The effects of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex, and type of activity on parent-infant interactions

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effects of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex, and type of activity on parent-infant interactions
Physical Description:
viii, 59 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Lederman, Jan Craig, 1949-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parent and child   ( lcsh )
Sex role   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 52-58).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jan Craig Lederman.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000077834
notis - AAJ3128
oclc - 04868791
System ID:
AA00003496:00001

Full Text











THE EFFECTS OF PARENT SEX ROLE, PARENT SEX,
INFANT SEX, AND TYPE OF ACTIVITY ON PARENT-
INFANT INTERACTIONS












BY

JAN CRAIG LEDERMAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1978















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements are for me a most enjoyable part of writing this

dissertation. As a graduate research assistant on the Parent-Infant

Transaction Project in the Institute for Development of Human Resources,

I was particularly awed by the variety of behaviors observed in the

different families we studied. Then, when Dr. Ashton taught me about

androgyny, I became curious as to the nature of the sex roles in the

parents with whom we were working and how their sex roles might affect

their behavior. I am grateful to the late Dr. Ira Gordon, a unique

mentor, for granting me the opportunity to study with him during the

two and one-half years that I was involved with this project. His

concern, knowledge, and enthusiasm will live on. I am also grateful for

the opportunity to have been able to work with Dr. and Mrs. Robert Soar,

Bill Huitt, Pat Schlenker, Karen Long, Lee Cohen, Louise Stephenson, and

Becky Graham on this effort. The parents brought us warmth and the

infants brought us beauty during many days, evenings and weekends spent

in video-taping their interactions.

There are a few very special people who assisted me throughout the

time I was involved in writing this dissertation. I am unable to thank

Dr. Pat Ashton enough for her constructive and ever valid criticisms

and suggestions that enabled this work to reach a level of sophistication

and maturity of which I can be proud. I am particularly indebted to

Bill Huitt for working with me during many late, late nights and very,








very long weekends in the computer center on the fifth floor of Weil Hall.

I am also thankful to Dr. Bill Ware for his guidance in construction of

the design for this study. I am lucky that I was able to secure the

services of Louise Stephenson, a typist exemplar and good buddy, who was

able to put together this work of art.

I am eternally thankful to my mother and father for making me possible

and for their encouragement and support. To my sister, Sue, I thank you

for your care and thoughtful considerations. Appreciation goes to Don

and Donna for helping me crystallize a new dimension of sex roles and

diverting me with memorable events during the course of two endlessly hot

summers. I dedicate this dissertation to Denise whose positive thoughts,

loving kindness, and faithful friendship inspired me throughout the time

I worked in pursuit of this goal. Thank you.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .... .. ii

LIST OF TABLES . . vi

ABSTRACT . . . vii

CHAPTER I PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY . 1

Introduction . .... .. 1
Need for the Study . . 3
Educational Implications . . 4
Purpose . .... 5
Objectives . . 5

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 6

Introduction . .... .. 6
Parent Sex . . 6
Sex oe of Parent .... . ... 9
Masculinity and Femininity .. . 10
.Androgyny . . 13
Infant Sex . . 15
Situation . . .. 16
Summary . . . 18

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY . ... 19

Null Hypotheses . . .. 19
Sample . . . 20
Procedure . . 20
Measures . . . 22
Reciprocal Category System . .. 22
Bem Sex Role Inventory . ... 27
Construction of the BSRI . ... 27
Psychometric Analysis of the
Bem Sex Role Inventory . ... 29
Analysis . . ... 30










TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


Page


CHAPTER IV RESULTS . .


. 32


Introduction .
Hypothesis 1 .
Hypothesis 2 .
Summary . .


CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS

The Sample . .
Data Collection . .
Analysis and Results . .
Discussion . .
Directions for Future Research .


. 39

. 39
. 39
. 40
. 41
. 42


APPENDICES


Questionnaire For Parents .
Hide-and-Seek 37 Weeks .
Blocks 43 Weeks .
Dropping Buttons in Jar 49 Weeks
Bem Sex Role Inventory .
Reciprocal Category System
Description of Behavior .. ...


BIBLIOGRAPHY . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . .


. . 52

. . 59















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 RCS Reliability Correlation Coefficients ...... 24

2 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients
of RCS Behaviors Session 5 (37 Weeks) ...... 25

3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients
of RCS Behaviors Session 6 (43 Weeks) ...... 26

4 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients
of RCS Behaviors Session 7 (49 Weeks) ...... 26

5 Product Moment Correlation of BSRI
Self-Masculinity and Femininity Scores for
Sessions 6 (43 Weeks) and 7 (49 Weeks) ... 30

6 Analysis of Variance of Parent Directing Behavior 33

7 Directing
Tests of Hypotheses of Repeated Measures
Using Type IV MS for Residual Error ... 34

8 Duncan's Multiple Range Test For Variable Directs 35

9 Analysis of Variance of Parent Warming Behavior 36

10 Warming
Tests of Hypotheses of Repeated Measures
Using Type IV MS for Residual Error ... 37














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE EFFECTS OF PARENT SEX ROLE, PARENT SEX,
INFANT SEX, AND TYPE OF ACTIVITY ON PARENT-
INFANT INTERACTIONS

By

Jan Craig Lederman

December, 1978

Chairperson: Dr. Patricia T. Ashton
Major Department: Foundations of Education

Recent research has indicated that parent-infant interaction has a

significant effect on the development of the infant. The question of

the factors that account for differences in parental behavior remains

largely unanswered. Personality traits related to sex role might be

related to parent-infant interaction. Only one study has attempted to

determine if sex role affects social interaction with an infant and it

was found that subjects of different sex types behaved differently while

interacting with an infant. However, the subjects had little experience

with infants and they were interacting with someone else's baby. Sex

typing in parents may have a critical effect on parent-infant interaction,

but this has yet to be explored.

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of sex role in

parents, sex of parent, sex of infants, and the type of activity on

parent-infant interaction. The sample consisted of 66 white, middle SES








couples and their firstborn infants, recruited via local media and

pediatricians. Mothers and fathers were videotaped individually for

3 minutes performing age-appropriate tasks with their infant at age

37, 43, and 49 weeks. Two trained raters coded the following parent

behaviors: eliciting, initiating, directing, warming, correcting,

accepting, and amplifying. Ratings of behavior by the coders on five

of the seven behaviors were not reliable and only the hypotheses for

directing and warming behaviors were analyzed further. At 43 weeks of

infant age, the parents completed a sex role inventory to determine

their sex roles. Data were analyzed using a 2 x 2 x 4 factorial design

with 3 repeated measures to test the effect of infant sex, parent sex,

and parent sex role (i.e., masculinity, femininity, androgyny, and

undifferentiated) for each of 2 parent behaviors studied during three

activity sessions. Univariate analyses of variance were calculated for

each of the 2 parent behaviors. Duncan's multiple range tests were

calculated to determine significant differences between means of

dependent measures. Differences in parent behavior as a function of

parent sex role, parent sex, and infant sex were not found. Results

indicated differences in parent directing behavior with parents directing

in different amounts depending on the activity. This difference seems

to be a reflection of difficulty of the tasks with parents directing

more during the difficult tasks. The finding shows the vital need for

researchers to examine the context in which behavior is occurring as

well as the reliability of their measures before results are generalized

to other situations.


viii














CHAPTER I
PROBLEM AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Introduction

A complex cross current of activity exists between parent and infant.

Recent research has indicated that parent-infant interaction has a

significant effect on the development of the infant (Ainsworth, 1973;

Clarke-Stewart, 1973). Differences in parent style of stimulation and

responding to infants lead to differences in the cognitive and social-

emotional development of the child (Gordon, 1974; Stayton, Hogan, and

Ainsworth, 1971).

The question of the factors that account for differences in parental

behavior remains largely unanswered. Parent sex has been shown to have

a significant effect on the type of interaction between parents and

infants, with fathers and mothers differing in their styles of responding

(Lamb, 1976; Rebelsky and Hanks, 1971) and elicitation of attachment

behavior (Yogman, Dixon, Tronick, Adamson, Als, and Brazelton, 1976).

Yet it remains uncertain as to why parent sex is related to different

types of behavior in parent-infant interaction.

A possible factor relating to sex differences in parent behavior

is the personality traits associated with males and females. Traits

typically associated with each sex include independence and aggression

in males and emotionality and passivity in females (Bakan, 1966; Kagan,

1964; Kohlberg, 1966; Parsons and Bales, 1955). Aggression is a major

sex typed behavior. Males are typically given freedom to express physical




2



and verbal aggression while females are not reinforced for aggressive

expression. Males are "urged to be independent in problem situa-

tions, sexually aggressive, in control of regressive urges, and suppres-

sive of strong emotion," while females are "supposed to inhibit aggression

to be nurturant to others .. and to maintain an affective,

socially poised and friendly posture with others" (Kagan, 1964, p. 143).

One can then expect males and females to exhibit different behaviors,

including behaviors involving interaction with their children.

According to Kagan (1964) and Kohlberg (1966), highly sex typed

persons try to keep their behavior consistent with their internalized

perceptions of their sex role, whether masculine or feminine. These

individuals are careful not to emit behaviors that are inappropriate

to their sex type. Thus, strongly masculine or feminine personalities

are likely to be hindered in their response capabilities. In a series

of sex-appropriate and sex-inappropriate tasks, Bem and Lenny (1976)

found that subjects who were highly sex typed experienced negative feelings

when they engaged in cross sex behavior and, as a result, these individ-

uals avoided these behaviors. As effective parenting requires nurturance

and assertiveness, depending on the situation, it seems likely that

highly sex typed individuals would be limited in their response capabil-

ities while interacting with their child.

An either-or (masculine-feminine) conceptualization of sex role has

become increasingly inadequate in light of a discovery of people who

display a high level of both masculine and feminine characteristics;

that is, "there exists a distinct class of people who can appropriately

be termed androgynous, whose sex role adaptability enables them to engage








in situationally effective behavior without regard for its stereotype

as masculine or feminine" (Bem, 1975, p. 643). Sex role androgyny

represents sex role adaptability and individuals who are androgynous

are capable of behaving assertively and aggressively as well as emotionally

or passively, depending upon the demands and constraints of different

situations. In addition, previous research has generally failed to

consider the individual who is undifferentiated or indeterminate in his

or her sex role. Undifferentiated persons describe themselves as low in

both masculine and feminine personality traits (Spence, Helmreich, and

Stapp, 1975).

Personality traits related to sex role might be related to parent-

infant interaction. Only one study has attempted to determine if sex

role affects social interaction with an infant. Bem and Lenny (1976)

found that subjects of different sex types behaved differently while

interacting with an infant. However, these subjects had little experience

with infants and they were interacting with someone else's baby. Sex

typing in parents may be a critical factor in the prediction of interac-

tion between parents and infants, but this has yet to be explored.

Need for the Study

There exists a need to study factors contributing to parent behavior.

Some important parent behaviors related to infant-parent interaction have

been identified, including stimulation, responsiveness, acceptance of

infant behavior, and ability to provide experiences for the infant that

are appropriate to the age and ability of the infant (Bell and Ainsworth,

1972; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Gordon, 1974; Lewis and Goldberg, 1969).

Factors accounting for these differences in parental behavior have not

been identified in the existing literature on parent-infant interaction.








Differences in parental sex typing might account for some of these

differences. Highly sex typed parents might be limited in their behavioral

interaction with their infant while androgynous individuals would

theoretically engage in both masculine and feminine typed behaviors,

thus providing a more effective environment for their infant.

Educational Implications

There are no studies in the literature on parent-infant interaction

which examine the issue of sex role typing in parents as it affects the

interactions that parents have with their infants. Parental sex typing

may be a significant factor affecting parent behavior. Differences due

to culture, conditioning, and stereotyping of behavior in males and females

may be more important than biological sex differences in determining

parent-infant interaction.

The implications for parent education and the development of effective

parenting skills could be far reaching. Rigid sex typing might inhibit

or otherwise discourage flexibility in parents, limiting the nature and

variety of parental interaction with their infant. Consequently, the

development of the infant might be affected should rigid sex typing in

parents result in restrictions in responding to their infant.

Effective parenting may require an androgynous personality due to

the complexity of the demands, constraints, and opportunities involved

in being an effective parent. Androgynous personalities who can be

assertive and yielding, aggressive and passive, independent and nurturant,

might become this society's model parents. Androgynous personalities

might be more readily capable of responding to meet the challenges of the

ultimate responsibility of being a parent.








Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of sex role

of parents (i.e., masculine, feminine, androgynous, undifferentiated),

sex of parents, and sex of infants on seven different parent behaviors

observed during three structured play settings.

Objectives

To determine if sex typing in parents affects parent behavior as

parents interact with their infant.

To determine if parent sex affects parent behavior as parents interact

with their infant.

To determine if infant sex affects parent behavior as parents interact

with their infant.

To determine if type of activity session affects parent behavior as

parents interact with their infant.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The nature of parent-infant interaction is complex. Research has

shown that behavior of parents while interacting with infants is affected

by sex of the parent, sex of the infant, and the type of activity in which

the interaction is occurring. Sex role of parents apart from these other

factors may also affect parent-infant interaction but this remains to be

explored. The pertinent literature which is reviewed in this chapter

presents a rationale for a study of the effect of parent sex, infant sex,

activity, and sex role of parents on the behavior of parents interacting

with their infants.

Parent Sex

Current research in the area of infant development has demonstrated

that parent-infant interaction plays a crucial role in the development

of the infant's competence (Kotelchuck, 1973; Lewis and Weinraub, 1974).

An extremely elaborate and intricate interrelationship develops between

parent and child and Sameroff (1975) stresses the need for parents to

become aware of the complexity of their interactions with their child.

Studies have consistently revealed that desirable parental behaviors

include intimate, firm, yet gentle handling by the parents (Ainsworth,

Bell, and Stayton, 1974; Lewis and Goldberg, 1969). Stimulation,

responsiveness, acceptance of infant behavior and proficiency in providing

appropriate activities for an infant's ability and age have also been










found to be important characteristics in parents (Bell and Ainsworth,

1972; Gordon, 1974; Kagan, 1971). Other parent behaviors found to have

an effect on infant competence include the ability to give the infant a

warm, nurturant environment, ability to communicate and respond recipro-

cally, and the ability of parents to provide social stimulation for their

infant (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).

It is less well understood as to which factors affect optimal

parental behavior. Sex of the parent has been shown to be a significant

contributor to differences in parent-infant interaction (Cohen and

Campos, 1974; Moss, 1967; Rebelsky and Hanks, 1971; Yogman, Dixon,

Tronick, Adamson, Als, and Brazleton, 1976). Two studies have shown that

mothers were superior to fathers in the elicitation of attachment behavior

(e.g., infant wanting to be held or comforted) in their babies (Cohen and

Campos, 1974; Yogman, Dixon, Tronick, Adamson, Als, and Brazleton, 1976).

Two studies have shown that fathers and mothers vocalize differently

with male and female infants (Moss, 1967; Rebelsky and Hanks, 1971).

While sex of the parent has been shown to result in different parent

behavior, it is less clear as to whether it is biological sex or personality

traits associated with sex, or both, that affect the behavior of parents.

Researchers have focused primarily on the relationship between

mother and her baby, for it has been assumed that the mother-infant

relationship is unique and that this relationship serves as the founda-

tion for future social relationships (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969).

Research supports the importance of maternal involvement with her

infant. Social behavior of the mother in response to her infant,








i.e., playing and talking, has been shown to relate to scores on the

Bayley Scale of Mental Development, according to Clarke-Stewart (1973).

Increased maternal sensitivity, awareness of and responsiveness to infant

signals affects scores on the Griffiths and Bayley indices (Ainsworth,

1973; Stayton, Hogan, and Ainsworth, 1971). Eye contact between mother

and infant also relates to and enhances attachment (Ainsworth, 1973;

Goldberg and Lewis, 1979; Moss and Robson, 1967). A warm attachment to the

mother has been shown to facilitate the acquisition of object permanence

in 8-month-old infants (Bell, 1970).

While there is no question as to the importance of the mother-infant

relationship, recent research has shown that the father as well, plays

a crucial role in the development of infant competence. According to

Pedersen, Rubenstein, and Yarrow (1973), 5- and 6-month-old infants were

more alert, responsive, and interested in their environment, as a function

of the amount of time the infants spent interacting with their fathers.

Nurturance from fathers has been shown to relate to intellectual compe-

tence in white, middle SES preschool male children (Radin, 1973).

Attachments form between infants and both parents (Kotelchuck, 1973),

although the relationships a mother and father have with their infant

are qualitatively different (Lewis and Weinraub, 1974). Lamb (1976,

1977) observed that fathers played more physical rough and tumble games

with their 7- and 8-month-old infants than did their mothers. Mothers

were observed to hold the infant much more than fathers but usually for

caregiving or controlling infant behavior. When the fathers held the

baby, it was usually to play. Kotelchuck (1973) reported that only a

quarter of the 144 fathers he interviewed had routine caregiving tasks

for their 9- to 12-month-old infants. In a study by Biller (1974),








fathers were observed to encourage infant curiosity as well as cognitive

and motor tasks. Mothers were seen as inhibiting infant exploration.

Fathers, then, are vigorous, playful, and encouraging of exploration in

their babies while mothers seem to be more caregiving, nurturant, and

controlling in relationships with their infant. Thus, it seems that the

mother, acting out the traditional feminine role, provides the child

with needed care and nurturance but fails to encourage behaviors that

may contribute to the development of competence, that is, exploratory,

independent behavior. The father carries out the traditional masculine

role by providing vigorous, active stimulation, but fails to involve

himself in caregiving functions. Perhaps the differences in parent-

infant interaction that researchers attribute to sex of parent may actually

be due to traditional sex role stereotyping rather than sex of parent per se.
Sex Role of Parent

Traditional sex role stereotypes taught to males and females in

our culture may inhibit the development of behaviors that would enable

both parents to respond optimally to their infant. According to Kohlberg

(1966) and Kagan (1964), highly sex typed individuals try to keep their

behavior consistent with their internalized perception of their sex role,

whether masculine or feminine. Strongly masculine or strongly feminine

parents may actually be hindered in their response capability when

behaving with their child. Data indicate that rigid sex role stereotypes

reduce effectiveness in personality and behavioral characteristics of

women and men. Strongly stereotyped individuals may have emotional

problems. For example, low self-esteem and social acceptance and higher

anxiety have been found in highly feminine females (Consentino and

Heilbrun, 1964; Gall, 1969; Gray, 1957; Sears, 1970; Webb, 1963). Low


r








self-acceptance and high neuroticism and anxiety have been found in

males who are high in masculinity (Harford, Willis and Deabler, 1967;

Mussen, 1962). Individuals who are highly sex typed may have personality

disadvantages attributable to being highly sex typed.

Masculinity and Femininity

In traditional personality theory, masculinity and femininity are

described as "relatively enduring traits which are more or less rooted

in anatomy, physiology, and early experience, and which generally serve

to distinguish males from females in appearance, attitudes, and behavior"

(Constantinople, 1973, p. 390). The masculine-feminine continuum is

characterized as ranging from aggression (i.e., individual assertiveness,

rationality, strength, instrumentality, agenic personality) to passivity

(i.e., emotionality, expressiveness, nurturance of others, yielding

personality) as described by Bakan (1966) and Bem (1974). Masculinity

is also conceived of as goal directed behavior while femininity is seen

as affective and supportive behavior (Parsons and Bales, 1955). Researchers

have supported the instrumental-expressive dimension (masculine -

feminine) by describing males as dominant and females as sensitive and

noncompetitive (Johnson, 1963).

Historically, masculinity and femininity have been described as

bipolar concepts lying on the opposite ends of a single continuum (Berdie,

1959; Goodenough, 1946; Hathaway and McKinley, 1943; Heilbrun, 1964;

Reece, 1964; Strong, 1936; Terman and Miles, 1936). Such a continuum

has opposite end points with masculinity and femininity at the opposite

ends (English and English, 1958). Inherent in a bipolar conception of

masculinity and femininity is the assumption that the opposite of a








feminine behavior would necessarily be a masculine behavior. Among

researchers who have based their conception of masculinity and femininity

on such a single bipolar continuum are Terman and Miles (1936) in their

Attitude Interest Analysis Test, Strong (1936) in his Strong Vocational

Interest Blank,Hathaway and McKinley (1943) in the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory (MMPI), and Gough (1952) in the development of his

Femininity (Fe) Scale.

Carlson (1972) warned that it may be an oversimplification to view

the complex dualities of masculinity and femininity as opposite ends of

a single bipolar dimension. As a result of a factor analysis, Lunneborg

(1972) concluded that masculinity femininity is not "the unidimensional,

mythical belief popularly held" (p. 317). This is understandable in that

"the universe of known sex differences is large indeed, and it is not

unreasonable to expect that these dimensions reflect more than one under-

lying dimension" (Constantinople, 1973, p. 398).

The major criticism of bipolar measures of masculinity and femininity

is that subjects are classified as being either masculine or feminine,

and, as a result, researchers are unable to determine whether a subject

is capable of exhibiting both masculine and feminine typed traits.

With traditional measurements viewing masculinity and femininity

at opposite ends of a single bipolar dimension, subjects are classified

or typed either as sex appropriate (i.e., masculine if male, feminine if

female) or as sex inappropriate (e.g., deviant, maladjusted, confused,

etc.). On the basis of such a single bipolar system one cannot possibly

be viewed as having both masculine and feminine traits, i.e., androgynous

or, conversely, neither set of traits, i.e., undifferentiated or indeter-

minate. Were masculinity and femininity to be viewed as two distinct and








independent dimensions of behavior one could then be characterized as

androgynous, i.e., both masculine and feminine, instrumental and

expressive (Parsons and Bales, 1955), assertive and yielding (Bem,

1974), or agenic and communal (Bakan, 1966; Block, 1973; Carlson, 1971),

or neither, i.e., undifferentiated.

Researchers have been moving in the direction of viewing masculinity

and femininity as two separate dimensions. A factor analysis of responses

to the Emotional and Ethical Attitudes and Interests Exercises on the

Terman and Miles (1936) Attitude Interest Test led researchers to conclude

that masculinity and femininity are not parts of one unitary trait (Ford

and Tyler, 1952). Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) concluded from

work with the Sex Role Stereotype Questionnaire that there is support

for the view that masculinity and femininity are separate components

present in males and females. In view of such a finding, separate

masculinity and femininity scales (MSC & FMN) from the California

Psychological Inventory (CPI) were constructed in order to allow for

independent measurements of a person's masculinity and femininity

(Baucom, 1976). Other researchers have supported the notion that

masculinity and femininity are mutually exclusive and orthogonal domains

of behavior (Bem, 1977; Block, 1973; Carlson, 1971; Constantinople, 1973;

Jenkin and Vroegh, 1969; Spence, Helmreich and Stapp, 1975). On the

basis of a factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974),

it was concluded that "the conceptualization of these traits as two

separate dimensions rather than a single bipolar dimension is a step in

the right direction" (Gaudreau, 1977, p. 302).








Androgyny

Researchers have found that androgyny as a personality attribute

contributes to one's adaptability. On the Personality Attributes

Questionnaire, it was found that subjects who have an androgynous self-

concept are higher in self-esteem than those with a masculine or feminine

self-percept (Spence et al. 1975). In a similar study, Wiggins and

Holzmuller (1978) found that subjects high in both masculinity and

femininity were also higher in level of self-esteem than subjects with

other sex typings. Androgynous individuals have the maturest level of

moral judgements, according to Block (1973), and androgynous individuals

are more socially poised and higher in intellectuality than undifferentiated

types, with masculine and feminine typed individuals in between (Berzins,

1975).

In an attempt to validate the measurement of androgyny with the Sex

Role Inventory (Bem, 1975), a group of 42 undergraduates was chosen to

rate a list of 12 activities on a 7-point scale as to how masculine or

feminine these activities are in the view of American society. Playing

with a 6-week-old kitten was rated as feminine and "saying what you believe,

even when you know those around you disagree" (p.636) was rated as

masculine. Fifty-four additional subjects were chosen to participate

in a standard conformity paradigm. Of these subjects, 27 were male and

27 were females, with 9 of each sex being androgynous, masculine, or

feminine. Results indicated that masculine and androgynous subjects were

less likely to conform than feminine subjects with no differences between

the masculine and androgynous subjects. On the kitten activity, males

who were androgynous and feminine became significantly more involved with

the kitten than did masculine males, with no differences between feminine

and androgynous males.








Feminine females were significantly less involved with the kitten than

androgynous females.

Bem (1977) hypothesized later that interacting with a kitten might

not be a good indicator of feminine playfulness and that a human subject

(i.e., infant) might be more likely to elicit feminine behavior. That

androgynous personalities are more flexible in their behavioral

repertoires was confirmed in that androgynous personalities exhibited

both a high level of feminine interaction with the kitten as well as a

high level of masculine independence when under pressure to conform

(Bem, 1975).

In order to provide optimal parenting, it is possible that parents

may need to adopt more flexible styles of responding than our society's

traditional sex role stereotypes permit. Research by Bem, Martyna, and

Watson (1976) provides support for the hypothesis that sex typing may

affect interactions with an infant. Bem selected 42 females and 42 male

undergraduates to interact with an infant. Subjects were selected to

provide a sample of one-third masculine, one-third feminine, and one-third

androgynous individuals. Androgyny was defined as an equal self-

endorsement of masculine and feminine traits. Babies, aged 4- to 7-months,

were dressed in neutral clothing and randomly assigned as 'David' or

'Lisa'. Subjects were placed with the infant for 10 minutes behind a

one way mirror and behavior of the subjects was sampled every 10 seconds.

The behaviors which were sampled included the following:

Was the subject smiling directly at the baby? Was
the subject holding the baby chest to chest? Was
the subject stimulating the baby in a way that involved
touching (e.g., tickling, patting, stretching)? Was
the subject stimulating the baby in a way that did not
involve touching (e.g., shaking a rattle, squeaking a
toy)? (p. 1018)








Intercoder agreement reached 90% between 2 independent coders for each

behavior.

Results showed that masculine individuals were significantly less

nurturant toward the baby than were feminine or androgynous subjects

and that there were no differences between androgynous and feminine

subjects. These subjects, however, were interacting with someone else's

baby, and they also had little experience with infants.

Parents interacting with their own infants may also be similarly

affected by their sex roles in their interaction with their child.

Research is needed to determine if the sex role of the parent, considered

in addition to the parent's biological sex, is related to the parent's

style of responding to the infant.

Infant Sex

Parent-infant interaction is a complex interrelationship with the

parent and the infant significantly contributing to the nature of the

interaction (Bell, 1970; Sameroff, 1975). It is not likely that parent

sex or sex roles alone influence the interaction. Research has demon-

strated that sex of the infant is also a critical factor in determining

parent-infant interaction. For example, Moss (1967, 1974) found that

male infants cried more and slept less than female infants at age 3 months.

Females were more likely to quiet themselves while males were reported

as being more difficult to calm. In response to behavioral differences

in male and female infants, mothers responded differently and more

frequently to male infants during the early months when males seemed

fussier. Mothers handled, attended, and gazed at their sons more than

did mothers of girls. Mothers stimulated their sons with visual and








auditory signals in addition to physical contact, but calmed daughters

with more social stimuli, i.e., imitation of vocalization and talking.

Also mothers initiated more vocalization with females than with males.

Mothers interacted more with males in an effort to calm them. Lewis

(1972) noted that in the first few months of life, male infants receive

more proximal stimulation (e.g., touching) from parents while females

receive more distal stimulation (e.g., verbalization). Goldberg and

Lewis (1969) found that mothers talked and engaged in more physical

contact with daughters than sons as they became older. In summary, sex

of the infant has been shown to affect parental behaviors in response

to their infant and should be considered in an analysis of parent-infant

interaction.

Situation

The effects of the situational aspects of parent-infant interaction

have been largely ignored in the literature on child development (Freedle,

1976). The type of situation in which activity occurs should be viewed

as a dynamic system involving purposes and goals of the researcher, the

subject's perception of the situation, and the given activity. More

caution needs to be exerted in terms of generalizability of findings with

due consideration being given to aspects of the situation (Magnusson,

Gerzen, and Nyman, 1968). Research that has failed to consider the type

of situational contexts in which behavior is occurring may have question-

able validity in that the situation may contribute significantly to

variability in parent-infant behavioral interactions.








Several studies have shown the importance of the situation and its

effect on behavior. For example, Lewis and Freedle (1973) pointed out

that the situation affected the transitional probability of mother-infant

vocalizations when the infant was 3 months old. In a summary of 11

articles published between 1959 and 1973 examining the relative effects

of personological and situational aspects on behavior, Bowers (1973)

reported that the mean percentage of variance due to the person-by-situation

interaction was 20.77% in comparison to 12.71% due to persons and 10.17%

due to situation.

Moos (1969) pointed out that behavior is susceptible to situational

effects. Additionally, should a behavior be affected by the context of

the activity and/or situation, it cannot be assumed that other behaviors,

given the same context, would be affected similarly. Thus, situation

must be considered as a potential source of variability in any study of

parent-infant interaction.

Summary

Researchers have noted that parent behavior is affected by sex of

the parent, sex of the infant, and the context in which behavior is

occurring. With regard to parent sex, fathers seem to be vigorous and

playful with their infants as well as encouraging of infant exploration

while mothers are seen as more nurturant, caregiving, and controlling

(Lamb, 1976, 1977; Biller, 1974). While parent sex does seem to result

in different behavior, it is unclear as to whether it is biological sex

or personality traits associated with sex that affects the parent's

behavior.








Personality traits associated with sex role might be related to

parent-infant interaction, but this has gone unexplored in the literature

on parent-infant interaction. Highly sex typed parents might be limited

in their behavioral interactions with their infant, while individuals

who are both masculine and feminine (i.e., androgynous) or neither

masculine nor feminine (i.e., undifferentiated or indeterminate) might

be affected in their behavioral interactions with their infants in ways

that are as yet unexplored. Sex of the infant has also been shown to

affect parental responses to the infant with males and females being

treated differently (Lewis, 1972; Moss, 1974). Finally, the situational

aspects involved in a given activity also affect parent-infant interac-

tions (Bowers, 1973; Lewis and Freedle, 1973; Moos, 1969), and this

aspect of parent-infant interaction should also be considered in the

research.












CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

This study investigated the effect of sex role of parents, sex of

parents, and sex of the infant on parent behavior in three structured

play situations with their infant. The data in this study were collected

as part of the Parent-Infant Transactions and Infant Competence Project

(Gordon and Soar, in progress). The study was sponsored by the National

Institute of Mental Health (Grant No. 1 R01 27480-01) and conducted at

the University of Florida Institute for Development of Human Resources,

Gainesville, Florida. The study was funded from March, 1976, until

August, 1978.

Null Hypotheses

1. There are no differences in parent eliciting behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

2. There are no differences in parent initiating behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

3. There are no differences in parent directing behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

4. There are no differences in parent warming behavior as a function

of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

5. There are no differences in parent correcting behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

6. There are no differences in parent accepting behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.

7. There are no differences in parent amplifying behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex or type of activity.








Sample

The sample was recruited through local commercial and public televi-

sion, radio, newspapers, and pediatricians. It consisted of 66 white,

middle SES married parents of first born infants who fell within the

normal range of physical health as diagnosed by examination at 3 months

of age. There were 20 male and 13 female infants. The Two-Factor Index

of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957) was used to determine familial

socio-economic status. All parents were natural born Americans. Mean

age for fathers was 28.6, standard deviation, 4.04. The mean age for

mothers was 26.4, standard deviation, 2.94.

Procedure

The first contact with each family recruited was usually a phone

conversation when families called the Institute for Development of Human

Resources in response to advertisement. Families were screened according

to the criteria outlined on the Questionnaire for Parents (Appendix 1).

Only Caucasian, middle SES first time parents with a commitment to one

year of involvement with the project were eligible. If eligible, a home

visit followed. After consent forms were signed, families were instructed

to arrange for a project funded physical examination for their infants

with a pediatrician of their choice. The first taping was scheduled to

occur approximately one week after the physical examination.

The University of Florida Institute for Development of Human Resources

provided a permanent studio for taping. A 12' by 12' enclosed area, set

up within a larger room, was the area designated for recording of parent-

infant interaction. Three cameras, monitors, mixer, and 2 video tape

recorders were used to record the behavior. Three lens size holes were

cut in the walls of the enclosed area for the cameras.








Each of the 33 families participated in seven audio-video taping

sessions beginning at infant age 13 weeks and continued every 6 weeks

until the infant reached 49 weeks of age. At the beginning of a session,

parents were given a set of written descriptions of a task adopted from

Baby Learning Through Baby Play (Gordon, 1970). Tasks were designed to

be appropriate for the infants based on their age. Seven different tasks

were presented, one for each of the sessions. All families participated

in the same age-appropriate tasks. Having read the instructions, parents

were asked to perform the task with their infant. The data from the

activity sessions at 37, 43, and 49 weeks were used in this study (Appendix

2, 3, and 4). During the 37 week activity session (Occasion 5) parents

and infants participated in a hide-and-seek activity. During the 43 week

activity session (Occasion 6) parents and infants participated in a blocks

activity. During the 49 week activity session (Occasion 7) parents and

infants participated in a buttons-in-a-jar activity.

Each taping session consisted of a total of 9 minutes of activity

taping, 3 minutes with mother and infant, 3 minutes with father and

infant, and 3 minutes with both parents and infant. The order of taping

was randomly distributed. The tapes of mother and father individually

interacting with their infant were used in this study.

Parents were asked to complete the Bem Sex Role Inventory (See Appendix

5) at the conclusion of the 43 and 49 week taping sessions. The BSRI was

administered twice for purposes of determining its reliability over a 6-

week period. The data from the 43 week administration of the BSRI were

used as the index of parent sex roles. The sample of the fathers was as

follows: masculine, 17; feminine, 5; androgynous, 6; undifferentiated, 5.








The sample of the mothers was as follows: masculine, 1; feminine 18;

androgynous, 9; undifferentiated, 5.

Measures

Reciprocal Category System

Parent behaviors were analyzed through systematic observation. The

observation system used was a modification of the Reciprocal Category

System (RCS) developed by Ober (1968) for use in analysis of teacher-

student interactions. The form of the RCS used was a slight revision

of the RCS developed by Gordon and Jester (1972) for the analysis of

parent-infant interactions. Project staff who were familiar with parents

and infants developed the behavioral descriptions for each category.

Trained raters observed video taped recordings of parent-infant

interactions. A minimum of every 3 seconds, the behaver and the behavior

were noted according to the numerical structure of the system (See

Appendix 6). Each notation consisted of a two digit number. The first

number identified who was behaving and the second digit indicated which

behavior was occurring. For example, an 11 would indicate "mother warms",

while a 24 would indicate "father elicits". Only verbal behaviors of

parents are coded on the RCS. Infant behavior descriptions similar to

the parent categories were also recorded (e.g., 01 for infant warms, 04

for infant elicits). Thus, a continuous record of behavior between parent

and infant was made.

Infant-parent behaviors were grouped into seven categories, one for

each of the parent behaviors studied. Parent behaviors included eliciting,

initiating, directing, warming, correcting, accepting, and amplifying.

Raw data from the RCS were assumed not to meet the assumptions of the








statistical procedures involved in this study. Data gathered, therefore,

were area transformed into T-scores to yield as normal a distribution as

possible.

Coding of behavior was done by salaried, part-time University of

Florida undergraduates who were trained by project personnel prior to

actual coding. One coder majored in Early Childhood Education and the

other in Psychology. On the issue of reliability Medley and Mitzel (1963)

describe a coefficient of observer agreement as the correlation of obser-

vations between two raters at the same time. A stability coefficient is

described as the correlation of one rater on two different occasions.

A reliability coefficient is the correlation of ratings by different

coders on different occasions. In order to determine the reliability of

coder observations according to the definition of reliability of Medley

and Mitzel (1963), 24 families were observed on 2 different occasions by

2 different coders and a Pearson correlation analysis was calculated.

Results show that there was very little reliability of the RCS measures

(See Table 1) with five out of seven behaviors having near-zero coefficients.

Only two of seven measures, directing and warming behaviors reached the

.05 level of significance and were considered adequate for further analysis.

Pearson product moment correlations of the seven parent behaviors

with each other on each of the three occasions were found to be very low

(See Tables 2, 3, 4), ranging from -.234 to .507 with 52 out of 63

correlations having a value of .2 or less. If the correlations between

the behaviors had been higher, multivariate analysis of variance would

have been warranted. However, the seven parent behaviors show very little

interrelationship and are analyzed by univariate analysis of variance.









Table 1

RCS Reliability Correlation Coefficients and
Prob > (R) Under HO:RHO = 0
N = 48


X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7

X1 Eliciting -.047* -.028 -.144 .201 -.021 -.049 .165
.749** .847 .326 .170 .887 .740 .261

X2 Initiating -.040 -.075 .012 -.129 -.009 -.068 -.121
.786 .611 .936 .379 .951 .645 .410

X3 Directing .093 .049 .289 .016 -.027 -.077 .034
.530 .739 .046 .916 .854 .601 .818

X4 Warming -.196 .060 .194 .308 -.257 .114 .010
.181 .683 .185 .033 .078 .439 .946

X5 Correcting -.065 -.169 -.259 -.276 .001 -.137 -.047
.663 .250 .075 .057 .993 .353 .751

X6 Accepting .084 .107 -.135 .178 -.134 .080 -.015
.572 .468 .361 .227 .365 .587 .921

X7 Amplifying -.221 -.023 .001 -.056 -.027 -.271 -.044
.131 .878 .996 .706 .858 .062 .766



*Correlation between one coder on Session 5 with a different
coder on Session 6 is listed first.

**Level of significance listed below each correlation.








Table 2

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients of RCS Behaviors
Session 5 (37 Weeks)


Elicits

Initiates

Directs

Warms

Corrects

Accepts

Amplifies


Elicits

1.000


Initiates

.109

1.000


Directs

.022

-.096

1.000


Warms

.059

.187

-.040

1.000


Corrects

.102

-.089

.332

.089

1.000


Accepts

.206

-.045

.110

.074

-.116

1.000


Amplifies

.149

-.005

-.050

.152

.062

.126

1.000


--








Table 3

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients of RCS
Session 6 (43 Weeks)


Behaviors


Elicits Initiates Directs Warms Corrects Accepts Amplifies

Elicits 1.000 .277 .099 .178 .039 .233 .122

Initiates 1.000 -.177 .143 .143 .005 .302

Directs 1.000 .003 .310 .186 .067

Warms 1.000 .002 .028 .507

Corrects 1.000 .014 .072

Accepts 1.000 -.093

Amplifies 1.000




Table 4

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients of RCS Behaviors
Session 7 (49 Weeks)



Elicits Initiates Directs Warms Corrects Accepts Amplifies

Elicits 1.000 .110 .067 -.090 -.047 .144 .359

Initiates 1.000 -.178 .091 -.064 -.080 -.009

Directs 1.000 -.095 .313 .296 .100

Warms 1.000 .008 -.234 .145

Corrects 1.000 .105 .225

Accepts 1.000 -.076

Amplifies 1.000








Bem Sex Role Inventory

The second instrument used in this study was the Bem Sex Role

Inventory (Bem, 1974). The BSRI (See Appendix 5) is recognized as the

measure of androgyny having received the "most experimental attention and

validation" (Kelly and Worell, 1977, p. 1103). The Bem Sex Role

Inventory has independent Masculinity and Femininity Scales, as well as

an index of social desirability, each containing twenty adjectives.

Subjects are asked to rate themselves on a scale from 1 ("never or

almost never true") to 7 ("always or almost always true") on the 60

adjectives contained in the inventory. According to how they rate

themselves, subjects are scored as masculine, feminine, both (i.e.,

androgynous), or neither (i.e., undifferentiated or indeterminate).

According to Bem (1974), "the Masculinity and Femininity scores indicate

the extent to which a person endorses masculine and feminine personality

characteristics as self descriptive" (p. 158).

Construction of the BSRI

In constructing the BSRI, Bem identified 200 traits having either a

masculine or feminine tone as well as being "positive in value" (p. 156).

The traits were rated from 1 ("not at all desirable" for men or women)

to 7 ("extremely desirable" for men or women) by 100 Stanford under-

graduates (50 males and 50 females). Personality traits "were selected

as masculine or feminine on the basis of sex-typed social desirability..."

(p. 155). Masculine traits selected for the inventory were those rated

by both females and males as being more appropriate for men than women

(p < .05). Feminine traits were rated by both males and females as being

more appropriate for women (p < .05).








Originally, an Androgyny score reflected the relative equality in

numbers of masculine and feminine traits that persons included in their

self description. Bem derived the Androgyny score by using a T-ratio to

determine the difference in self-endorsement of masculine and feminine

traits. This enabled the researcher to determine if a respondent charac-

terized himself or herself as significantly more feminine, significantly

more masculine, or approximately equal in the endorsement of masculine

and feminine traits (androgynous). An androgynous personality would have

a non-significant T-ratio (T < 1, n.s.), indicating that relatively equal

amounts of masculine and feminine traits were endorsed, regardless of the

number of traits endorsed. According to Kelly and Worell (1976),

"persons whose self-definition restricts both masculinity and femininity

(low masculinity-low femininity) would be apt to have few positively

valued behavioral alternatives in situations requiring these response

capabilities" (p. 1103-1104). Several researchers have challenged Bem's

method of defining androgyny--as it fails to distinguish between persons

who endorse a large number of both masculine and feminine traits and

persons who endorse only a few of each (Baucom, 1976; Heilbrun, 1976;

Kelly, Caudill, Hathorn and O'Brien, 1977; Kelly and Worell, 1976).

Spence et al. (1975) suggested that subjects be divided at the median

on their masculinity and femininity scores to form a quadripartite

system with four quadrants: high masculine/high feminine (androgynous),

high masculine/low feminine (masculine typed), low masculine/high

feminine (feminine typed), and low masculine/low feminine (undifferentiated

or indeterminate). This procedure permits subjects to be divided into

androgynous and undifferentiated groupings according to their level of

endorsement of masculine and feminine traits.








Bem (1977) agreed that there are differences between high and low

scorers and only subjects who score above the median of their population

sample in both masculinity and femininity should be classified as

androgynous. Subjects who score below both medians are classified as

undifferentiated. Subjects who are above the median in masculinity and

below the median in femininity are classified as masculine. Those above

the median in femininity and below it in masculinity are labeled as

feminine.

Psychometric Analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory

To provide data on the psychometric properties of the BSRI, Bem

(1975) administered the inventory to 723 male and female psychology

students at Stanford University. An additional sample of 194 male and

female subjects was gathered from Foothill Junior College. Scores for

masculinity and femininity were found to be empirically independent in

the Stanford sample (male r = .11; female r = -.14); and in the Foothill

sample (male r = -.02; female r = -.07). A retest of 28 males and 28

females approximately 4 weeks after the first administration resulted in

high product moment correlations (Masculinity r = .90; Femininity r = .90).

Internal consistency was estimated by calculating coefficient alpha for

the Masculinity and Femininity scales of each sample: Masculinity a =

.86; Femininity a = .82 for the Foothill sample.

To determine the test-retest reliability of the BSRI in this study,

the BSRI was administered to parents at the conclusion of the 43- and 49-

week activity sessions. This was done in order to determine the relia-

bility of the BSRI over a 6-week period. Pearson product moment

correlations for the BSRI administered at the 43- and 49-week sessions

were r = .85 (p < .001) for masculinity and r = .75 (p < .001) for

femininity (See Table 5).









Table 5

Product Moment Correlations of BSRI Self-Masculinity and Femininity
Scores for Sessions 6 (43 Weeks) and 4 (49 Weeks)



Standard
Variable SM6 SF6 SM7 SF7 Mean Deviation

SM 6 1.000 -.3142 .8483 -.1938 4.9772 .7718

SF6 1.000 -.2469 .7538 4.8263 .5627

SM7 1.000 -.0525 4.9895 .6928

SF7 1.000 4.9211 .5539



Analysis

The general Linear Model Procedure of the Statistical Analysis

System (Barr, Goodnight, Sall, and Helwig, 1976) was used for calculation

of the analysis of parent behavior. The Northeast Regional Data Center

on the University of Florida campus provided computer facilities for

all analyses

Data were analyzed using a 2 x 2 x 4 factorial design with 3 repeated

measures (Winer, 1962). The 2 x 2 x 4 factorial design consisted of

infant sex crossed with parent sex, and parent sex crossed with levels

of sex role. The activity sessions were the repeated measures. Families

were nested within combinations of infant sex, parent sex and parent sex

role across the 3 repeated measures. Univariate analyses of variance

were calculated for each of the 2 parent behaviors.

Hypotheses of repeated measures were analyzed with Type IV MS

for residual error. Hypotheses of nested effects were analyzed with

Type IV MS for family within infant sex x parent sex x sex role as the

error term. Duncan's multiple range tests were calculated to determine

significant differences between means of dependent measures.




31



Type IV Sums of Squares were calculated due to an empty cell

resulting from the absence of masculine mothers of female infants,

and the unequal numbers of subjects within the remaining cells

(Goodnight, 1976).















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Introduction

The results of the Analyses of the effect of parent sex role,

parent sex and infant sex on parent behavior in three structured play

situations are reported in this chapter. Analyses of variance were

calculated for each of the two parent behaviors. When the F-ratio was

significant at the .05 level, Duncan's multiple range tests were executed

to identify the significant pairwise differences among the means.

Hypothesis 1

It was hypothesized that there would be no differences in parent

directing behavior as a function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant

sex, or the type of activity in which parents were involved with their

infant. Results of the analysis of variance for parent directing behavior

are presented in Tables 6 and 7. The analysis revealed a significant

main effect for occasion (F (2, 102) = 23.74, p < .0001). The Duncan's

multiple range test (Table 8) used to evaluate the differences between

the activity occasions revealed significant differences (p < .05) between

the amounts of directing behavior occurring during Occasion 7 (mean =

54.86), Occasion 6 (mean = 50.17), and Occasion 5 (mean = 44.02). The

main effects for parent sex role, parent sex, and infant sex were not

significant.








TABLE 6

Analysis of Variance of
Parent Directing Behavior


Source df SS MS F p

Treatment 95 14714.59 154.89 3.09 .0001

Error 102 5116.26 50.16

Total 197 19830.95


Mean = 49.68

Standard Deviation = 7.08

R-Square = .742








TABLE 7

Directing
Tests of Hypotheses of Repeated Measures
Using Type IV MS for Residual Error


Source df Type IV SS F p

Occasion 2 2381.56 23.74 .0001

Infant Sex x Occasion 2 76.25 .76 n.s.

Parent Sex x Occasion 2 131.00 1.31 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Occasion 2 70.82 .71 n.s.

Occasion x Sex Role 6 182.44 .61 n.s.

Infant Sex x Occasion
x Sex Role 6 291.46 .97 n.s.

Parent Sex x Occasion
x Sex Role 6 51.29 .17 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Occasion x
Sex Role 4 380.37 1.90 n.s.

Tests of Hypotheses of Crossed Effects
Using The Type IV MS for
Family Within Infant Sex x Parent Sex x Sex Role as Error Term

Infant Sex 1 51.74 .57 n.s.

Parent Sex 1 66.26 .74 n.s.

Sex Role 3 32.77 .12 n.s.

Infant Sex x
Parent Sex 1 2.59 .03 n.s.

Infant Sex x
Sex Role 3 328.31 1.22 n.s.

Parent Sex x
Sex Role 3 199.72 .74 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Sex Role 2 320.51 1.78 n.s.








TABLE 8


Duncan's Multiple Range Test For Variable Directs


OCCASION
5 6 7

N 66 66 66

Mean 54.86 50.17 44.02



F (2, 102) = 23.74, p < .001


*Means not connected by underline differ significantly.








Hypothesis 2

It was hypothesized that there would be no differences in parent

warming behavior as a function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant

sex, or the type of activity in which parents were involved with their

infant. Results of the analysis of variance for parent warming behavior

are presented in Tables 9 and 10. Results showed effects for parent sex

role, parent sex, infant sex, and the type of activity were not

significant.


TABLE 9

Analysis of Variance of
Parent Warming Behavior



Source df SS MS F p

Treatment 95 7470.89 78.64 1.70 .004

Error 102 4710.78 46.18

Total 197 12181.68


Mean = 51.04

Standard Deviation = 6.79

R-Square = .613








TABLE 10

Warming
Tests of Hypotheses of Repeated Measures
Using Type IV MS for Residual Error


Source df Type IV SS F p

Occasion 2 51.19 .55 n.s.

Infant Sex x Occasion 2 51.49 .56 n.s.

Parent Sex x Occasion 2 79.83 .86 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Occasion 2 209.12 2.26 n.s.

Occasion x Sex Role 6 54.87 .20 n.s.

Infant Sex x Occasion
x Sex Role 6 246.74 .89 n.s.

Parent Sex x Occasion
x Sex Role 6 421.20 1.52 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Occasion x
Sex Role 4 36.95 .20 n.s.

Tests of Hypotheses of Crossed Effects
Using The Type IV MS for
Family Within Infant Sex x Parent Sex x Sex Role as Error Term

Infant Sex 1 51.74 .57 n.s.

Parent Sex 1 66.26 .74 n.s.

Sex Role 3 32.77 .12 n.s.

Infant Sex x
Parent Sex 1 2.59 .03 n.s.

Infant Sex x
Sex Role 3 328.31 1.22 n.s.

Parent Sex x
Sex Role 3 199.72 .74 n.s.

Infant Sex x Parent
Sex x Sex Role 2 320.51 1.78 n.s.








Summary

The analyses of the effects of sex role, sex of parent, and infant

sex on two parent behaviors in three structured play situations yielded

the following results. Differences in parent behavior as a function of

parent sex, parent sex role, and infant sex were not found. The type

of activity in which parents were involved with their infant resulted

in differences in parent directing behavior, with parents directing in

significantly different amounts during each of the three occasions.















CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS

Sex of the parent and infant has been shown to affect the manner in

which parents respond to their infant, and mothers and fathers behave

differently with infants based on their infant's sex, as well as the

situational context of the activity (Biller, 1974; Clarke-Stewart, 1973;

Lamb, 1976, 1977; Moos, 1969; Moss, 1974). No research has been conducted

to determine if sex roles, independently of biological sex, have any

effect on parent-infant interactions. This study was designed to investi-

gate the effects of parent sex role, parent sex, and infant sex on two

parent behaviors occurring during parents' interaction with their infant

during three structured play situations.

The Sample

Thirty-three couples and their firstborn infants were selected to

participate in the study. There were 20 male and 13 female infants.

All families were white, middle SES, native born Americans. Mean age

for fathers was 28.6 and mean age for mothers was 26.4.

Data Collection

Fathers and mothers were individually video taped interacting with

their infant at infant age 31, 43, and 49 weeks in structured play

situations. Two trained raters coded a total of 198 (66 for each

occasion, 33 each for mothers and fathers) video taped interactions

between parents and infants on the Reciprocal Category System (RCS)

observational instrument. Two different parent behaviors from the RCS








were analyzed in this study: directing and warming. Hypotheses relating

to parent eliciting, initiating, correcting, accepting and amplifying

were omitted because the measures of these behaviors were not reliable

as reliability is defined by Medley and Mitzel (1963). At 43 weeks of

infant age, the Bem Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1974) was administered to

determine parent sex roles.

Analysis and Results

Data were analyzed using a 2 x 2 x 4 factorial design with 3

repeated measures (Winer, 1962). The 2 x 2 x 4 factorial design consisted

of infant sex crossed with parent sex and parent sex crossed with levels

of sex role. The activity sessions were the repeated measures. Families

were nested within combinations of infant sex, parent sex and parent sex

role across the 3 repeated measures. Univariate analyses of variance were

calculated for each of the 2 parent behaviors: directing and warming.

Duncan's multiple range tests were calculated to determine significant

differences between means of dependent measures. Two hypotheses were

tested in this study. Stated in the null form, they included:

1. There are no differences in parent directing behavior as a

function of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex, or type of activity.

2. There are no differences in parent warming behavior as a function

of parent sex role, parent sex, infant sex, or type of activity.

Analysis of the data indicated that there were no differences in

parent behavior as a function of parent sex, infant sex and parent sex role.

The activity in which parents were involved with their baby resulted in

differences in amounts of parent directing behavior.








Discussion

The reliability of observational measures is a function of consistency

and reproducibility of measurement from one situation to the next. Medley

and Mitzel (1963) define reliability as the correlation between one

observer during one occasion and another observer during a different

occasion. Weick (1968) noted, however, that observer agreement is the

most widely used measure of reliability. Even though inter-coder agreement

has been described as an inadequate index of reliability (McGaw, Wardrop,

and Bunda, 1971; Medley and Mitzel, 1963; Westbury, 1967), authors

continue to describe reliability solely in terms of observer agreement.

This study has shown the need for researchers of developmental psychology

to determine the reliability of their measures according to the definition

of Medley and Mitzel (1963) before generalizing results obtained during

only one setting. Sampling across occasions is needed in order to

maximize generalizability of measures studied.

The lack of significant differences in parent behavior due to parent

and infant sex may be attributable to a lack of reliable measures. This

lack of reliability may have been due to the set of instructions given to

parents prior to each task and/or to the varying difficulty of the tasks

relative to infant's ability. Further research is needed to determine the

sources contributing to unreliable measures. Age of the infant may also

be a factor that needs to be considered in explaining the lack of

stability in parent behavior.

Differences in parents' directing behavior were attributable to the

type of activity. Differences in behavior may have been due to difficulty

of the tasks in which parents were involved with their infants. From








observations of the infants during the three activities, project staff

concluded that Occasion 5 (Hide and Seek Activity) was the easiest of

the three tasks and that Occasion 6 (Blocks Activity) was the most difficult.

Occasion 7 (Buttons-in-a-jar Activity) appeared to be moderately difficult.

Parent behavior seems to reflect the difficulty levels of the tasks.

Parents directed their infant's behavior most often during the difficult

activity as would be expected. This finding demonstrates the vital need

for researchers to examine the contextual situation in which behavior is

occurring.

In Bem and Lenny's (1976) work, only non-verbal behaviors were

observed, while in this study only verbal behaviors were studied.

Ideally both types of behavior should be examined in order to assess

more of the total picture of behavioral interactions that occur. Also,

in Bem and Lenny's study, subjects were asked only to interact with

babies in a general fashion while subjects in this study were given

specific task-related instructions prior to interacting with their baby.

The task instructions seem to have resulted in rather uniform behavior

patterns that may have overshadowed differences that may have occurred

in a more relaxed and informal setting. This needs to be further explored

as, once again, the contextual situation in which behavior is occurring

seems to have a major effect on behavior.

Directions for Future Research

A vast and complex network of variables seems to affect parent-

infant interaction patterns. Personality traits, apart from biological

sex, may affect the manner in which individuals relate to others, including

their infants, but this has yet to be determined. Further study of the








original hypotheses that were eliminated from analysis due to a

lack of reliability is warranted. Failure to obtain significant effects

may be due to a lack of reliability measures.

Homogeneity of the sample limits generalizability of the results.

Research is needed to determine if similar results would be obtained,

given different racial and SES groups. There are behaviors that were not

examined in this study due to a lack of reliability, as well as many other

types of behavior that may be affected by parent sex, infant sex, parent

sex role, or type of situation in which behavior is occurring. Verbal

as well as non-verbal behaviors need to be examined. Infant behavior

needs to be examined as it relates to parent behaviors. The contextual

setting in which behavior is occurring also needs to be examined.

Structured tasks as well as unstructured settings may have unique effects

on behavior that need to be researched.

Finally, the developmental implications for the infant need to be

examined. Variables that were selected in this study may affect how

an infant learns to interact with his or her world. Research is needed

to identify parental sex role behaviors as well as other parent behaviors

that facilitate optimal infant development in order to establish an

empirical base for effective parent education.









APPENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS

Address:

Phone#:


Name:


Spouse:


Mother's Age:


Father's Age:


How did you hear about the project?


Doctor:
Radio Ad:
TV Ad:
Newspaper:


Friend:
Poster:
Other:


What do you know about the project? (Make sure the following are covered).

Studying mother/father/child transactions (interested in way
parents and their children interact).
Must be married.
In Gainesville area for one year.
Mother/father/child must come to studio in Weil Hall once
every 6 weeks beginning at 13 weeks for one-half hour.
Only parents of normal firstborn children are eligible.
Child will receive free check-up at 3 months (we will pay
pediatrician's bill).
At one year detailed observation of baby's mental and
motor behavior.


How long to remain in area:


Race:


Occupation:

Education:


Spouse Occupation:

Spouse Education:


Any previous children:

Child: If born: Name:

Date of birth:

Sex:

If not: Expected date:

Will you sign statement:


Where:


Because of research design, not everyone who wants to will be able to
participate. We will call back in a few days to tell you if you are
eligible. If so, we will come to visit you when the baby is about 10
weeks old to gather some additional information.













APPENDIX 2
HIDE-AND-SEEK
37 WEEKS

For the very young child, out of sight is out of mind. Now he's

ready to learn that things exist even when he can't see them.

Begin with a simple game using a toy and some soft covering

material, such as a blanket. Attract your baby's attention to the

toy and then partly hide it under the blanket so your baby can still

see a part of it.

Then say, "Where did it go?" "Find the toy."

If he's puzzled and doesn't seem to know how to retrieve it, show

him how. If he ignores the toy after it is hidden, play with it by

yourself in front of him, but don't demand his attention or any action.

He will, on his own, get interested in what you are doing.

Partly hide it again until he's able to get it himself.

Play the same game, but hide the toy completely under the soft

material so he can see that something is under the blanket. Encourage

him to lift it up and get his toy.

Repeat this for fun a number of times and then leave the child

with both toy and blanket.















APPENDIX 3
BLOCKS
43 WEEKS

Since your child can now handle small objects with his fingers

rather well, he's ready for block play. Blocks are perhaps the best

of all possible toys because he can do so many things with them.

Start him out with just a few.

Place two blocks in front of him while you're both sitting on the

floor and show him how one can be put on top of the other. Let him do

it. Then add a third so he can build a simple three-block tower.

Don't worry if they're not directly one on top of the other. This is

a self-correcting activity. If he doesn't build well enough, it will

just tumble down. He will enjoy the tumbling as much as the building.

A variation of this is to show him how you can place two or three

blocks in a line on the floor and push them around. If he pushes on

the third one, the first two will go straight for a few seconds and

then get out of line. He'll enjoy watching this happen, and gradually

he'll gain the skill needed both to build the tower straight and keep

the blocks in line.

You can also make up your own variations of block play. The main

idea is to encourage him to develop his new found skills and for the

parents and child to enjoy playing together.















APPENDIX 4
DROPPING BUTTONS IN JAR
49 WEEKS

The next game combines the child's muscular ability, his developing

sense of the fact that objects don't disappear because they can't be

seen, and his ability to respond to simple commands. They challenge

him and increase not only his problem solving skill but also his sense

of ability.

Take a small container, such as an empty coffee can, and make a

large enough slot in the plastic top. Fix the container so that the

child can easily open it to get at its contents. It should not require

any ability to screw or unscrew.

Take a pile of pennies, buttons or tokens and have him watch you

as you drop these in the jar through the slot.

Let him help you empty the jar and then say, "Now you fill it. See

if you can get these to go in."

He may do it faster and faster, may try it with either hand; he'll

invent a variety of his own ways for getting the tokens in and out of

the can.

If you're watching, describe his activities out loud.






















APPENDIX 5
BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY






Your Name

Your Spouse's Name

Your Baby's Name


FOR PROJECT USE ONLY

Family No. Family Name Order

Baby's Sex Coder Session No.

Deck Code


On the back you will be shown a large number of personality characteristics.

We would like you to use those characteristics in order to describe yourself.

That is, we would like you to indicate, on a scale from 1 to 7, how true of you

these various characteristics are. Please do not leave any characteristic

unmarked.

Example: sly

Mark a 1 if it is NEVER OR ALMOST NEVER TRUE that you are sly.

Mark a 2 if it is USUALLY NOT TRUE that you are sly.

Mark a 3 if it is SOMETIMES BUT INFREQUENTLY TRUE that you are sly.

Mark a 4 if it is OCCASIONALLY TRUE that you are sly.

Mark a 5 if it is OFTEN TRUE that you are sly.

Mark a 6 if it is USUALLY TURE that you are sly.

Mark a 7 if it is ALWAYS OR ALMOST ALWAYS TRUE that you are sly.

Thus, if you feel it is sometimes but infrequently true that you are "sly",

never or almost never true that you are "malicious", always or almost always

true that you are "irresponsible", and often true that you are "carefree", then

you would relate these characteristics as follows:


Irresponsible 7

Carefree 5









1 2


NEVER OR USUALLY
ALMOST NEVER NOT
TRUE TRUE



Self reliant

Yielding

Helpful

Defends own
Beliefs

Cheerful

Moody

Independent

Shy

Conscientious

Athletic

Affectionate

Theatrical

Assertive

Flatterable

Happy

Strong person-
ality

Loyal

Unpredictable

Forceful

Feminine


DESCRIBE YOURSELF

3 4 5 6 7


SOMETIMES BUT OCCASION- OFTEN USUALLY ALWAYS
INFREQUENTLY ALLY TRUE TRUE TRUE OR ALMOST
TRUE ALWAYS TRUE


Reliable

Analytical

Sympathetic

Jealous

Has leadership
abilities

Sensitive to
the needs of
others

Truthful

Willing to take
risks

Understanding

Secretive

Makes decisions
easily

Compassionate

Sincere

Self-sufficient

Eager to soothe
hurt feelings

Conceited

Dominant

Soft-spoken

Likable

Masculine


Warm

Solemn

Willing to take
a stand

Tender

Friendly

Aggressive

Gullible

Inefficient

Acts as a leader

Childlike

Adaptable

Individualistic

Does not use
harsh language

Unsystematic

Competitive

Loves children

Tactful

Ambitious

Gentle

Conventional















APPENDIX 6
RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM
DESCRIPTION OF BEHAVIOR


Fatherb


Mother


11 WARMS


-Tends to reduce or release tension and/
or alleviate threat. Cooing, laughing,
clarifying and accepting the feelings and
emotions of another are specific examples.
Encourages or praises in non-task oriented
behavior. Deals mainly with socioemotional
climate.


12 ACCEPTS -Positively reinforces or accepts task
related behavior of another.


13 AMPLIFIES


-Clarification of, building on, and/or
developing of actions, behaviors,
comments, and/or ideas.


14 ELICITS -Asks questions or requests information
about content, subject, or procedures
being considered, with the intent that
the other should answer and respond
appropriately.


15 INITIATES


-Statements of facts, information, and/or
opinions and ideas concerning the content,
subject, or procedures being considered
which are self-initiated.


16 DIRECTS -Giving of directions, instructions, orders
and/or assignments to which another is
expected to reply.


17 CORRECTS


-Task-related behavior which tells another
that the answer or behavior of another is
inappropriate or incorrect.


must be verbal in nature















BIBLIOGRAPHY


Ainsworth, M. D. S. The development of infant-mother attachment.
In B. M. Caldwell and H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child
development research. Vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1973.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., and Stayton, D. J. Infant-
mother attachment and social development: 'socialization'
as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In M. P.
M. Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social
world. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Bakan, D. The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1966.

Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J., Sall, J., and Helwig, J. A user's guide
to SAS 76. North Carolina, Raleigh: S.A.S. Institute, Inc., 1976.

Baucom, D. H. Independent Masculinity and Femininity Scales on the
California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 876.

Bell, S. The development of the concept of object as related to
infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 1970, 41, 291-311.

Bell, S., and Ainsworth, M. D. Infant crying and maternal respon-
siveness. Child Development, 1972, 43, 1171-1190.

Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155-162.

Bem, S. L. Sex-role adaptability: One consequence of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975,
31, 634-643.

Bem, S. L. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing
psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1977, 45, 196-205.

Bem, S. L., and Lenny, E. Sex-typing and the avoidance of cross-
sex behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976,
33, 48-54.

Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., and Watson, C. Sex-typing and androgyny:
Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1016-1023.








Berdie, R. F. A femininity adjective check list. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1959, 43, 327-333.

Berzins, J. I. New perspectives on sex roles and personality dimensions.
In R. Bednar (Chair) Sex Roles: Masculine, feminine, androgynous
or none of the above? Symposium presented at the meeting of the
American Psychological Association. Chicago, August 1975.

Biller, H. B. Paternal deprivation: Family, school, sexuality, and
society. Lexington: Heath, 1974.

Block, J. H. Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longi-
tudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 512-526.

Bowers, K. S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique.
Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 307-336.

Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). Attachment, New York: Basic
Books, 1969.

Carlson, R. Sex differences in ego functioning. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 37, 267-277.

Carlson, R. Understanding women: Implications for personality theory
and research. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 17-32.

Clarke-Stewart, K. A. Interactions between mothers and their young
children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, 38, (6-7, Whole
No. 153).

Cohen, L. J. and Campos, J. J. Father, mother and stranger as
elicitors of attachment behaviors in infancy. Developmental
Psychology, 1974, 10, 146-154.

Cosentino, F., and Heilbrun, A. B. Anxiety correlates of sex-role
identity in college students. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14,
729-730.

Constantinople, A. Masculinity-Femininity: An exception to a famous
dictum? Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 389-407.

Duncan, D. B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics,
1955, 11, 1-42.

English, H. 0., and English, A. B. A comprehensive dictionary of
psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans,
Green, 1958.

Ford, C. F., Jr., and Tyler, L. E. A factor analysis of Terman and
Miles' M-F Test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1952, 36, 251-253.








Freedle, R. 0. Some ingredients for constructing developmental
models. In K. F. Riegel and J. A. Meacham, (Eds.), The developing
individual in a changing world. Volume I: Historical and cultural
issues. Chicago: Aldine, 1976.

Gall, M. D. The relationship between masculinity-femininity and
manifest anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, 294-295.

Gaudreau, P. Factor analysis of the Bem Sex Role Inventory. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 299-302.

Goldberg, S. and Lewis, M. Play behavior in the year-old-infant:
Early sex differences. Child Development, 1969, 40, 21-31.

Goodenough, F. L. Sematic choice and personality structure. Science,
1946, 104, 451-456.

Goodnight, J. General Linear Model Procedure. In J. Horvich, A. Labs,
and E. R. Horvich (Eds.), SAS ONE Proceedings of First International
S. A. S. Conference, January 26-28, 1976.

Gordon, I. J. Baby learning through baby play. New York: St.
Martin's Press, Inc., 1970.

Gordon, I. J. An investigation of the social roots of competence.
Gainesville, Florida, University of Florida, Institute for Development
of Human Resources, final report to NIMH on Project No. 1 RO. MH 22724,
October, 1974.

Gordon, I. J., and Jester, R. E. Instructional strategies in infant
stimulation. JSAS Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, 122.

Gordon, I. J. and Soar, R. S. Parent-infant transactions and infant
competence. University of Florida: Institute for Development of
Human Resources, National Institute of Mental Health Grant No. 1
RO0 27480-01. In progress, begun in 1976.

Gough, H. G. Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 1952, 12, 427-439.

Gray, S. W. Masculinity-femininity in relation to anxiety and social
acceptance. Child Development, 1957, 28, 203-214.

Harford, T. C., Willis, C. H., and Deabler, H. L. Personality correlates
of masculinity-femininity. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21, 881-884.

Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1943.

Heilbrun, A. B. Conformity to masculinity-femininity stereotypes and
egoidentity in adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 351-357.








Heilbrun, A. B. Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role
identities as independent dimensions. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 183-190.

Hollingshead, A. B. Two-factor index of social position, unpublished
manuscript, 1957.

Johnson, M. M. Sex role learning in the nuclear family. Child
Development, 1963, 34, 319-333.

Jenkin, N., and Vroegh, K. Contemporary concepts of masculinity and
femininity. Psychological Reports, 1969, 25, 679-697.

Kagan, J. Acquisition and significance of sex-typing and sex role
identity. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of child
development research (Vol. 1). New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
1964.

Kagan, J. Change and continuity in infancy. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1971.

Kelly, J. A., Caudill, S., Hathorn, S., and O'Brien, C. G. Socially
undesirable sex-correlated characteristics: Implications for
androgyny and adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1977, 45, 1186-1187.

Kelly, J. A., and Worell, L. Parent behaviors related to masculine,
feminine and androgynous sex role orientations. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1976, 44, 843-851.

Kelly, J. A., and Worell, L. New formulations of sex rolls and androgyny:
a critical review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1977,
45, 1101-1115.

Kohlberg, L. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role
concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of
sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,
1966.

Kotelchuck, M. The nature of a child's tie to his father. Paper
presented to the Society for Research in Child Development,
Philadelphia, April 1973.

Lamb, M. E. Interactions between eight-month-old children and their
fathers and mothers. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father
in child development. New York: Wiley, 1976.

Lamb, M. E. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first
year of life. Child Development, 1977, 48, 167-181.








Lewis, M. Social class and sex differences in the attachment and play
behavior of the year-old infant. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972,
18, 295-306.

Lewis, M., and Freedle, R. Mother-infant dyad: The cradle of meaning.
In P. Pliner, L. Krames, and T. Alloway (Eds.), Communication and
affect: Language and thought. New York: Academic Press, 1973.

Lewis, M., and Goldberg, S. Perceptual-cognitive development in
infancy: A generalized expectancy model as a function of the
mother-infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 81-101.

Lewis, M. and Weinraub, M. Sex of parent x sex of child: Socioemotional
development. In R. C. Friedman, R. M. Richart, and R. L. Van de Wiele,
Sex differences in behavior, New York: Wiley, 1974.

Lunneborg, P. W. Dimensionality of MF. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1972, 28, 313-317.

Magnusson, D., Gerzen, M., and Nyman, B. The generality of behavioral
data I: Generalization from observations on one occasion. Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 295-320.

McGaw, B., Wardrop, J. L., Bunda, M. A. "Classroom Observation Schemes:
Where are the errors?" American Educational Research Journal, 1972,
9, 13-27.

Medley, D. M. and Mitzel, H. E. Measuring classroom behavior by
systematic observation. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, 247-328.

Moos, R. H. Sources of variance in responses to questionnaires and
in behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 405-412.

Moss, H. A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant
interaction. Merrill-Palmer Qusrterly, 1967, 13, 19-36.

Moss, H. A. Early sex differences and mother-infant interaction.
In R. C. Friedman, R. M. Richart. and R. L. Van de Wiele. Sex
differences in behavior. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Moss, H. A. and Robson, K. S. Maternal influences in early social
visual behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967, 37,
394-395.

Mussen, P. H. Long-term consequents of masculinity of interests in
adolescence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26, 435-440.

Ober, R. Theory into practice through systematic observation. Florida
Educational Research and Development Council research bulletin, 1968.

Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F. Family, socialization and interaction
process. New York: Free Press, 1955.








Pederson, F. A., Rubenstein, J. and Yarrow, L. J. Father absence in
infancy. Paper presented at the meeting of the SRCD, Philadelphia,
Pa., March 1973.

Radin, N. Observed paternal behaviors as antecedents of intellectual
functioning in young boys. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 8, 369-376.

Rebelsky, F., and Hanks, C. Fathers' verbal interaction with infants
in the first three months of life. Child Development, 1971, 42, 63-68.

Reece, M. Masculinity and femininity: A factor analytic study.
Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 123-139.

Sameroff, A. J. Early influences on development: Fact or fancy?
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1975, 21, 267-294.

Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization experience to self-
concepts and gender role in middle childhood. Child Development,
1970, 41, 267-289.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. The Personal Attributes
Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-
femininity. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974,
4, 43 (Ms. No. 617).

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., and Stapp, J. Ratings of self and peers
on sex-role attributes and their relation to self-esteem and concep-
tions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 29-39.

Stayton, D., Hogan, R., and Ainsworth, M. D. S. Infant obedience and
maternal behavior: Origins of socialization reconsidered. Child
Development, 1971, 42, 1057-1069.

Strahan, F. Remarks on Bem's measurement of psychological androgyny:
Alternatives, methods and a supplementary analysis. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 568-571.

Strong, E. K. Interests of men and women. Journal of Social Psychology,
1936, 7, 49-67.

Terman, L., and Miles, C. C. Sex and personality. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1936.

Webb, A. P. Sex-role preferences and adjustment in early adolescents.
Child Development, 1963, 34, 609-618.

Weick, K. E. "Systematic observational methods". In G. Lindzey and
E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 11,
(2nd Ed.), Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968.




58



Westbury, I. "The reliability of measures of classroom behavior".
Ontario Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 10, 125-138.

Wiggins, J. S., and Holzmuller, A. Psychological androgyny and
interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1978, 46, 40-52.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Yogman, M. W., Dixon, S., Tronick, E., Adamson, L., Als, H., and
Brazelton, T. B. Father-infant interaction. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society
for Pediatric Research. St. Louis, Missouri, April, 1976.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jan Craig Lederman was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on

October 8, 1949. He and his family moved to Miami, Florida, in

1957. Jan graduated from Miami Coral Park Senior High School in

1967. He entered the University of Florida in September of 1967

and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1971. In 1972, he

received the Master of Education degree from the University of

Florida.

Jan's professional work experience includes two years of teaching

psychology at Seminole Community College from 1973-1975. Jan returned

to Gainesville in 1975 and assisted in the development of Project

Diversion, a federally funded effort to rehabilitate youth in trouble.

Currently, he is Coordinator of Operations for Project Diversion in

Alachua County, Florida.








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Dr. Patricia T. Ashton, Chairperson
Assistant Professor
Foundations of Education





I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Dr. Robert S. Soar
Professor of Foundations of
Education





I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Dr. ferle E.ofPeyo v
Professor of Psycholgy








I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.


-I-
S. /

SDr. Barry J. Guinagh
Associate Professor
Foundations of Education





I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.




Dr. Walter A. Busby
Associate Professor
Foundations of Education





This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the
Department of Foundations of Education in the College of Education and
to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

December 1978




Chairman, Foundations of Education


Dean, Graduate School





































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3II 122 0855llll3 lll95ll4ll ll li
3 1262 08553 9541