James A., Jr. "Normative Data and Factor Analysis on the Parental Attitude Re search Instrument," Journal of Consulting Psychol ogy, xxii (1958), 165-iVi. 157 Unpublished Materials Gilroy, Patricia Ann. "The Social Adjustments of Fifteen Mentally Deficient Children." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., 1947. Hoe, Harvey. "The Psychological Effects of Having a Cereb ral Palsied Child in the Family." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1952. Reports Superintendent of Public Instruction, State of Illinois, Report of Study Projects for Trainable Mentally handicapped Children, November 1, 1954. Tarjan, George. "On Mental Retardation." Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Spring Conference, Southern California Regional AAMD Meeting, Los Angeles, California, 1958. > A P PE N DI X ES APPENDIX A FACE SHEET Level _________________ Date of Interview________ School District - Interview____________ 1. Name of Child__________________________________________ 2. Sex of Child___________________________________________ 3. Name of Father (or Stepfather)________________________ Father living__________________________________________ 5. Name of M o t h e r ___________________ 6. Present Address _________' __________ _______ (number-street-city or county-zone) 7. Telephone_______________________________________________ 8. Birth Date of Child____________________________________ 9. Birth Place of Child___________________________________ 10. Pre-school Health______________________________________ 11. Present Health_________________________________________ 12. Special Class at___________________ __________ (name of school) 13. Special Class Level____________________________________ a. Age when child entered kindergarten___________ . b. Regular school grades attended_________________ c. Age when placed in special class_______________ d. Previous special classes attended______________ e. Previous placement in private school or state hospital _____ l6o 14. Marital Status of Biological Parents a. Living together____________________________________ b. Child living with mother__________________________ c. Child living with father__________________________ d. How many years married____________________________ 15. Birth Place of Husband___________________________________ 16. Age_______________________________________________________ 17. Husband's Occupation________ (as specific as possible-- including industry) 18. Does Husband Own Business?______________________________ 18a. What is its approximate value?__________________________ 19. Income____________________________________________________ 20. Husband's Education______________________________________ 21. Husband's Ethnic Descent________________________________ 22. Where husband reared_____________________________________ 23. Husband's residence in California______________________ 24. Previous marriages_______________________________________ 25. Name of Organizations Husband belongs to_______________ 25a. Frequency of attendance_________________________________ 26. Birth Place of Wife______________________________________ 27. Age_______________________________________________________ 28. Employment of Mother— Works_____________________________ Does Not Work_____________________________ 29. Wife's Ethnic Descent____________________________________ 30. Where wife reared________________________________________ 31. Wife's residence in California 32. Previous marriages 33. Wife's education 3*. Name of Organizations Wife belongs to 34a. Frequency of Attendance 35. Number of children in family (excluding children who died before age of one) 36. Ordinal position of the mentally retarded child 37. NameB and Ages of Sisters 38. Names and Ages of Brothers 39. Others Living in present household 4o. Housing a. Owns home__ b. Rents house__ c. Rents apt.__ 41. Number of rooms in house or apartment 42. Approximate value (home owner) 43. How often moved in last ten years 44. Characteristics of home a. Indoor fireplace b. Deep freeze c . Automatic washer d. Automatic dryer e . Dishwasher f. Patio or Barbecue g. Swimming pool h. Hi fi set 162 45. Number of cars in family____________ a. Make and year of each________ 46. Number of TV sets in home___________ a. What size screen?_____________ 47. How many adult books In home?______ 48. How many children's books in home?_ 49. What newspapers received regularly? 50. What magazines received regularly? 51. Who owns library cards in family?_________________ 52. How often do you attend church services___________ 53. What is your religious preference or affiliation? (denomination^) 54. How about religious practices within your home?__ 55. Physical handicaps of child____________________________ (speech, vision, hearing, coordination} 56. Child separated from m o t h e r ? _______ ______________ (in' terms of child's age) 57. Child separated from f a t h e r ? _____________________ (in terms of child's age) APPENDIX B PARENTAL ATTITUDE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT (PARI) RAW S C O R E S H E E T Total Raw Score 1 2 4 4 7 7 0 9 3 2 2 5 4 8 7 1 9 4 3 2 6 4 9 7 2 9 5 4 2 7 5 0 7 3 9 6 5 2 8 5 1 74 9 7 6 2 9 5 2 7 5 9 8 7 3 0 5 3 7 6 9 9 8 3 1 5 4 7 7 l O O 9 3 2 5 5 7 8 l O l i o 3 3 5 6 7 9 1 0 2 1 1 3 4 5 7 8 0 1 0 3 1 2 3 5 5 8 8 1 1 0 4 13 3 6 59 8 2 1 0 5 14 3 7 6 0 8 3 1 0 6 15 3 8 6 1 8 4 1 0 7 16 3 9 6 2 8 5 1 0 8 1 7 4 0 6 3 8 6 1 0 9 1 8 41 6 4 8 7 HO 1 9 4 2 6 5 8 8 1 1 1 2 0 4 3 6 6 8 9 1 1 2 2 1 4 4 6 7 9 0 1 1 3 2 2 4 5 6 8 9 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 6 6 9 9 2 115 Instructions: Enter the number 4, 3, 2, or 1 in each square according to whether the re sponse was Strong Agreement* Mild Agreement, Mild Disagreement, or Strong Disagreement re spectively. Thus if the subject responded with Mild Disagreement to item #25 a 2 would be entered in the second cell of the second row. Total score Is merely the sum of entries across rows. Since items arranged in a cyclical order by scales all items in a given row belong to the same scale. Hence summing across gives the score for that scale. PARENTAL ATTITUDES RESEA R C H INSTRUM ENT (PARI) - (SCHAEFER - BELL) INVENTORY OF ATTITUDES O N FAM ILY LIFE AND CHILDREN Read each o f th e statem en ts below and then r a te them as fo llo w s: A a d D str o n g ly m ild ly m ild ly str o n g ly agree agree d isa g ree d isa g ree In d ic a te your o p in io n by drawing a c i r c l e around the "A" i f you str o n g ly a g r ee , around th e "a" i f you m ild ly a g r ee , around th e "d" i f you m ild ly d is a g r e e , and around th e "D" i f you str o n g ly d isa g r e e . There are no r ig h t or wrong answ ers, so answer accord in g to your own o p in io n . I t i s very im portant to th e study th a t a l l q u estio n s be answ ered. Many o f th e statem en ts w i l l seem a lik e but a l l are n ecessa ry to show s lig h t d iffe r e n c e s o f o p in io n . n sr p _ P e p , P n a it s C l U £ s P § ft O ' y r t t r n b n 2 i ta b P ft It P g » 3 ft ft E T It O ' P It > 1 ft ft tl It M iff H i b O ' P ft 2? • < i t a p M l to H H p p p p p p p p 0 1 « • 0 0 * sj i O ' 1 in • * u i N • p * 0 1 1 0 0 0 S i ■ O ' * in « » u • to » ft 3 ft p It ft p t 3 t it £ o' 0 0 ft B p 9 ft 9 M l 3 p 9 O ' b E T 3 0 0 P b p 0 5 p p It ft ft b it ■ b b A 3 rt ft < it rt 0 ft M l _ rt 0 b rt 3 ft 9 O ' O ' It M i 9 rt O P 0 b 3 O'It ft ft f t 0 9 ft p ft 9 ft ^ fl b b £ 9 ^ * - rt 3 M l 3 b rt ft 9> 0 P H ► 9 I H 3 p H p n o 9 0 b > rt 2 E P H « 0 > rt H 0 * a n rt to • H > ft < P H i It 0 ( 1 M l ftb 9 S * 1 ^ ■ o P o 3 ft P 9 ft rt 0 sr g 9 ft rt B ft > < M m 0 b it b rt b it ■ 0 ft 0 rt O t - rt p n b 0 3 HlP b B ft P O O 5 M b 0 b 9 1 ^ . 3 m * s 3 „ ft 9 3 ft b E T p rr rt ft) £ - 0 P ft ft HiO n n ft „ 3 it A 0 0 It b 3 0 3 P p t ft p W P 3 B rt ft 3 O ' M l 0 9 9 3 B 3 £ 1 H 3 rt M l H i b p 3 f) S r o' ft rt p 3 It _ 3 rt p o § P ft P ft 0 It it b b ft b ft b ft • ft O t b it it 9 ft ft 1 „ b b ft it ft E T B n p n b it H p p X rt £ It rt rt it b ft 3 & t rt 3 * 3 b P It c S ft 3 O ' 3 It £ 3 f t ft ft V b PET b p ft 3 " ft i £ 3 3 * 0 I S P P 0 H b ft ft 9 „ 0 p rt 3 ft 9 b A 9 • 0 ft £ P ft 0 b b B b M l ft p rt ft ft 9 > 1 P B 3 3 b b ft 0 0 > < ft rt m i b p p b rt p • cr o rt b P E T 3 0 3 " P 0 P « f > It 0 rt 3 a s 3 b b 0 p p p rt ® S 0 rt it ft It 3 3 ft ft M ft 3 * P p p p E T rt p p u p b 3 3 rt b rt b h b 0 ft ft P rtiEj 0 ft S rt ft rt b P o' c t ft * 4 p ft O ' • M ft 9 It b ft < H 0 b It n b • r t E f b rt ft 0 0 ft b 3 b b ft STb ft b * - b b 9 ffO ft ft rt 3 b « O ' 0 M 9 b ft rt If b ft rt 9 6 0 3 0 P 3 r t * ft ft b ft rt 3 B ft ' A ft p „ or rt P ft 0 0 ft b ft * 3 3 ft - ® g. 0*u O ' rt 0 p 1 0 ft rt B ft ft rt 8 3 99 ft p ft 9 B 3 e a ft 3 It 9 rt ft ft n 0 ft 0 9 g a b u p p P it £ ft • It 0 B 9 b P b rt 3 * E f 3 ft 3 ft I'D p 0 3 ft 3 P O O p rt ft P ft rt ft 3 3 9 rt ft P It •*< ft p £ b r t * MC 9 n ft b b 3 9 b ot 0 0 . ft ft rt p b ft rt 3 rt N 3 ft rt b p ft P ft • p P it p rt 3 b 9 B b - ft 3 t n rt p ft O ' O ' 3 b u 9 rt b p 0 ■ ft • n b s < P r b 0 0 b P It 0 0 9 0 0 9 A 0 rt ft rt b 9 P 3 3 99 9 0 0 8 p • ft ft ft rt O ' b p b rt rt O ' ft < H i tf P 0 ft rt g 0 0 1 rt M It b 0 o' 3 fi 9 0 1 0 0 ft P 0 b £ o o £ ft 9 ft ft ft O ' 0 O t ft 3 ft ft 3 O ' ft 3 " § rr it B sr • b rt rt 9 P ft It 3 O ' rt rt b ft < ft p f t ft rt PO B ft tr C 3 b n rt rt b p p a < P b 3 M 9 0 0 P 3 b 9 b rt 3 it ft rt p 0 9 0 rt 0 rt 3 • ft b 8“ ft n ft tt ft P 0 ft it ft rt 0 ft p 3 b p b it 0 ) 0 p rt O ' O ' rt 3 ft H 3 * 3 b p rt (3 ft 0 rt < ;i M l • 0 it a A ft 1 I t 3 9 ft ft • P O ' it it 3 b o b tti A » £ S 0 b h E M l s P ft b U rt 3 M l p rt It k i noi p b ft 3 * b 2 * M p rt b 3 It It P p rt rt C rt P o' n a rt p 3 ft 0 rt £ b 3 0 0 ft P O O < f [ b p t b it 8 ft p ft o' 3 9 rt P rt ft n 9 rt I N ft it * 3 • 9 3 b rt ft 0 H rt rt rt 0 b b ft ft 3 * rt b I D * ft rt b ft 3 9 rt 0 9 rt 5 rt p 3 rt b rr B b H I b P ft 9 3 p 0 B it 3 « p rt b ft tr ft rt 3 A b It 9 ft it ft ot ft b M l p rt 3 n 0 g 0 ft b M p p b rt 0 0 rt p rt rt b B £ 9 P f ) It B rt 9 rt H i 3 b b rt p p < ft b ft M l 3 9 b ft 3 ft b 0 9 rt 9 b 3 it b p A < < 0 It P ft b b rt ft rt 0 0 O O 3 0 0 p < H p rt 0 p ■ 0 E T a < It rt ft rt e M i ft e * b ft 9 3 3 b ft 9 b it ft 3 " n 9 0 9 0 It rj s a o' rt ft rt rt g r t b p p rt ft m •4 3 9 0 it * H it B n b 3 b b i • A 3 3 P 3 a it P ft ft M l it rt 3 9 S b A b • W ► > t t ► > b b f t f t f t 0 . a Q , 0 0 0 0 o d ► b f t 0 f t 0 f t 0 > > > > > > b b b b b b f t f t f t f t f t f t 0 0 0 0 0 0 f t 0 f t 0 f t 0 ► b f t 0 1 3 b f l It 3 r t P P M l P f t [ f H 9 ( l (t 3 * t M i f f It 0 it s P P f t ft o'o' It b P m b P 0 P l* i P ft f t It rt b b f t P * ! it b w n it it it b it • n 9 ft 9 f t P M W X A f t M 8 I E 3 w 9 9 1 Experimental ?orm 1 6 7 00 0 0 0 0 0 O Q O O Q O Q Q q o q 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 ) 1^75 o a a oo ^ ^ ^ * 0 * 0 V s u << < < < < < < < 4 4 < < i N I t 4 4 4 00 >i M S r 4 4 d I y 4 JJ 3 d A 4 0 4 b 3 4 • 4 A n ft 4 rt y b li b r 3 d 4 0 b 4 3 9 4 4 A 0 a y y 4 m y 3 4 rt 0 4 d 4 6 * d b b 4 3 A M 4 fO A, y 3 7) I f 0 4 4 p 4 y b 3 F i 4 d y 7) 4 4 4 4 4 b h M 4 y b d 4 d 0 d t ? y d 3 b 4 b 0 rt 4 4 y >i rt 9 A B d 0 b 4 d y o r g 9 M 4 4 4 3 4 d b top 4 3 b 7) d d £ d 4 3 A b 3 4 4 y „ 0 d b o to A 7) 3 3 4 > i w d 4 d 4 0 s j : A d M l 4 y u b 4 4 3 b y b d d 4 4 4 d d > A A A 4 t H d 0 3 4 4 £ 3 * 0 id y 4 rt N n •j N N N b d o & a 4 9 d 3 f t 4 4 ■ 0 d 3 0 & d U y 3 0 d V d 9 d B V A u 4 > d b 3 0 9 y 4 0 d y y y 4 b ft 4 4 b A ft 4 • 4 4 b d 4 > 4 0 4 9 A o r 9 4 4 $ y A 3 A V 0 H f t d 3 i d d d iJ y d 3 3 3 J 0 4 4 A 3 3 4 9 t r r 0 4 b • £ b 4 4 3 1 d b A d 0 y d 3 9 d o r 4 d 4 s y 0 A s y < b 3 H 3 4 rt A d A b y 0 d 4 m A N N N 0 3 d d b 1 4 b 4 4 A 4 4 9 y 4 4 d y 3 3 d 4 d 3 0 b ft b 4 ft 4 rt A 4 5 H y A X 4 > y M 3 4 3 5 0 • 0 b y b d y b 4 4 4 4 A d A y * S f t d w M d 3 0 4 d 4 3 b 9 4 > d o y d 4 d A 4 M b 1 f t d i ftd 0 • 4 > i b b y A 4 4 4 4 4 b > y b JJ 9 4 4 y 4 4 A 3 4 4 0 ft 4 A 4 y 4 X b y 3 4 3 4 4 M d A M 4 H y y 3 * 0 ft 9 i J d y y • r < S ’ 9 9 3 d y i d r t b 4 d to 0 4 4 d b r 3 A 4 3 3 4 y 3 0 b A 0 3 d 0 y y b P s 3 y y n 4 rt 4 3 i d d b d M S y < d < 9 (A 3 w 0 d 3 r t 4 y 3 A 4 3 4 A 4 3 y A A o o 0 7 0 d N N n h d 4 f i y u B 4 y C 4 U f t 4 1 A y y 4 A y 3 b 4 « y M l d 3 0 0 r t Ify j i c > 3 d M 3 0 J O 0 0 H • y « 3 4 0 9 b i V A 4 y H ■ o H • H A 0 4 y 3 V b 4 f t 9 d A y 3 ■ 4 9 y « 4 ft f t V « 9 f l d d A 0 • (n b o 9 y 3 V b 4 f t d A 0 4 y rd <2 4 3 is y y 4 4 > d M l 9 4 s d • > > > d d 7 J 4 4 4 4 b > 4 ft d d 3 ft 0 4 4 d y 4 b d o r 3 0 y y H A 3 d 3 M y 4 A 4 3 4 f t j y 4 A y 3 4 4 y r 4 4 y r y > A M l 4 4 d r r 3 A d y H d 9 3 • 3 3 » to 0 9 d 4 3 A ft Br "l! 4 s ■ 2 U A » 3 3 4 b o b d p 4 y 4 d 0 3 r r A b d y M y t o d 4 3 M r b d 3 4 b y > d A 4 4 4 H H A < b 3 1 4 y 4 4 0 r d 0 H 4 4 d 4 r 4 y y < f i n v O n < n m 4 A y f t r b •o r t d £ 0 b •d 4 A y < y 0 y u 4 f t 4 4 b 4 A y 9 • y y 3 o 4 4 b 4 > i ft 4 A y i* . m A y H 4 4 d 4 4 4 0 U 3 4 b 0 d • 1 1 £ 4 y W u t t 4 J M 3 5 J § 3 3 4 0 b 3 7) d 4 d 4 A 4 0 0 m a > n A 9 4 3 d A 4 p d < * i d y d 8 4 0 b b d 4 3 Bd 4 9 * 9 9 d 4 b 9 d d d 4 1 0 r > 4 • 4 b 3 3 y 4 £ 3 4 3 d 4 4 0 9 A y ft 9 4 4 9 4 ftb . 3 A 0 3 tO i-i y A 3 3 ^ 3 d 0 d M J0y. d 3 ft H 3 d 4 b y P 4 y 4 h fty y 4 4 3 y ft y d d 4 4 ft d r b £ 1 r d y o U 9 4 u ■ ■ r y 4 y y 3 b d 4 4 y # y r b 9 3 b y 4 4 1 0 ft y 0 3 9 d H I r y 3 d 0 2 2 4 4 u y ft 4 b 9 4 4 4 9 3 > 4 y y 3 4 3 4 4 9 4 r r d 0 h y 4 y 4 3 y ft 4 3 ) H 3 N • 4 d 4 J d a • 4 0 rt 4 d rt b 4 4 o i 0 rt < n •f if M 3 y 9 4 d b 4 X y 4 X y 3 4 b 4 28 y h 44 * 2 4 9 J5 7 } y 3 440 a e 4 3 y A 9 i * 4 4 id 3 y 4 y a « 7) 4 r t d 0 4 : y 0 * 3 § 4 N ■ 4 • 0 9 < n y 3 3 4 4 b b 4 3 f t d d ■ A d y j ! b id d h 4 y y 4 b 3 4 4 J O f t o 4 *9 • 4 id JO 4d ■ £ b 3y 4 40 > bo 4 7) fi 3 d g d u MM 25. I V y 3d 9 4 J O n i f i f 4 1 6 8 i < n i o h H U P P P Q P 0 a 4 4 f l V B ■ H s JJ t l £ tl V jj JJ V £ I I A jj £ H § 0 jj tl £ jj H H 4 ii 9 0 4 4 0 U • i m 4 H 38 B t l 4 £ I * 9 £ 4 B t l JJ 4 4 f l £H U T l ui f t 4 H O m S ■ H JJ 4 " -H fi 4 4 4 t I U J JJ o H f i t l f l 4 3 0 9 0 jj jj ft 3 0 ■ o g I ■ H > < 4 0 JJ f l tI 0 a 4 •4 £ 0 jj jj • * 4 4 f l o H JJ tI £ f l 4 tl < 3 p H 4 £ B 4 4 s i o o H > 4 4 f l t O B B t l r l T l > 4 4UJ * fl §g s ii US £ tl 0 0 4 T l n ■§£ jj u 9 4 f l Jg 6 8 3 4 5 to 9 3 • H <fiA 0 f i A 0 A O i O h > f mm In 4 4 tl f l H tI A 0 Q f l 4 < h | i* f l 0 f i f l 0 f i fl 4 1 4 t fl 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 JJ £ I tI B 4 JJ A fl 4 4 4 Tl (J B rl £ £ 9 H £ 3 tO £ U J f? 4 fl 9 jj 0 0 • H £ 4 4 JJ tl 4 4 | ti 4 to B T l 4 fi 0 a A Tl jj £ ll £ 4 A" JJ Q H 4 b 0 JJ 4 9 B 4 fi JJ £ 4 U J 0 c JJ b u b 4 4 to 4 3 > 4 JJ B £ 4 9 4 fl 4 rl JJ £ tJ 4 jj JJ 0 fl 4 ti jj IS tl fi JJ to •H £ H to 4 3 £ H 0 0 4 • 4 4 JJ B fl ti 4 4 4 4 H Q 4 Q rt 3 ! to 4 Tl B H fl 3 9 B Tl £ 4 4 4 tI • 0 fl 0 £ 4 4 4 M l JJ B 4 JJ 4 tl 4 ti B 4 £ - * 4 4 Tl fl tI 3 fl £ ti A A 4 IH B ti Tl ji 0 JJ JJ £ • 4 4 U J 0 is 4 tl 0 0 4 - £ £ B 4 tI JJ H 4 4 4 4 4 0 JJ £ 4 4 BUI fl £ 4 6 j j 3 ti * 4 H 9 4 4 U 4 £ JJ JJ 4 > n 4 X U J 0 £ ti 4 4 fi 4 « B 0 B 4 B b 4 ti 4 4 £ 4 fl 4 £ 0 4 ti j j < fl ti 4 0 £ JJ O tI 4 2 * H * r l H * 0 j j JJ H 3 4 4 to 0 4 JJ 0 fl 0 £ B JJ 8 g 4 4 £ 4 £ JJ 0 B 0 5 ti £ 9 MH 4 0 4 B 0 0 £ 4 JJ 4 H JJ 4 tl fi 6 U 4 B £ 4 4 3 4 B A 4 tl 4 B 4 3 4 0 fl b H •H M 4 B ti 4 fl 4 fl fl Tl 4 4 fl H 4 tl H £-H tl JJ 6 H JJ • fl * s 0 £ 4 4 Tl ■ H fi £ JJ H A 8 A Q £ 4 0 • H ■ H 0 £ <| U J H X b o i 4 A JJ 0 3 jj 4 tl £ 0 1 £ jj 3 £ f l 4 N m < n m m m 10 m m oo m o v O o fl a a fl a 4 4 4 < < < JJ f l • 4 B 4 4 1 £ tl p 4 4 E b JJ 3 i 4 p 4 4 to & * i jj S 0 U J i 4 £ JJ tI B 4 4i 4 4 £ 4 JJ tl JJ 5 4 fl 4 H fl 4 b * 2 £ 3 £ 3 U U 0 4 5 JJ H £ 4 2 JJ jj £ JJ Tl JJ JJ tI $ u H 4 B £ b 4 tl 0 to Tl 4 fl 4 -rl H £ fl £ ■ H JJ 0 £ • U 4 H S 'S i H t i £ 4 4 JJ •H JJ ■ 4 £ 0 B £ 4 JJ fl 4 JJ JJ Tl 4 4 9 jj 6 £ 8 ■ fl o 5 3 B 4 0 4 tl 4 JJ >i • 4 4 W § JJ tl 4 ii fl 4 ti 4 H fl JJ tI tl U J 3 B 4 U J 4 0 4 4 £ 4 £ w b 4 JJ £ 4 b £ 2 u 4 B JJ B 4 3 4 4 JJ £ £ 1 4 4 B fl 0 3 4 b H tl B 4 tl 4 t! U J 4 4 4 4 £ £ 4 b£ O H $ £ 3 0 U J J J 4 ti £ 4 4 4 Tl U £ • 4 * H N A A \0 0 tl A > * 4 H a x 4 a jj tl 4 B o £ 4 jj a 3 9 8 to f c tl £ u 1 I I £ jj 4 •H t) £ 4 II 4 3 4 0 tl £ to a H g 4 a a £ 4 4 £ £ jj JJ SS 0 B j o 4 O O JJ tl & 4 £ 4 U • 4 JJ ft 3 f l r t r t J 4 4 £ H 4 0 JJ >. 4 JJ f l H 3 J 4 JJ 0 4 ti 4 a jj ti 4 J JJ 4 <1 S 4 < 0 m < o A a Experimental Form 169 1 ■ f t 1 « < 1 8‘ 4 • y' 9 I I « « U tl << 3 V y f l H rl f i 0 M ■ H tl f i U U 3 0 • fi y f l J 0 0 C t r l ( 3 I f rl u a f l 3 X J 0 •5 to u Ufi it y tl y a tl H U tl 3 4 ! rl 3 tl 3 If «f f l f l 0 3 r « m « y u 3 4 tl fl If 0 * a a 1 1 rf y If 4 a r- \0 a y rl 0 t l rf tl rl f l y a X t f f l ti fl rl tl 3 tl 3 f l >5 «43 r f H fl rl r l rf rf ) f i 0 tl rf * 1 1 If tl tl tl rf tl rf tl If f i 4 tl tl f i tl tl f i H * 0 3 tl If 4 a 0 0 • f i « if ti f i a f i to 3 ■ 5 t l f i f l rf e y to 3 rf f i fi * h 0» a 4 xi ; ! 5 e 3 4 S ti i t i tl 4 f l n * \ x 0 Iff tl f i O i f i fl fl 9 9 9 9 9 Q 9 9 ' 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 fl fl a fl fl fl fl *0 fl fl fl fl fl fl fl a fl fl fl fl a fl fl fl fl (0 fl 4 fl « 4 fl 4 « 4 4 < < < < < < < < < « < • fl! < < < < < < 3 tl y fl < fl rf 1 a fl H ti rf 1 1 fi 3 ti 5 tl H • rf » 43 3 fl y a J3 ti •H fl 43 3 0 0 I I to 5 U 3 n a * y 0 fl 3 > 1 H 43 3 3 A rf tl ti 3 < i 9 fl H 4 3 y rf tl iff fl rf 4 ti II y tl b tl y 00 If ti e .0 to y rf fi y i a y > fl fl A fl 4 * « tl y fl rf rf H i 9 H u u If fi a a fi tl 4 tl rf 43 e fl rf 3 tl 0 1 y rf 4 3 y « 3 03 3 0 fi If a fi n y y y y 1 1 y a rf U rf tl vl « y rf iff fl 1 « > 0 1 3 3 0 tl rf 43 0 t) 0 ) Q ) 0 9 fl 0 tl fl If fl tl a 43 tl 3 s rf 40 y a 8 a y tl rf rf fi fi fi fl iy fl 5 rf rf 3 If 0 1 fl if tl fi 0 y flr f rf a O II fi tl fi rf fi fl u 4 y tl y rf 0 H u fl fi U tl If to to 0 y 3 y rf y 3 rf 4 fl fi 3 0 1 ti t 3 0 1 fl 0 » 0 ti « > H fl fi 43 •0 3 fi rf y it rf > 1 fl y fi 3 0 a tl rf 0 fi 0 rf rf « 0 rf 3 Iff * fi H f l 3 a fi 43 « 3 a ti > » 0 0 rf » 4 0 9 r a rf 3 U 4 0 •y fi 0 1 y fl • tl 9 3 rf to 43 4 0 43 y 4 3 >f h a tl fl 0 3 y y to y n « y • rf 0 1 1 fi a u « ■ H a 3 « ti rl 8 « fi fi H fl ti rf fi ti 8 fl T f 3 y 43 a • 8 3 1 ti 4 If • A ti fl 0 43 ti ti B r-l 3 y y ti to rf 0 g a 0 h 2 6 ti n « y y to rl tl rl 43 3 fi rf fl 3 a 3 fl 8 3 tl H 0 0 fl • « 0 y H to y 0 If A 0 fi rf fi u ■n If 5 3 tl y O f y f l 4 fl y fl y tl fi rf 4 4 fl fi 4 0 ) 0 3 y a 4 t« $ 3 a fl tl 3 3 , 43 43 a tl rf y 0 3 y 0 3 fl If fl u 0 If ti 0 > y a U Tl 3 y a ; rf y y y II tl 3 « 0 1 u 0 rf ti If « tl 3 3 0 0 H y « « fi fi fi a £ Iff H £ > tl tl 43 tl rf fi 0 1 ti to v ti y ti fi rf u fi 0 1 3 1 a 3 3 to 4 a rf ti • 43 0 1 y fl 0 1 fl If fi 4 3 or rf ti y ■ 3 fi 0 1 y « y fl fl rf £ ti iff 0 0 if fl 4 £ 41 e n y 4 43 3 3 « 3 fJ ti 0 a 3 4 to ■ 3 y to 3 y y 0 y 3 y 0 3 rl to a ti 3 fl 0 tl y o i 3 0 1 0 tl rl ti to fi 0 3 If 0 1 ti iff rf 3 rf 3 fi 0 rf rf 43 n 3 n y to tl « 3 0 0 a fi 0 4 3 9 y 3 fi 4: y d 0 a ti y 4 5 r f Iff 8 « 0 1 ti 43 3 a 3 y ti 0 3 « a n 43 fl Iff a a h fl 0 1 H 0 1 fl 0 iy y rf a y fl fl Iff 3 H If a tl y 3 > h y fl 0 » « fi 3 tl rl rf tl a 3 tl a 3 fl 0 y 3 y 4 « rl « 0 O tl w fl 3 fl fl 0 1 0 iff a 5 8 rf fi ti 0 rf 4 3 0 0 4 0 rf • 0 p ti X • a if rf fl n 4 3 0 M 9 H fl fi 0 3 n 3 ti a a 4 3 ti n y tl 3 fl £ fl « fl 1 1 n 3 fl ii fl 43 8 ti H U fl fl 43 0 fl rf y u 3 3 * 0 > 1 3 3 u 4: X rf rl 3 fl y 3 rf rf tl fl O fl Tl fl fl 3 tl 1 1 n 0 u « fi to rf a ti fl 0 1 43 fl fi 43 43 rl fl fi tl 4 If If K a 0 3 J 3 y y 4 iy 0 • U tl y b n rl rl 3 « a fl fl tl tp tl • rf 0 3 fl 3 0 tl 2 H •H fi 2 2 y fi u tl 0 H rl fi tl 3 M 3 y fl tl rf rf tl 6 3 tfl 4 « a 4 3 0 tl If a 0 rf rf fi fl rf tl 0 a rf 0 1 y rf ti y 3 0 • a X • fl fl X 0 fi fi 0 Orf 43 tI 0 fl 4 3 a 43 3 3 w « 9 iy iy ti tl 3 < * a tl H U 0 a jj-g H « I H a U tl u 0 u < ti * £ h y n H4S W tl u n tl if 3 fl B O 0 iy 3 M t « 9 ( O fl • H fi rf fi 0 0 3 a 43 y rf a tl 0 ) tl a « y 4 0 43 3 * y y n 0 1 3 43 43 Iff fi fi rf * 0 rf a fl 43 a y U • 0 I • N « rt 1 ft • rt f l £ * IS * 0 0 9 O i * 0 1 rf t N 1 rt i • ifl • fi • N I S N IN IN I n s I n S IN 00 00 to C O 00 00 to 00 9 9 a a a M 1 1 a rf 3 \ X II f i « fi 3 a M I I f i tl I I f l 5J iff fi rf tl II Iff 3 0 r f Iff tl to n If tl 4 f c « 33 S3 w a II g h f l 0 f J tl n a H r f If V f i 5 3 0 t o 3 ■ H t O to 5 f i 1 t t ln i* & n f o 0 « £ u 0 fi to to fi A * to rf rf If fl H flr f « ’ S U t l I f fi 8 43 tl fi « M 4 ) ( 0 INVENTORY OF ATTITUDES O N FAMILY LIFE AND CHILDREN 1 7 0 •rl' 0 Q Q D O O O f l O P Q O f l • 0 - o f l f l flfl flfl f l flfl f l O O Q Q P Q O O O fl fl fl fl fl fl f l f l fl tl 4 tl b u < < 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 < < < < < < < < < rl 4 b It S’ A i z b fl H ■ H i ti 5 b fl H tl £ u b tl v fi • u 4 u b > tl fl 3 4 fi b 3 tl HI tl fi tl b > 4 4 A X 4 fl b H 3 0 3 b * rl •H J tl r l t l 0 b fl r l •fl A u u tl o o 0 u hi ti N i l fl rl 3 \ 0 av til 0 u m hi tl 4 rl A fi tl 4 4 « 4 0 X a. 4 *0 4 rl tl 3 rl 0 b fi 4 n ti b 4 4 f i f i U II 2 u 0 4 < fl 4 f i tl 4 b U f t a 3 4 H I f i 4 b f i 4 f i 4 b u fi b 4 « t i b b fi f i X fi 3 f i 4 0 3 •b 4 b 4 f i b 4 f i b f i f i f i 0 t i 4 ■n 3 0 > 3 b • H 0 f l 4 0 0 f i • b hi 4 X 4 4 t i b 4 b f i r l C b 0 fi 4 4 • b 4 H r l b . A b H 4 4 >»b b 4 4 t l f t 4 b f i f t u fit! 0 0 8 0 4 b f i 3 4 0 4 f i f l 0 t l b b f i r l f i H I f i Stl 4 0 0 b fifi fifi * 3 0 b ( J b 3 0 H i 4 t i 3 f i 2 4 r l l o 4 4 l b 0 0 0 f i b • 1 s 3 b b f l 4 b 0 0 t l f t f i 4 V b 4 • b 4 4 f i b b X H I 4 b b 3 0 g f i 0 4 i - 4 4 0 S t l f i f i H f i f i 4 • • H a t i 4 f l 0 0 3 4 4 0 t l 0 0 r l a 4 4 t o f i 3 t l b a f i f l t l 0 0 0 4 • 3 b «x f i 4 f i b f i 4 t l r l 4 b b 4 4 b f i 4 3 g a 0 H I 0 b f i 0 0 5 e * 4 0 4 • s 4 b b 4 f l H 0 f l t i 0 8 ) tA b I C H i r l f l 0 A A 4 0 4 t l 0 0 > fifi fifl f i 4 U £ 3 4 Ufi < H » 4 f i r f i 4 b f l b t l f i r l f i 0 0 t l f i 3 t l f i ■ h f t a u * N 1 m • j i n « f i O ' O ' O ' O' O' f i 4 H f l H •h f i u u tl 4 f i b ll 0 H I e 3 u 3 H I II 4 00 I i • 0 h HI fi 4 4fi 4 U tl H I tl ll 0 4 4 b 4 f i II f i U 0 f i g .2 S fi V tl fi U II 4 0 fi u II I! 4 ( I tl ft , 61 ll It 4 fi 4 HI fl 4 Ufi 4 4 1 0 b t 4 tl 4fi Ii 11 00 0 4 i ■ B b 4 II f i C l II rl « 01 4 fl rl 4 4 tl U b ll b 4 4 & E b 4 4 > 00 3 *1 0 0 l l b H tl 4 4 U* 3 U j j To 4 4 • a u C H •A a 4 > 4 f i O' 01 00 f i tl 5 4 U II b 0 tl b u 4 f l § u 4 tl f t J fi rl rl 4 3 u 0 4 4 b 4 fi 4 Ii fl rl tl fi 0 h fl rl tl fi u fi. 0 11 b 4 fi I H fi •H u t l II t l b 0 b 4 4 fi fl r l •H fi U 00 c t l ll II HI 0 4 b 1 0 4 c H 0 4 b V 4 f 0. 4 4 p. b 4 4 4 r l b f i 4 u 4 b 0 0 J 4 fi 4 •H 4 3 fi 4 0" <1 • b 4 t o f i f i f i 4 f l 3 r l : P 4 f l f i I s b f i s 0 u 0 4 hi f l b 4 b f i 4 f l 4 •b r l f i 4 3 4 4 4 0 O ' £ : 4 0 4 r l 0 4 t l b n f i 4 4 4 3 b H I 4 c 4 HI 0 4 b fl b ft b 4 4 0 ft 4 fi b b b 0 fi a 4 b 4 8 b b f i * 4 004 b f t f i 3 H 3 t i b 0 4 > 1 3 4 a ^ifi 4 < 4 H H rl H 4 4 0 4 b5 ti 4 4 fi > a 4 4 >u 4 H f i 3 flfi rl n 3 0 fi f i 4 4 b fl 4 r l I I t l C fi 4 4 b 4 U f i 4 fib 0 4 0 4 4 4 f i b u 00 fi •H fi b 1 b 0 hi b 4 0 H 4 <b 4 u 3 5 4 b 0 > 1 fi 4 4 4 II b b 4 4 f i f i b b O O r l N O n ■$ m 0 0 0 fl O rl b 4 fi b 4 • 4 4 H ■ H fl 3 H • h 4 fifi u H I 4 H I 0 b 4 b f i 4 0 b 0 b 4 4 4 * £ 2 . b b 4 > 4 IN 0 4 f l t l 4 b 4 4 ss rl 4 f i b 21 fi 3 fi 4 f t b 4 f l 4 -I fi •H fi 0 U b 0 4 b 4 t l f i b 0 0 tl b b 4 fi 4 H I b 0 b 4 b 0 00 rl fi > ^ 003 5J| tl 4 b rl 4 fi 3 3 *1 b * b r l H j 4 fi 3 H« >» 4 £ b O' o rl fl rl t l fi u fi b ■ H 3 00 fi 0 fi tl ■ fi b 4 • Ii 4 4 >lb H 3 rl 0 4 fi 3 4 4 3 4 fi 4 0 tl tl b 4 4 b 4 4 3 fi 0* H hi 0 b 0 fl 4 4 r l 4 fi b 4 X 4 b 0 b 4 > 4 fi t l 3 fi 4 b 4 fi b J 4 b f l 4 4 b t l b n Experimental Form -6- INVENTORY OF ATTITUDES ON FAMILY LIFE AND CHILDREN Date Name Agree Disagree 112. It is a mother's duty to make sure she knows her child's A a d D innermost thoughts. 113. When you do things together, children feel close to you and A a d D and can talk easier. 114. A child should be weaned away from the bottle or breast as A a d D soon as possible. 115. Taking care of a small baby is something that no woman A a d D should be expected to do all by herself.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character
PDF
Attitudes Of Ministers And Lay Leaders Of The American Baptist Conventionof The State Of Washington On Selected Social Issues
PDF
A Critique Of The Concept Ethnocentrism As Set Forth In Selected Social Science Literature
PDF
Self-Worth, Future Goals, Mood And Time Perception
PDF
The Effect Of Differential Treatment On Attitudes, Personality Traits, And Behavior Of Adult Parolees
PDF
Delinquency And Rationalization: A Study Of The Delinquent Act
PDF
The Use Of Multiple Objective Measures In Survey Research As A Means For Predicting Respondent Future Behavior
PDF
Consensus Of Role Perceptions In A Welfare Planning Council
PDF
Personality Characteristics: Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Mate Selection
PDF
Some Characteristics Of A Selected Sample Of Free Methodist Pastoral Dropouts
PDF
Power Struggle And Organizational Goals: A Case Study Of An Industrial Firm
PDF
Social Factors Related To Dentistry As A Career
PDF
Some Effects Of Preschool Experience On The General Intelligence And Creativity Of Culturally Disadvantaged Children
PDF
Measuring Thought Process As An Ego Function In Schizophrenic, Mentally Retarded And Normal Adolescents By Means Of The Rorschach
PDF
Social Changes In Selected Institutions Of The Ussr With Special Reference To The Family
PDF
The Parameters Of Singleness: An Inquiry Into Some Factors Influencing The Choice Of Singleness Over Marriage As A Way Of Life
PDF
The Career Business Executive As A Definitive Occupational Type
PDF
A Study Of The Relationships Between Religious Affiliation, Religious Practices And Marital Adjustment
PDF
Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders
PDF
Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability
Asset Metadata
Creator
Barber, Bernard
(author)
Core Title
A Study Of The Attitudes Of Mothers Of Mentally Retarded Children As Influenced By Socioeconomic Status
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Sociology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, social
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Vincent, Melvin J. (
committee chair
), Lasswell, Thomas E. (
committee member
), Ruch, Floyd L. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-279540
Unique identifier
UC11359076
Identifier
6304216.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-279540 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6304216.pdf
Dmrecord
279540
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Barber, Bernard
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
psychology, social