Citation
Relationship between parenting styles and infants' task-mastery, exploration, and mental and motor development

Material Information

Title:
Relationship between parenting styles and infants' task-mastery, exploration, and mental and motor development
Creator:
Long, Karen Jane, 1945-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
viii, 99 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Child development ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Fathers ( jstor )
Infant development ( jstor )
Infants ( jstor )
Mothers ( jstor )
Motor development ( jstor )
Parenting ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Toys ( jstor )
Curriculum and Instruction thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Curriculum and Instruction -- UF
Parent and child ( fast )
Parenting ( fast )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 93-98).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Karen Jane Long.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Karen Jane Long. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023125500 ( ALEPH )
05859391 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text















RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT











BY

KAREN JANE LONG





















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 1979


































TO

MY FAMILY


Who nurtured my sense
of competence from infancy

















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Sincere thanks go first to all those who lived and worked with me throughout this endeavor--for their calmness, patience, and confidence displayed at just the right moments.

The members of my committee have been particularly helpful and supportive:

Dr. Linda Lamme who so willingly contributed both the technical assistance of an advisor and the enthusiasm of a friend.

Dr. Robert Soar who frequently made himself available at odd times and places for guidance in research methodology.

I am indebted to Dr. Athol Packer for reinforcing my

interest in parent education as well as for being an outstanding model in the field.

In addition to her gentle, warm support, I appreciate Dr. Patricia Ashton's professionalism.

And finally, Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who exemplifies some of the most admirable qualities of a parent-teacher in his daily interactions with people, added a special dimension to my committee.

Many others provided assistance. Among them are Ruth Soar and Ray Burke, who provided valuable insight into the mysteries of the computer world; also, Sharon Strong and Karen Evans, who saved my sanity with their typing assistance. Very special thanks go to Greg Wilmoth for his constant concern and encouragement.



iii









My co-workers in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project also deserve thanks, as well as the parents and infants whose participation in the project made it such a valuable and enjoyable learning experience. In addition, I will fondly remember Dr. Ira Gordon for his fine leadership and genuine delight as parents and infants interacted in the videotaping sessions.

















































iv



















TABLE OF CONTENTS


CHAPTER PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. ................ . iii


ABSTRACT ... ..... ...... . ... . vii


I INTRODUCTION . . ........ .. 1

Statement of Problem ............ . 1
Need for Study . . . . 1
Design of the Study. .... .... ... ... 4
Scope of the Study .......... ...... 5


II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. ...... ......... 6

Infants' Gender and Age. .. .............. 7
Parents' Gender. ...... ............ 9
Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant
Interactions .... .. .. . 12
Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to
Infant Competence. .... ............ 14
Parent-Infant Interactions ............ 16
Teaching Behaviors . . . . 17
Summary. . . . . . 18


III DESIGN .......... .......................... .. 20

Sample . . . . . 20
Procedure. . . . . . 20
Data Collection. . . . . 22
Observer Training. . . . . 24
Method of Analysis . . . . 24
Reliability . . . . 25
Limitations. . . . . 27


IV RESULTS .......... ......................... 28

Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I ...... 28 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis II ...... 32 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis III ..... 36 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis IV ...... 36 Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors .... 41 Summary. . . . . . 41












Pag

V DISCUSSION. ...... . . . . 44

Results. .............. . 44
Conclusions and Implications ......... 47
Recommendations for Parent Education ...... 48 Limitations. .................. 48
Recommendations for Further Research ...... 49 Summary ................ .... 50


APPENDICES

A TASK DESCRIPTIONS ................ .. 53

B RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE
PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT .......... 61

C HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT
TRANSACTION PROJECT ................. 77

D MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS. 86 E CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AND INFANT VARIABLES. .. 90


BIBLIOGRAPHY ................ .... 93


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. .................. 99





























vi










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


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT

By

Karen Jane Long

June 1979

Chairman: Linda L. Lamme
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction

The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. In addition, the relationship between parenting styles and the gender of the parent and/or infant was explored as well as the relationship between the four infant competence measures and parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent and infant gender.

The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born

infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project (NIMH #1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01). Only white, middle-class two-parent families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were included in this sample.

Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions in a

laboratory setting, once every six weeks, beginning when the infant was 13 weeks old and ending at 40 weeks of age. At each session the parents were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with vii










their infant. Mothers and fathers were videotaped separately for three minutes as they interacted with their infant.

Parent verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project. The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Infant task-mastery and exploration item behaviors were coded according to the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Mental and Psychomotor Development Indices were obtained at one year of age from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development.

Three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant interactions. The'first parenting style, called "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behavior. Another parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive reinforcements to the infant.

Only the infants' mastery of a task correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction." Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender.





viii
















CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


Statement of Problem

There is growing interest among educators in the role of the parent in the development of the infant. More specifically, the interaction of parent and child in the first year of life is believed to have a significant influence on the infant's behavior and development. The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' mastery of a task, exploration, mental or motor development. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969), administered to each infant at the age of one year, provided the Mental and Motor Development Indices for this study. The parenting behaviors and infants' task-mastery and exploration scores were based on systematic videotaped observations of structured activities involving parents and their infants. A parenting style has been defined as one or more ways in which a parent consistently relates to and verbally interacts with his/her infant.


Need for the Study

Researchers have found that a variety of parental behaviors during parent interaction with their infant relates to the infant's development. For example, stimulation in the form of more handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scale (Powell, 1974).


1





2



In addition, verbal stimulation (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), mutual gazing (Schmidt & Hore, 1970), maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967), and mothers' "sensitive pacing" (Wexler & Yarrow, 1975) all related positively to infants' development.

Although mother-infant dyads have been studied more often than

father-infant dyads, according to some studies, fathers have a unique impact upon their infants. Fathers, for example, hold their infants more often for purposes of play while mothers hold their infants more for caretaking purposes (Lamb, 1977). Available evidence has suggested that qualitative differences exist in how mothers and fathers relate to their infants from birth (Lamb, 1975), although these differences have been viewed as either situational (Lamb, 1975), cultural (Kotelchuck, 1976), or "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a predisposed biological disposition" (Kotelchuck, 1976, p. 343).

A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) have demonstrated that the sex of the infant also has a significant relationship with his or her behavior. In the Goldberg and Lewis study of children up to the age of thirteen months, for instance, boy infants were significantly more independent and exploratory than girl infants while girl infants were more verbal than their male counterparts (1969).

Other studies have found differences in the ways in which parents interact with their infants, relative to the infants' sex. Mothers in one study tended to initiate and direct more activity with boy babies than with girl babies (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Gordon (1974), looking at the patterns of behavior occurring in the mother-infant transaction, also found sex differences. Certain factors such as the "performance






3


orientation" of mothers were more predictive of boys' competence than of girls' competence. In addition, differences in parenting techniques were found to develop over a period of time (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).

Only a few studies have suggested that parents have distinct

styles of interaction with their infants, or that parents' interaction styles are related to infants' behavior and development (Gordon, 1974; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Research on the classroom behavior of teachers, however, has led to some tentative conclusions regarding the relationship between teachers' interactional styles and children's behavior in the classroom, and particularly children's achievement. For example, three prominent studies of low SES primary grade children concur that "direct instruction" was the most effective pattern for optimal academic achievement (Rosenshine, 1976a). Time spent on academic activities was also positively correlated to achievement, whereas time spent on non-academic activities was negatively correlated to academic gains (Rosenshine, 1976b). A more surprising finding indicates that teachers' positive affective behavior may be negatively correlated with academic achievement (Soar and Soar, 1978).

Just as academic achievement is of concern to teachers,parents are concerned about their infant's competence. Most likely, they want their infant to have average or above average ability in developmental skills and to be involved and successful in tasks appropriate for their child's age and developmental level. But what parent behaviors relate most positively to infant competence? Is one parenting style more appropriate than another in "teaching" an infant a new task?

This study has investigated the relationships between parents'

styles of interaction with their infants and certain infant variables











associated with competence. Measures of infant mental and motor development have been studied as well as the infants' mastery of tasks "taught" by their parents and exploration. In this study exploration involved the infants' active investigation of their environment, but essentially off-task behavior. Furthermore, this study has examined the effect of the infants' and parents' gender on the parents' styles of interaction and the infant measures of competence.


Design of the Study

This study investigated infant behavior and development in relation to parents' interactions with their infants in a structured laboratory setting. As part of the Parent-Infant Transaction Project,* 39 white, middle-class, two-parent families with first-born infants were recruited from the community. Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, occuring every six weeks, beginning when the child was 13 weeks old and ending when the child reached 49 weeks of age. At each session, the parents were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with their infant (see Appendix A for task descriptions). Each parent was videotaped separately with his/her infant for three minutes as he/she interacted with the infant in the suggested age and developmentally appropriate tasks.

The seven videotapes of each parent-infant dyad provided the data

for analysis for this study. Parents' verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix B). The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting,



* NIMH Grant #1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01






5



initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Two infant behaviors were studied; they were the task-mastery and exploration items from the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C). In addition, the Bayley Scales Of Infant Development were the basis of obtaining the Mental and Motor Development Indices for each child at one year of age.


Scope of the Study

The major purposes of this study were:

1. to determine if parents of infants may be categorized

or described by their styles of interaction

2. to determine if infants' mastery of a task, exploration,

mental or motor development relate to their parents'

styles of interaction.

Specific questions posed by this study were:

1. Do parents' behaviors when interacting with their infants

cluster to form distinct styles of interaction or

parenting styles?

2. Is there a relationship between a parent's style of

interaction and the infant's task-mastery, exploration,

mental or motor development?

3. Will the parent's gender or the infant's gender, or the

interaction of parent and infant gender affect the

parent's style of interaction?

4. Will the parent's gender, or the infant's gender, or the

interaction of parent and infant gender affect the infant's

task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development?
















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Parents interact with their babies in many ways. In addition to their mutual involvement in daily care-giving functions, parents and infants often interact in a purely playful and/or affectionate manner. They also are jointly involved more frequently in what may either be called teaching or learning situations (depending on one's perspective) such as the activities related to this study. As parents increase their awareness of the importance of the very early months and years of a child's life, they seem to make more conscious efforts to involve their infants in cognitively-oriented activities.

Just how parents go about "teaching" their children differs greatly. Similarly, how infants respond to a learning situation varies. These differences may correlate with personality attributes, race, or social class factors (Beckwith, 1971; Olmstead, 1975; Zegiob & Forehand, 1975). Both the infant's sex and the parent's sex may relate significantly to these interactions (Biller, 1974; Lamb, 1975). In addition, there is reason to believe that the specific teaching styles or behaviors adopted by the parent may affect the infant in particular ways (Bromwich, 1977; Millar, 1976). And it may be that infant behaviors in turn cause parents to respond in certain ways (Goldberg, 1977). The literature exploring these various factors associated with the parent-infant relationship will be reviewed in this chapter.

6






7



Infants' Gender and Age

A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) demonstrate that the sex of the infant has a significant correlation with his/her behavior in parent-infant interactions. Clarke-Stewart (1973) conducted a longitudinal study of 36 low-income mothers and their first-born infants from the age of nine to eighteen months. She found that boys in the study were generally more object-oriented while girls were more sociallyoriented. Sex differences were also apparent in the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969) of 64 thirteen-month-old infants. In particular, boys were significantly more independent and were involved in more active and exploratory behavior than the girls. The girls, on the other hand, were more dependent and more verbal than their male counterparts.

In a related study of toddlers and their parents, Fagot (1974) found that parents who made strong claims that they did not treat their children differently because of the sex of their children did exhibit extreme differences in behavior when actually observed with their children. The researcher suggests that inherent differences in the children's behavior due to his/her sex may in fact "exert pressure for certain types of parental reactions" (p. 558). Examples she cites include parents of girls who respond to the females' greater sensitivity to sound by verbalizing more with them. Similarly, boys respond less to soothing by touch or talk, so parents tend to leave boys alone more, possibly accounting for their greater independence.

The transactions between mothers and their new-born infants produced rather different results in another study (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). The mothers in this study tended to initiate and direct more activity with





8



the male infants than with the female infants, causing the female infants to spend more time alone. These researchers also found a higher activity level between first-born neonates and their mothers than between new-borns and multiparous mothers. Possibly the observation of these infants and mothers at feeding time, at such a young age, and in a hospital setting produced the contradictory results when compared to other studies.

Gordon (1974) conducted a longitudinal study of 53 low-income black mother-infant dyads and identified a number of factors which combine both parent and infant behaviors and relate to infant sex. The first factor, labelled Performance Orientation, includes several maternal techniques which stress performance as well as infants' mastery and intellectual activity. This factor was a significant predictor of boys' behavior from early to later observations. Two other factors were predictive for the female infants. The first of these factors, a mother-infant teaching transaction, consisted of active teaching techniques on the mother's part, including initiating, eliciting, amplifying, and directing behaviors by the infant. The second factor with predictive ability for the girls in the Gordon study was labelled Maternal Push, composed of maternal taskorienting behaviors without responsiveness to the baby's emotional comfort seeking. Gordon (1974) also uncovered an age by sex interaction. In general, boys' scores at 25 weeks of age and younger held more predictive value for later transactions while scores at 25 weeks of age and later were more predictive for girls.

Behavioral changes were noted among 180 white first-born infants on a variety of measures at ages 4, 8, 13, and 27 months (Kagan, 1971). Other researchers reporting similar discontinuities with increased age indicate the emerging social behaviors (Emde, Gaensbauer, & Harmon, 1976).











ability to react to environmental stimulation (Bell & Harper, 1977), and advancing motor skills (Crawley et al., 1978) may account for the infants' behavioral changes over time.

Existing research, then, suggests that infants' age and gender had a bearing on their behavior and competence. In addition, mothers' interactions differed with male and female infants. The findings are inconsistent, however, so more research needs to be done in this area. Thus, this study has addressed the question of infant gender as it relates to parenting styles and infant competence, limited to infants under one year of age.


Parents' Gender

Prior to 1964, only the mother-infant dyad had been studied (Lamb, 1975). Mothers, because they are usually the primary care-givers of young children, were believed to have a unique and superior relationship with their infants (Bowlby, 1951; Ainsworth, 1973). The mother-infant relationship is also considered to be the foundation of subsequent social relationships (Kagan, Wimberger & Bobbitt, 1969) and cognitive development. In Bell's study (1970) of 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half months to eleven-months-old, infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, babies displaying strong mother attachment developed the concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object permanence, in 23 out of 24 cases.

Recently, the role of the father has been examined more closely.

Although some of the research analyzes the effect of the father's absence (Radin, 1976) rather than the impact of his presence on the infant, other






10



studies have compared the effects of each parent on the child. In the first of these studies (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964), babies at nine months of age protested more to being separated from their mothers than from their fathers. At eighteen-months-old, however, the same babies protested just as much when separated from their fathers. In contrast, other studies report a preference for mother in infants' attachment behavior only in stressful situations (Lamb, 1976b), while another study found a preference for either parent over a stranger (Lamb, 1977). In spite of conflicting details, all of these studies confirm that infants are attached to their fathers as soon as attachment behaviors begin, although the nature of the father-infant relationship may differ qualitatively from the motherinfant relationship.

Possibly the differences in attachment behavior depend on differences in the amount and kind of interaction the two parents have with their baby. Gewirtz and Gewirtz (1968) in their study of 24 four- and eightmonth-olds in eleven Israeli Kibbutzim calculated that the infants spent approximately twice as much time with their mothers as with their fathers. Most of the additional time spent with the mothers, however, consisted of caretaking activities. Similarly, Lamb (1977) observed that mothers held their infants more often to perform caretaking functions while fathers held their infants more often for purposes of play. This may account for the infants' more positive reactions to playing with their fathers than with their mothers in the same study, although the types of play the two parents engaged in were essentially the same.

Other differences between a mother's and father's involvement with their infant have been noted. In Rebelsky and Hank's study (1971) of ten infants from two weeks to three months of age, fathers talked less





11



frequently and for shorter periods of time to their infants before the age of three months than mothers did. In yet another study (Biller, 1974), fathers encouraged their infants' curiosity, and cognitive and motoric activity more than mothers did.

In addition, how mothers and fathers react to their infants may vary according to the age and sex of the children, some research contends. In particular, fathers of female infants verbalized more before the infants were a month old (Rebelsky & Hank, 1971) but fathers verbalized more with their male infants after three months of age (Moss, 1967). Mothers reacted just the opposite, according to the Moss study (1967); that is, at age three weeks, mothers verbalized more with their male infants, but they verbalized more with their female infants at three months of age.

In a comparison of parents in the United States and Guatamala, Kotelchuck (1976) reports less of a difference between the mother-infant and father-infant relationships in the United States than between the two Guatamalan parents' relationships with their infants, suggesting specific variations in cultural patterns. He claims that these differences are "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a predisposed biological disposition" (p. 343). A study of preschool girls and their parents (Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972) supports the same notion that cultural expectations affect adult behavior, for although the daughters in the study behaved the same with both parents, fathers focused more on the task at hand while mothers encouraged interpersonal interaction with their daughters.

Differences between mothers and fathers have been found in the amount of time spent with their infant, the type of activities they became involved in, and the amount and kind of verbalizations. Some of






12



these differences varied, too, with the age and sex of the infant. Comparisons of mothers' and fathers' interactions with their infants in "teaching" situations, however, are practically nonexistent. Nor is there much evidence on parental sex differences in relationship to infant measures of competence. Thus, both of these issues have been included in this study.


Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant Interactions

Responses of infants, particularly in terms or what and how they

learn, may be affected by factors outside of the parent-child relationship. Observation of toy preferences (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969), for example, shows that toys offering "the most varied possibilities for manipulation" (p. 27) such as blocks, receive the most attention. Differences in amount of infant task-mastery and exploration, two variables which this study analyzes, possibly were affected by the toys available to the infant although the selection of toys was limited.

Likewise, the infant's response to social versus non-social objects seems to differ. One study (Eckerman & Rheingold, 1974) found that whereas toys were approached and contacted, the infant was more inclined to just look and smile at people. In addition, more exploration was apparent with responsive than non-responsive adults. Another researcher found that the social consequences emitting from a stranger, including being smiled at, talked to, and touched, increased the vocalization of institutionalized infants (Weisberg, 1963).

An extensive analysis of the home environment of 41 black infants

(Yarrow et al., 1972) pointed to numerous important relationships between infants' competence and both the social and inanimate environment. Based on six hours of time-sampled observations of normal activity in






13




each home, the research demonstrated that the variety, responsiveness, and complexity of objects in the infants' surroundings produce different yet significant correlations with various factors from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Separate correlations of the Bayley factors also exist with the level and variety of social stimulation as well as mothers' contingent responsiveness to vocalizations and distress. Although the specific results of the study are too extensive to itemize in this review, the study emphasized the complexity of environmental factors which affect infants' competence and capacity for learning.

A more specific concern of infant researchers is the effect of the laboratory setting on research results. Belsky (1977) directly studied the differences between mother-child interaction at home and in the laboratory in his observations of 24 middle-class mothers with their 12-month-old infants. Mothers observed in just the laboratory setting exhibited twice as much responsive and interactive behavior and were four times more active than mothers observed only at home. Mothers observed in both situations also doubled their activity, responsiveness, and interaction with their infants in the laboratory setting. However, the discrepancies in behavior may be at least partially explained by the instructions mothers were given in the experiment. Prior to the home observations, mothers were instructed to go about their normal home activities and to ignore the observer, while mothers in the laboratory were told to pretend they were home with free time on their hands.

While Belsky noted differences, Peterson (1975) found similarities in the behaviors emitted in home and laboratory settings. However, behavioral changes of parents and/or infants varied with the situation in a number of other studies. With caretaking activities, for example,





14



fathers decreased their verbalizations with their infants (Rebelsky & Hanks, 1971) and the appearance of a stranger changed infants' affiliative behavior towards their parents (Lamb, 1976a). And Clarke-Stewart (1973) noted significant changes in the entire parent-infant interaction patterns when comparing free play and structured situations at home.

Three aspects of an infant's world, then, produced differences in infant and parent behaviors. The type of objects or people in their environment appeared to alter infants' behavior and the setting of the interaction affected infant and parent behavior. Furthermore, a relationship was found to exist between infant competence and the complexity of the environment (Yarrow, et al., 1972). These results emphasized the need to control extraneous variables as much as possible in order to minimize error. Thus, in this study, the setting remained constant, the choice of toys was generally limited, and the activities used were consistent at each age.


Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to Infant Competence

Generally no significant relationship between social class and

infants' success on mental competence has been noted under two years of age (Bayley, 1969). However, one study (Beckwith, 1971a) of 24 adopted infants living in middle-class homes indicates a positive correlation between the infants' Cattell IQ scores and their natural mothers' social class. In addition, Beckwith noted a relationship between infant competence and the experiences provided by the adopter mothers. With increased verbal and physical contact by the mothers, the infants' Cattell test scores increased. And more opportunities to explore at home and to interact with persons outside of the family both related positively to infant competence.






15



Some more specific mental skills show evidence of relating to mother-infant relationships. In particular, Bell (1970) studied 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half to eleven-months-old and found that infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, the babies displaying a strong mother attachment developed the concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object permanence in 23 out of 24 cases.

Physically relating to an infant also has a significant relationship to the infant's development. In one study (Powell, 1974), stimulation in the form of handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scores of Infant Development. Mutual gazing (Schmidt & Hore, 1970) and maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967) are two additional variables which relate positively to a child's development.

Verbal communication with the infant also has particular importance to his/her development of mental competence. Peterson (1975) notes that the amount of language and positive feedback are positively correlated to infant competence while verbal stimulation was a positive factor in infant development in the Clarke-Stewart study (1973). Beckwith (1971b) explains that verbal stimulation before age four months and after ten months on the part of adults prompts vocal imitation by the infant. Although infants may discontinue their responsive vocalization between ages four and ten months, they still will benefit from hearing adult language.






16




Parent-Infant Interactions

Several researchers have looked specifically at the type of verbal

interactions which take place between mother and child. Mothers involved with their 9 to 13-months-old children, according to Clarke-Stewart (1973), 40 to 45% of the time demonstrated use of labeling, description, and expansion techniques while communicating verbally with their infants. By the time the infants were 16 to 17-months-old, these same mothers used these techniques only 20% of the time, but their directive verbal approaches increased to better than 40% of their total vocalizations. When mothers and their toddlers were observed (Reichle, Longhurst, and Stepanich, 1976), however, the mothers used mostly expatiation and modeled questions in their verbalizations, while the children communicated mostly with reduction, imitation, and question utterances. In short, the mothers seemed to add to the message to be transmitted to their children and the toddlers only verbalized the most essential words in their communications.

More and more research indicates the significance of the parents'

contingent responsiveness to the infants' cues; that is, infants seem to "learn" to repeat those behaviors which have resulted in a satisfactory positive parental response (Bromwich, 1976; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Gordon, 1974; Kagan, 1971; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). Thus, in a study of both low- and middle-class mothers and infants in a focused modeling situation, Waxler and Yarrow (1975) found that a "sensitive pacing" is the most significant factor in the mother's modeling behavior. The frequency of attempts to model the preferred behavior was not as effective as the pacing of her attempts.







17



Teaching Behaviors

Infant researchers have only recently begun to examine the relationship between parents' teaching behaviors and infant measures. As noted before, for example, Bakeman and Brown found that mothers initiate and direct more activity with boys than with girls. In spite of that finding, Gordon (1974) demonstrated that mothers' more neutral teaching behaviors were better predictors of girls' competence, while personal-social interactions correlated more the boys' competence. Both of these studies involved low-income black families, however, and no comparable studies exist for other samples.

Gordon (1974) provided still other clues into the relationship between mothers' teaching techniques and infant behavior and competence. Maternal teaching was found to have more impact upon later than earlier infant competence in the infants' first year of life, and boys' compliance which may be a forerunner to infants' task-mastery in this study was influenced more by mothers' maternal behavior than girls' compliance was. In addition, in one factor numerous maternal teaching behaviors, including mothers' initiations, elicitations, directions, acceptance, and amplifications occurred along with baby responses.

Among the infant activities associated with "Maternal Push," a factor described earlier in this chapter, were mastery of a task and exploration (Gordon, 1974), the two infant behaviors examined in this study. Since exploration is basically a cognitive activity but essentially off-task behavior, it is interesting that this item has loaded on the same factor with task-mastery. Is it possible that both of these activities are stimulated by maternal "teaching" behavior, or do they occur together in







18


every normal infant's repertoire of behavior whether a mother attempts to "teach" her infant or not? Would similar results occur for fathers? And what relationships between parental teaching behaviors and infant measures of competence exist for white middle-class parents? This study was designed to answer some of these questions.

Knowledge of other relationships between teaching behaviors and competence factors is developing from current research on classroom teachers. Three in-depth, longitudinal studies on the relationship between teachers' interactions in the classroom and student achievement strongly suggest that directive teaching approaches are more successful than non-directive approaches. More specifically, children of low socioeconomic status profit most from a drill pattern consisting of direct questions, followed by positive reinforcement of correct responses (Rosenshine, 1976a).

In addition, the Soars (1978) report that positive affect is negatively correlated with student gains in basic skills, and studies by Brophy and Evertson, Soar, and Perham all indicate that teachers of low socioeconomic status students who are effective at teaching basic skills do less "amplifying, discussing, or using pupil answers than the ineffective teacher" (Medley, 1977, p. 17).

Infant researchers must begin to ask if similar relationships exist

between infant competence and the parenting styles of infants' first teachers.


Summary

Infant research has only begun to explore the ways that parents can and do help their infants learn. Yet, the research conducted thus far has already suggested that a number of parental attributes and behaviors do or






19




may influence or correlate with measures of infant competence. In addition, both the age and sex of an infant had a significant relationship to various infant and parent behaviors. And mothers and fathers differed in how they related to their infants as well as how the infants related to them. Finally, the research leads to the tentative conclusion that particular teaching techniques may be more effective than others for developing children's competence.

This study endeavored to broaden the field of infant research by:

1. determining if parents have distinct styles of parenting

2. exploring the relationship between parents' styles of

interaction, and infants' task-mastery, exploration,

mental and motor development

3. examining the relationship between parenting styles and

parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent

and infant gender

4. determining if parent and/or infant gender had any bearing

on infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and motor

development.
















CHAPTER III

DESIGN

The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had

distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parent's styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development. This chapter describes the research design and analysis procedures employed in this study.


Sample

The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born

infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community via radio, television, newspapers, and local physicians for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Only white, middle-class, two-parent families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were included in this sample. Socioeconomic status was determined by the Two Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957). Normal physical condition of the infant was determined by a physical examination at three months of age.


Procedure

Each family was visited in the home when the infant was approximately ten-weeks-old. The home visits provided the opportunity to gather necessary background information, to verify socioeconomic status of the family and to explain details of the Project to the parents. The visits also helped to establish a good rapport with the family.


20






21




Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, spaced

six weeks apart. The first session occurred when the infant was 13 weeks old, and the final session at 49 weeks of age. The videotapings took place at the University of Florida in a 12' x 12' enclosure with light blue walls and carpeting within a larger room, designed for the Project. The videotape equipment consisted of three black and white cameras and monitors, two -inch reel-to-reel recorders, and one camera mixer. These videotaping procedures were designed by a media specialist and pilot tested prior to use with these subjects.

A few minutes prior to each videotaping the parents were provided with a written description of an age-appropriate task adapted from Baby Learning Through Baby Play (Gordon, 1970) (see Appendix A). Each set of parents received the same instructions for each age and were asked to interact with their child involving the described activity. Three separate three-minute long videotape segments were done on each occasion in a randomly assigned order. These segments consisted of mother with infant, father with infant, and both parents with infant. Only segments of videotape involving each parent alone with the infant were analyzed for this study. The videotaping segments with both parents and their infant were not included since the interaction of the two parents would have complicated the statistical analyses beyond the scope of this study.

When the infants reached one year of age, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development were administered.





22


Data Collection

Data for the parent and infant behaviors were based on the total number of observations for each behavior in all seven videotaping sessions. Only the taping segments for mothers and infants and for fathers and infants were analyzed, making a total of 78 cases.

The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) was the method of data

collection used in this study for the parent behaviors (see Appendix B). Adapted from the coding systems of Gordon and Jester (1972) and Ober, Wood and Roberts (1968), the RCS was initially an outgrowth of the Flanders (1965) and Bales (1951) coding devices. Although the RCS codes both parent and infant behaviors every three seconds, only six parent variables from the RCS were selected for analysis in this study. Operational definitions of these six variables are as follows:

Accepts: Accepts the action, behavior, comments, ideas,
and/or contributions of another; positive reinforcement of these.

Amplifies: Asks for clarification of, builds on, and/or
develops the action, behavior, comments, ideas
and/or contributions of another.

Elicits: Asks a question or requests information about
the content, subject, or procedure being considered with the intent that another should
answer (respond).

Responds: Gives direct answer or response to questions
or requests for information that are initiated
by another; includes answers to one's own question.

Initiates: Presents facts, information, and/or opinion
concerning the content, subject, or procedures
being considered that are self-initiated; expresses
one's own ideas; lectures (includes rhetorical
questions--not intended to be answered).

Directs: Gives directions, instruction, orders, and/or
assignments to which another is expected to
comply.







23



Parent variables were limited to verbal behaviors, including but not limited to language, laughing, and imitation of baby sounds. The RCS also stipulated that a continuous behavior be recorded for each three second interval that it occurred. In addition, all accepting, responding, and amplifying behaviors were tallied only when preceded by an infant behavior, and accepting, eliciting, and directing behaviors were by definition task-related.

This study also involved the analysis of four infant variables in relation to the parent variables. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development provided the measure of the infants' mental and physical development at the age of one year. Tallies of the amount of task-mastery and exploration by the infants were collected through the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C). Like the original Home Scale, which was developed by Watts and Barnett (1971) for the observation of mothers and toddlers in the home, this observation schedule requires a tally for each parent, child, or general activity listed which occurs during each fifteen second interval.

Mastery of the task was coded for each fifteen second interval

the infant successfully completed the activity presented to him/her. It was important to note what task was presented to the infant by the parent rather than what task had been described in the written instruction. In contrast, exploration was coded each fifteen second interval the child was observed seeking out objects in the environment not related to the task. Occasionally, exploration included involvement of the child with a task-related object in an task-unrelated fashion. For example, the child who purposefully dropped buttons on the floor rather than into the slot was exploring.






24



Observer Training

Two observers were trained to code the Reciprocal Category System, and two additional persons were trained to code the Home Scale. The training which lasted for approximately one month ended when the two observers for each observation schedule were within two tallies of each other on each item. Recognizing the likelihood that the coders would drift from the initial coding standards, additional comparisons of their tallies on the individual items were made every two weeks during the year they were coding the videotapes. Interrater agreement was not computed for the parent variables, but the average interrater agreement for the two Home Scale items was 91.7%.


Method of Analysis

The total number of occurrences over all seven sessions was tallied for each of the six parent behaviors and the infant task-mastery and exploration items. Hypotheses of this study and the corresponding analysis procedures used are stated below:

Hypothesis I: The six parent behaviors are not
independent but will cluster to form distinct systems of
behavior, or parenting styles.

Principal component analysis with a maximum of five factors being rotated was applied to the six parent variables. The analysis consisted of an orthogonal solution with varimax rotation, using a SAS program.

Hypothesis II: There will be no relationship between
a parent's style of interaction and the infant's task-mastery,
exploration, Mental Development Index (MDI), and/or Physical
Development Index (PDI).

Each of the infant's scores on the task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and PDI were entered as dependent variables. Thus, four separate multiple regression analyses, using a step-wise solution, were obtained.








25



Hypothesis III: There will be no difference in a
parent's style of interaction based on infant gender, parent
gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.

Three repeated measures Parent Gender X Baby Gender analyses of variance using the parenting style factor scores as the dependent measures were completed to assess the effect of infant and/or parent gender on the parents' styles of interaction. The possibility that parents of the same infant might share some common interaction patterns was also speculated; therefore, this common variance was controlled by nesting Family ID within baby gender. A SAS GLM program was used.

Hypothesis IV: There will be no difference in
infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, or PDI based on
infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent
and infant gender.

Four analyses of variance with parent gender as repeated measures

and Family ID nested with baby gender were completed, also using a SAS GLM program. In these analyses, infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and PDI were the dependent variables.


Reliability

Intra-class correlations for infant and parent behaviors were computed on the basis of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula which is as follows:

ICC = (MSB-MSW)/MSB

where MSB represents the mean square between sessions and the MSW represents the mean square within sessions. This method of analysis has been recommended by Bartko because it "assesses the reliability of average ratings, rather than the reliability of a single rating" (1976, p. 764).






26

A one-way analysis of variance provided the MSB and MSW figures necessary to compute the intra-class correlations. Tallies for taskmastery and exploration of each infant for each session were the units of analysis for these two infant ANOVAs. Since the parenting factors were composite scores of all seven videotaping sessions, the initial six parent behaviors used to formulate the factor scores for each parent became the units of analysis for the parent ANOVAs. If it had been feasible to compute intra-class correlations of the parenting factors, most likely they would be even greater than the intra-class correlations obtained for the individual parenting behaviors.

The portion of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development used for this study consisted of the 163 Mental Scale items and the 81 items of the Psychomotor Scale. The items were ordered sequentially according to the age when 50% of the children successfully accomplished a given item. The instrument was standardized on a sample of 1,262 children, the sample being stratified on the basis of sex, color, residence (urban or rural), and educational level of the head of household. The sample was nearly representative of the United States infant population, with only the rural population being underrepresented. The 14 age groupings ranged from

2 to 30 months (Bayley, 1969).

Split-half reliability coefficients for the Mental Scale were from .81 to .93, with a median of .88; while the Motor Scale range was from .68 to .93 (median of .84). The Motor Scale reliability was presumably lower due to the smaller number of items involved. The correlation between Mental and Motor Scales was from .50 to .60 in the first year of life.

The standard error of measurement which estimates the margin of error associated with a test score was from 4.2 to 6.9 standard score points for






27



the Mental Scale. The Motor Scale produced a standard error of measurement of 4.6 to 9.0.


Limitations

1. The participants of this study were observed in a laboratory

setting. Researchers provide conflicting reports of the degree to which a laboratory setting affects people's behavior (Belsky, 1977; Peterson, 1975). Although efforts were made to make the studio comfortable and non-threatening, it was apparent that behavior of both parents and infants was affected somewhat by the foreign environment.

2. The parents were informed that their infant's behavior and development were being studied. The videotaping made it obvious that they too were being watched. Most likely this realization altered their behavior to some degree during the videotapings. Although parents could not perform beyond a certain limit, they generally displayed what they considered their best parenting behaviors.

3. Participants in this study were volunteers from the community. The parents were necessarily committed enough to the Project to participate for nearly a year with little extrinsic reward. This suggests that this sample was not a representative sample of all families in the area meeting the given criteria for this study.

4. The parents who agreed to be videotaped while interacting with their first-born infant probably had a unique relationship with their infant. In addition, they probably possessed more confidence in their parenting skills than the average parent. This was particularly true of fathers who customarily are not expected to be as involved with their infants as mothers are.















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS


One purpose of this study was to determine whether parents interact with their infants in any particular parenting style or styles. And if parents did have distinct styles of interaction, another purpose of this study was to determine if these parenting styles had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the results of this study for each of the original hypotheses.

Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped in a laboratory setting on seven occasions during the infants' first year of life. In each three-minute videotape segment, the parent-infant dyads were involved in a structured activity, which varied with the age of the child (see Appendix B), and infant behaviors which were on-task (mastery) and off-task (exploration) were coded according to the Home Scale (see Appendix C). Mental and Physical Development Indices were obtained from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for each infant at the age of one year.

Results of the statistical analyses for each hypothesis of this study are described below.


Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I

Tallies for the parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behavior were computed over all seven videotaping


28





29



sessions for each parent. The mean scores and standard deviations for the six parent behaviors are presented in Table 1.

Principal component analysis with an orthogonal solution rotated to varimax criterion was applied to the six parent behaviors. Matrices of two, three, and four factors were obtained (see Appendix D for a table of each matrix). When a minimum loading of .40 was applied, the threefactor matrix produced the most independent factors. These three factors, found in Table 2, have been used in the remaining analyses.

Consequently, the hypothesis that distinct, independent styles of parenting would result from the parents' interaction with their infants was confirmed. In fact, three distinct parenting styles were found to exist. The first of these parenting styles, labeled "Friendly Persuasion," included the parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations. Providing information, asking questions, and building on to the infants' activity were all a part of this parenting style.

The second style was the "Responsive Parenting" mode of interaction. With this approach of relating to the infant, a parent would merely respond to the infant's activity or request rather than actively pursuing involvement with his/her child. Thus, this parenting style was more passive than the other two parenting styles.

"Positive Direction," the third style of interaction, combined

parents' accepting and directing behaviors. That is, parents gave their child instructions as well as positive reinforcement. For example, the parent might have said "Pull the string," followed by "Good, you did it!" when the task was completed. And so the pattern continued.

In summary, then, three parenting styles were found to exist as

parents interacted with their infants. These three styles were labeled






30


















TABLE 1

MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF PARENT BEHAVIORS


Variable Mean Standard Deviation Accepting 13.06 10.04 Amplifying 7.95 6.97 Responding 3.45 2.74 Eliciting 30.03 19.17 Initiating 26.54 19.23 Directing 38.76 22.52






31

















TABLE 2

FACTOR LOADINGS OF THREE PARENTING STYLES


Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 "Friendly "Positive Persuasion" "Responding" Direction"


V5 Initiating .87 V4 Eliciting .69 V2 Amplifying .46 V3 Responding .59 V1 Accepting .66 V6 Directing .58






32


"Friendly Persuasion," "Responsive Parenting," and "Positive Direction." Factor scores for each parent were computed based on their individual tallies of the six behaviors using the factor loading of the three parenting styles.


Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis II

Hypothesis II investigated the relationship of infant behavior and development with the parents' styles of interaction. Did the on-task (mastery) or off-task (exploration) behavior of the infants correlate with any particular style of parenting? Or did parenting styles relate more to infants' mental or motor development? Results of the four regression analyses are described below.

The step-wise regression of the parenting factors on infants' taskmastery produced highly significant results for two factors (Table 3 reports the results). Factor 3, which is the positive directive approach, entered the equation first and correlated positively with infants' successful on-task behavior (mastery). The second factor to enter the equation, "Friendly Persuasion," was negatively correlated with infants' mastery of a task.

Infant exploration, or active off-task behavior, did not correlate significantly with any of the parenting styles (see Table 4). Again, "Positive Direction" (Factor 3) entered the regression equation first, and approached but did not reach significance.

The two regression analyses involving infants' developmental scores and parenting styles produced non-significant results, although they both correlated most highly with parent's responsive behavior (see Tables 5 and 6). Apparently, mental and motor development at one year as measured





33












TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY WITH PARENTING FACTORS 3 AND I DF SS MS F Regression 2 1056.09 528.04 14.61**

Residual 75 2709.76 36.13







DF B Beta STD Error B F


Factor 3 1 4.47 .48 .93 22.95** Factor 1 1 -2.72 -.35 .78 12.18** Residual 75 17.23




**P = .01

*P = .05





34























TABLE 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS' EXPLORATION WITH PARENTING FACTOR 3 DF SS MS F Factor 3 1 276.66 276.66 3.22 NS Residual 76 6534.83 85.98





35













TABLE 5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT MENTAL DEVELOPMENT INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2



DF SS MS F


Factor 2 1 996.87 996.87 1.93 NS Residual 76 38786.92 510.35







TABLE 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2 DF SS MS F


Factor 2 1 .16 .16 1.58 NS Regression 76 7.57 .10





36



by the Bayley Scales, are not related to parents' styles of interaction with their infants.

To summarize, only one of the infant variables related to a significant degree with the parenting styles. A strong positive relationship occurred between infant task-mastery and the positive direction of parents. Surprisingly, the task-mastery correlated negatively with parents' "Friendly Persuasion." That is, infants whose parents were both directive and accepting were more successful in the mastery of given tasks than infants whose parents provided information (initiated), asked questions (elicited), or amplified in the structured activity setting.


Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis III

An ANOVA procedure was run on each of the three parenting factors with Infant gender, Parent gender, and Infant gender X Parent gender as the independent measures. Parent gender was treated as a repeated measure and Family ID was nested within Baby gender to eliminate any common variance of each family from the error term. As predicted, the analysis indicates that parenting styles were not affected by infant gender and/or parent gender (see Table 7).


Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis IV

An ANOVA procedure with Parent gender as a repeated measure and Family ID nested within Baby gender was computed on each of the four infant variables. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there was any relationship between infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development and infant's gender, parent's gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. As predicted and reported in Table 8, there were no significant results. Mean scores for the infant variables grouped according to parent and infant gender are reported on Table 9.






37



TABLE 7

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PARENTING STYLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER

Parenting Factor 1: "Positive Direction"


DF SS MS F


Baby Gender 1 1.25 1.25 .93 NS
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 49.58 1.34
Parent Gender 1 .87 .87 3.00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .20 .20 .69 NS
Error 37 10.74 .29




Parenting Factor 2: "Responsive Parenting"


DF SS MS F


Baby Gender 1 .31 .31 .43 NS
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 26.52 .72
Parent Gender 1 .43 .43 2.26 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS
Error 37 7.13 .19




Parenting Factor 3: "Friendly Persuasion"


DF SS MS F


Baby Gender 1 .16 .16 .17 NS
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 35.49 .96
Parent Gender 1 .18 .18 .86 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .03 .03 .14 NS
Error 37 7.75 .21






38










TABLE 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT VARIABLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER Infant Task-Mastery



DF SS MS F


Baby Gender 1 2.00 2.00 .03 NS

Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 2770.85 74.89

Parent Gender 1 .46 .46 .02 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 44.59 44.59 1.74 NS

Error 37 947.95 25.62




Infant Exploration



DF SS MS F


Baby Gender 1 442.51 442.51 3.24 NS

Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 5055.98 136.65

Parent Gender 1 22.62 22.62 .68 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 59.54 59.54 1.79 NS

Error 37 1230.85 33.27






39










Table 8 continued

Infant Mental Development Index



DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 43.18 43.18 .13 NS

Family ID (Baby Gender) 36 12144.82 337.36

Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS

Error 36 .00 .00




Infant Motor Development Index



DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 64.32 64.32 .10 NS

Family ID (Baby Gender) 35 23609.73 674.56

Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS

Error 35 .00 .00






40















TABLE 9

MEAN SCORES OF INFANT VARIABLES
BY PARENT AND INFANT GENDER


Males Females
23 15


Task-Mastery 17.17 18.47 Mothers
Exploration 38.83 31.93



Task-Mastery 18.17 16.40 Fathers
Exploration 36.17 33.07



MDI 119.61 118.07 PDI 119.57 118.07





41


In addition to the analyses reported above, a complete report of

the correlations of all parent behaviors and infant variables is listed in Appendix E.


Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors

Intra-class correlation reliability coefficients for the six parent measures were computed separately for mothers and fathers and can be found in Table 10. The range of reliability scores was from .39 to .94, with the exception of mothers' amplifying behavior. Reliability of maternal amplification has been recorded as zero, as is conventionally done with negative coefficients. Apparently this item is highly unstable from session to session with this sample. Since amplifying behavior scores were pooled with two other parental behaviors in Factor 1 (Friendly Persuasion) in the data analysis, the seriousness of a zero .00 coefficient was somewhat reduced although not eliminated.

Reliability coefficients for the two infant behaviors were quite high, with the score for task-mastery being .98 and the exploration coefficient being .97.


Summary

Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped as they interacted in a structured learning activity every six weeks during the infant's first year for a total of seven times. Parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behaviors from the videotaped sessions were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation demonstrated that three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant interactions. The first parenting style, called "Friendly





42



















TABLE 10

RELIABILITY OF PARENT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Fathers Mothers


Accepting .80** .66* Amplifying .46 .00 Responding .94** .71* Eliciting .82 ** .76** Initiating .57* .39 Directing .88 ** .84*



* .05 level of significance

** .01 level of significance






43



Persuasion," included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behaviors. Another parenting style was simply responsive, and the third style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive reinforcement.

Multiple regression analysis indicated that only task-mastery of the infant correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction." Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender.















CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION


Results

The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.

The minor purposes of this study were to determine if infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender had any relationship to parents' styles of interaction or to infants' taskmastery, exploration, mental or motor development.

Hypothesis I was supported by the data which indicated that there were three distinct parenting styles. The first style of interaction, labelled "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' verbal initiations, elicitations, and amplifications, as they interacted with their infants. The second style, "Responsive Parenting," applied to parents who responded only when the infants requested or demanded a response from them. "Positive Direction," the third parenting style, described parents who primarily gave verbal directions, instruction, and positive reinforcement to their infants.

Hypothesis II, which states that there will be no relationship between a parent's style of interactions and infant's task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development was partially rejected. No significant



44







45



relationship was found between the three parenting styles and infants' exploration, mental or motor development. In contrast, infants' mastery of a task was significantly related to two parenting styles. The "Positive Direction" parental approach correlated positively with infants' task-mastery, and the "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task.

These results are very similar to the research findings on teachers' classroom interactions. As reported by Rosenshine (1976a), several studies have reported that the directive teaching approach was most effective in the classroom. More specifically, for low socioeconomic children, drill instruction, consisting of direct questions followed by teachers' acknowledgements of correct responses, correlated most positively with student achievement gains in basic skills. Direct questions in a classroom situation could easily be compared to the directive approach in this study. In both cases, the children are clearly informed of what is expected of them; then they are given feedback as to the appropriateness, and particularly the correctness, of these responses.

In contrast, this study and research on teachers' classroom behaviors both found indirect interactions with children to be ineffective. The "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style, including parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations, closely resembles the indirect teaching approach involving discussion, amplification, and use of the pupil answers in the classroom (Medley, 1977). Just as these indirect teacher interactions correlated negatively with pupil gains in low level cognitive skills, "Friendly Persuasion" of parents correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task.







46



Hypothesis III which states that there will be no difference in

parents' styles of interaction based on infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender was supported. This finding differs from several other research findings, yet these other studies are limited to infants' attachment to mothers and fathers, and the amount and kind of activity and conversation they exhibit with their infants rather than structured learning situations. Only one study reported that fathers encouraged infants' curiosity and cognitive and motoric activities more than mothers did (Biller, 1974). Possibly no differences existed between mothers' and fathers' parenting styles in this study because the fathers in this sample were more involved with their infants or exhibited better parenting skills than the average father, and thus their parenting behaviors more closely resembled mothers' parenting styles.

Sex of the infant also had no significant relationship to parents' interaction styles. Although a few studies have reported differences in mothers' interactions with their children based on the children's gender, the nature of these differences have not been consistent. One study, for example, reported that mothers verbalized more with female than with male toddlers (Fagot, 1974) while another study stated that mothers initiated and directed more activity with male infants than with female infants (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Possibly the relationship between children's gender and parents' interaction styles varies with the situation and age of the child. The fact that this study combined the results of seven videotaping sessions, and thus seven different situations and ages, may explain why no differences in parenting styles based on infant






47



gender were evident. Other analyses from the Parent-Infant Transaction Project, which treated the seven videotaping sessions separately, in fact support this contention (Huitt, 1978).

The fourth and final hypothesis of this study stated that there

will be no difference in infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development relative to parent gender, infant gender, or the interaction between parent and infant gender. This hypothesis was also supported and corresponds with most other findings in the infant literature. The only notable exception was the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969) which demonstrated that boys were significantly more active and exploratory than girls were. Although there was a similar tendency for boys to be more exploratory in this study, the difference between boys' and girls' exploration did not reach a significant level. If the infants had been given more opportunity to explore, however, possibly the infant sex differences would have been more obvious.


Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study have led to the following conclusions:

1. Parents exhibit three distinct parenting styles while interacting with their infants in structured learning activities. Some parents are more directive and accepting with their infants while some parents are merely responsive. Finally, "Friendly Persuasion" describes the parents who initiate activities, ask questions, and provide information as they interact with their infants.

2. Infants of parents who are directive and accepting in their interactions are most apt to master the tasks the parents attempt to teach them.






48



3. The infants of parents who are indirect in their

interaction with their infants by initiating activities, asking questions, and providing information will not master the tasks being taught as frequently as the infants of parents who do not use this indirect parenting style called "Friendly Persuasion."


Recommendations for Parent Education

Parent educators need to inform parents of the three types of parenting styles demonstrated in this study and the implications of these modes of interaction on infants' behavior. Although no direct cause-and-effect relationships may be assumed, the research does suggest that parents who are directive and accepting with their infants are more likely to have infants who are successful at completing age-appropriate tasks than parents who use more indirect interactional behaviors with their infants. Other parental styles of interaction may be more appropriate in other situations, but the more directive, positive approach seems to be most effective when a parent wants a child to complete a task. Parent educators should explore ways of instructing parents to interact directly and positively with their infants as well as to recognize the appropriate situation(s) in which to use this parenting style.


Limitations

I. The sample used in this study consisted of white,

middle-class parents where both mother and father were actively involved with their infant. The infants were normal, first-born children under the age of one year. Conclusions or implications drawn from this study must be limited to populations similar to this sample.






49



2. Since no experimental treatments were implemented, no direct cause-and-effect relationships may be made on the basis of this study.

3. Infant development measures were limited to total scores, due to the design of this Project. If item by item scores of the Bayley scores had been available, possibly more specific conclusions could have been drawn from the mental and motor development scores, in relationship to the parenting styles.

4. Since exploration was not a major focus of this study, exploratory behavior was limited to the active, off-task behaviors of the infants. Thus, the potential effect of infants' exploration on the other variables being examined in this study was substantially limited.


Recommendations for Further Research

1. The three parenting styles demonstrated by the participants in this study need to be explored further by researchers. Do these same styles exist for other populations? Will fathers and mothers of other populations behave similarly or differently? Do parents continue to interact in the same ways as their children grow older? Additional parenting styles could be investigated by examining parental behaviors as parents and infants interact in a variety of situations.

2. Infants' successful completion of a task correlated

positively with parents' "Positive Direction" and negatively with parents' "Friendly Persuasion." Do similar relationships exist for other populations? Will similar relationships occur when a different set of tasks are involved? Careful analysis of the effect of varying tasks and situations on these relationships are also needed.





50



3. Task-mastery was the only infant variable which related to parenting styles in this study. A more in-depth study of various aspects and kinds of exploration is needed, to see how these components related to other aspects of infant competence as well as to parenting styles. Parents not only may affect infants' exploration by the way they interact, but also by the type of environments they permit or create for their infants to explore. It may be wise to investigate how to encourage creative exploration by our children in addition to successful task-mastery if they are to be better able to cope with a quickly changing world around them.

4. Parenting styles in a more natural setting may very well differ from parents' interactional styles in a laboratory. And parents' ways of relating to infants from day to day may have a more significant effect on infants' competence than the styles parents exhibit in a structured activity. These issues all need to be explored.

5. Measures of infant competence, such as the Bayley

Scales of Infant Development, may have more meaning if analyzed item by item (Yarrow, 1972). Research on the relationship between competency items or composites and parenting styles may be relevant for the future.


Summary

The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. The minor purposes of this study were to determine if parenting styles or infants' task-mastery,






51



exploration, mental or motor development had any relationship to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.

The results demonstrated that the parents exhibited three distinct styles of interaction. Parents who initiated, elicited, and amplified verbally with their infants exhibited the parenting style labelled "Friendly Persuasion." The second parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third interactional style, "Positive Direction" included the directive and positive reinforcement parents verbalized to their infants. None of the parenting styles or infant variables related significantly to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.

Parenting styles did not relate significantly to infants' exploration, mental or motor development; nor were parenting styles or infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development significantly related to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.

Two parenting styles were found to have a significant relationship to infants' successful completion of a task. "Positive Direction" correlated positively to infants' task-mastery, and "Friendly Persuasion" correlated negatively to the task-mastery measure. These results resemble research findings on classroom teacher behaviors which indicate that directive teaching approaches are more effective than nondirective teaching methods in producing student achievement gains in basic skills. Apparently, infants develop competency in completing tasks when they know what is expected of them and are given positive reinforcement for their accomplishments.



































APPENDIX A

TASK DESCRIPTIONS












13 Weeks



Dialogue


This is probably a familiar activity. The purpose of this activity is to engage in a conversation with your baby. Try to get your baby to make a sound. When your baby does make a sound like a coo or gurgle, respond to him by a combination of stroking his stomach, moving your head close enough and smiling so you're sure he sees you, and repeating the sound s/he makes. S/he may then coo some more and you have a "conversation" in progress.




































53





54





19 Weeks



Two-way Stretch


This game's aim is to give your baby practice in controlling things around him by using his body.

Take the toy--a small telephone rattle with an elastic strip

attached--and dangle it near the baby. Encourage him to reach and grab for it. Use such words as "get", "grab" and "catch" while you're playing together.

When he does grasp it, pull gently away so there's some stretch

between you and him. Get into a push-pull game with him, saying, "Pull. You'll pull and I'll pull." Then gently release it and repeat. Try it so that he uses both hands.

Be sure it's fun and not teasing. Keep the toy so he can get it when he makes an effort. Remember that the underlying principle you want to convey to your baby is that it's worthwhile trying to do things, that an effort on his part can have gratifying results.

When he makes sounds of pleasure because he has grabbed it, respond to these sounds by repeating them. Enjoy his enjoyment.





55






25 Weeks



Mirror and Toy


The aims of this game are to help the baby become aware of his own appearance and to give him experiences in seeing objects reflected in a mirror.

Place your baby in your lap so that he is facing the same direction that you are. Hold a mirror so that he can see himself. Point to his reflection and say, "I see (your baby's name)." "Where is

?" "Find ." "Look at

Pick up the objects on the table, one at a time, move them behind your baby's head so that he can see them in the mirror along with himself. Name the objects, telling something about the object, such as, "This is a ball and it is round." Then say, "Where is the ball?" as you remove it from the mirror's reflection.






56




31 Weeks



Bait Casting


Children love to pull on strings. You may remember the earlier

game of grabbing and pulling on the elastic. Here we take advantage of his interest and skill to teach him a new way of getting something he wants. The best arrangement is to sit at a table with your baby on your lap and place a piece of twine, shoestring, or cord on the table so he'll pick it up and pull on it.

Later, tie the toy to one end of the string and put it at the far end of the table so the baby can get it by pulling the string to him.

When he has enjoyed this for a while, leave that string with the object tied to it and add two plain strings. Let him see what happens as he pulls each string. He will discover that only one string brings an object. Accompany this with words like, "You didn't get anything." "Oh! that one got the toy."

After this general play, see if you can teach him always to pull

the right string. Place them in different places where he can see the connection between string and toy and say, "Get the toy."

First he'll be interested only in the string, then in the toy. Gradually he'll be aware of both, but he won't realize they are connected. Then he'll "experiment" and finally use the string to bring the toy to him.





57





37 Weeks



Hide-and-Seek


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.






58




43 Weeks



Blocks


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 striaght 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 newfound skills and for the parents and child to enjoy playing together.






59




49 Weeks



Dropping Buttons in Jar


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 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 B

RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRNASACTION PROJECT















The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) consists of nine behavioral categories, each of which can be assigned to either parental or infant behaviors as well as one other category (10) reserved for silence, confusion and sleeping behaviors. When infant behavior is observed, this is recorded in one of nine appropriate categories and is marked as a single digit number (1-9). When mother's verbal behavior is observed, the appropriate category (11-19) is marked. This is similar for father's verbal behavior which is marked in categories 21-29. With the introduction of the reciprocity factor--allowing each of the nine categories to be assigned either to father, mother or child--the system is actually expanded to an operational total of 28 categories (three different persons times the nine common categories plus Category 10 for silence, confusion and sleeping, for a total of 27 + 1 = 28).

This protocol represents a clarification of the original classroom RCS (Ober, et al., 1968) as it was modified for use in an infant-parent education project (Gordon and Jester, 1972).


Summary of Categories for the Reciprocal Category System
in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project

Infant Mother Father
Category Category Category Behavioral Title of Category

1 11 21 Warms (informalizes) the climate

2 12 22 Accepts or gives positive reinforcement

3 13 23 Amplifies

4 14 24 Elicits


61






62




Infant Mother Father Behavioral Title of Category Category Category Category

5 15 25 Responds

6 16 26 Initiates

7 17 27 Directs

8 18 28 Corrects

9 19 29 Cools (formalizes the climate)




Category 10 includes both parental and infant behaviors: Silence: pauses, periods of no activity; Confusion: yawns, sneezing, coughing, wetting, "accidents" or unintentional interruptions; period of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer; Infant Sleeping: going to sleep.


Ground Rules

Ground Rule I

Any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal in nature. This would include words, sentences, laughing, imitating baby sounds, as well as any other verbal noises or sounds that the adult may make, For example, if the adult holds out a ball for the infant but doesn't say anything, this would be recorded as adult silence. When the mother holds out a toy for the child and says, "Do you want the toy?", this then would be recorded as a 14 (elicits).

Recorded infant behavior need not be verbal and can include physical motor movements as well as any sounds or utterances that may be made.






63



For example, if the father says, "Do you want the ball?", and the infant silently takes it, this would then be recorded as 24 followed by 5.

Summarizing, any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal, unless a 10 is recorded. However, infant behaviors should be appropriately recorded even if they are not verbal in nature. Ground Rule II

A single continuous behavior is to be recorded every three seconds. For example, a father may try unsuccessfully to elicit behavior from the child for 15 seconds. This would be recorded as such 24 24 24 24 24 There is one mark for each three seconds of the same activity. If there is one continuous behavior that is ongoing without any other behavior observed, a record is then made every three seconds.

On the other hand, behaviors that occur before a three second interval has ended are also recorded. For example, a mother may alternately elicit and direct her responding infant within one three second interval. This would be recorded: 14 5 17 5 Thus, the three second interval becomes unimportant if more than one behavior is observed in a three second time period.

In summary, the same behavior is to be recorded a minimum of every three seconds. If there is any change in behavior by either father, mother or infant, this should be noted as it occurs. You must record everything that occurs with a minimum of one recorded behavior every three seconds. At the end of a three minute session, there will be a minimum of 60 recorded behaviors; the maximum is dependent upon the number of transactions that have taken place.






64


Warm-Cool Subdimension


Warms (Informalizes) the Climate Categories 1, 11, 21

Parent or child "warms" deals with feelings and emotions displayed by the particular person being observed. Warming behavior tends to reduce or release tension and/or alleviate threat by means of sincere and genuine warmth on the part of the initiator. If the child is crying, and a parent verbally coos or laughs while cuddling, fondling, hugging, or holding the child, this is viewed as warming the climate by the parent. Clarifying and accepting the feelings and emotions of another in a warm and friendly manner, even though the feelings or emotions being clarified are positive or negative is viewed as warming behavior. If the parent encourages or praises the non-task oriented behavior, comments, ideas and/or contributions of the child in a sincerely loving and positive manner, this is warming (11, 21). Generally, this category, as well as 9, 19 (cools) deals principally with the socioemotional climate, based mainly on feelings and emotions and not task related behavior.

Baby warming behavior could include smiles, laughs, gurgles, cooing, etc. Self-reinforcing behavior may also fall into the category of "warms". An example of this would be if a baby is thumb sucking or other self-stimulating behaviors.

If there is no ongoing task activity, and the parents tell the child how "good" he or she is, this is also warming and would come under this category.

Warming or cooling the environment are task irrelevant, people

oriented behaviors. For example, a parent may say, "Ooh, you're such a pretty baby," even though there may be no discernible antecedent or





65


task related motivation for this sort of approval. Warming, in this example, is purely an expression of love and care, and is not a reinforcement for some behaviorial task. A general ground rule for the warm-cool subdimension is to record this dimension only if the warming or cooling deals with the emotional climate, not the task activity. This will help you as an observer to differentiate warms from accepts and cools from corrects. Warms and cools, as mentioned earlier are emotionally "people" oriented task irrelevant categories, while accepts and corrects are "task" oriented behavioral categories.


Cools (Formalizes) the Climate Categories 9, 19, 29

As in the warming category, this dimension deals principally with situations that directly involve feelings and emotions. Some parents or children may be so logical and dispassionate that warming or cooling behaviors may not be observed. Conversely, some parents or children may be predominantly warm and/or cool separately or interchangeably.

Cooling behavior may tend to create tension if statements are

intended to modify behavior of another from an inappropriate toward a more appropriate pattern. Their tension may occur as a result of such cooling behaviors as irritation, bawling out someone, rejecting or criticizing the opinion or judgements or another, or exercising control in order to gain or maintain authority of a situation.

Cooling behavior tends to produce threat and/or create tension. Implied in the cooling are usually efforts toward sarcasm, ridicule, regimentation, or alienation or another. Some examples of infant and/or adult cooling behaviors are active or passive aggression, crying, hitting, biting, etc., as well as attempts to leave, crawl away or other uncooperation.





66


Once again, as in the warms category, we are primarily interested in the task irrelevant, person oriented displays of emotion. For example, a parent may say, "I don't like you," or "Boy, you are a dumb kid," or utter other sounds that produce threat, create tension or in some other way cool and formalize the climate. If these comments are task irrelevant and mainly cooling emotional expression, then they would qualify under the category of cools (1, 19, 29).


Accept-Correct Subdimension

In contrast to the person oriented behaviors that are covered in

the warm-cool subdimension, specific task related behaviors and actions, including ideas, comments, opinions, contributions, acts, etc., are covered by the accept-correct subdimension.


Accepts Categories 2, 12, 22

By accepting the action, behavior, comments, ideas, opinions, and/or contributions of another, one is seen as positively reinforcing these. A spirit of agreement and support is reflected by accepting as well as reinforcing and strengthening of a particular accepted response. The use of this category should be limited to situations where it is obvious that the verbal behavior was intended to be a positive reinforcement.

Some parents may be observed to emit a repeated monotonous "O.K." or "yes" that has little, if any, significance to the child. These should be regarded by the observer as nothing more than verbal tics, not qualifying as positive reinforcement, and should be ignored. There needs to be a degree of awareness and sincerity on the part of the acceptor or reinforcer.






67


Accepting and reinforcing another behavior may have a subtle or indirect effect on the other's feelings or emotions. However, the principal activity here is that of reinforcing and accepting, not warming or cooling, and should be coded as such.

The distinction should be made between Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive reinforcement) and Category 1, 11, 21 (warmth perceived as a positive reinforcer).

While Category 1, 11, 21, as we have described, deals primarily with emotional climate, Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive reinforcement) deals with and relates to specific tasks and behaviors. Reinforcement can only occur where there is a specific task-related behavior to reinforce. For example, if the child holds the toys as requested, this specific behavior might be reinforced by the parent saying, "That's very good!" or "Yes, that's it," or "You're doing it beautifully!" or a whole other variety of positive verbal reinforcements that relate to the specific behavior being emitted by the child. Whereas the warming category emphasizes only purely emotional task irrelevant feelings, this category of accepts (2, 12, 22) places its emphasis on the strengthening, reinforcing and accepting of specific task relevant behavior.

Infants can accept or reinforce parental behavior. For example, a parent may try to elicit the specific infant response of grabbing a string. The baby may not grab that string, but may turn toward and orient itself to the string in a smiling or otherwise positive manner. Here the infant is not emitting the specific desired response, but does "accept" the parental behavior. This behavior would be appropriately recorded as accepts (2).






68


Parental reinforcement must be verbal in nature and only qualifies as reinforcement if the verbal acceptance is directed toward some specific behavior being emitted by the baby. For example, if the parent were to hold out a string, then the infant takes it and parent follows with "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this parental comment would qualify as a positive reinforcement because the parent is expressing his acceptance of the infant response of string grabbing. If, on the other hand, the parent were to suddenly pick up and cuddle the child for no apparent (task related) reason while saying, "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this, then, would be an example of warms (1, 11, 21) because it is solely directed at emotional, task irrelevant feelings. Corrects Categories 8, 18, 28

Correcting behavior occurs when one tells another that the answer or behavior emitted is inappropriate or incorrect. This may be seen in behaviors of disagreement or giving corrective feedback. The verbal behavior must be directed towards the behavior of another rather than towards one's self. Parental examples of corrects (18, 28) include: "No, I disagree," "That's not correct," or "A better way could be found." If an explanation is offered as to why a particular behavior or answer is more appropriate or correct than another, this additional information should be recorded in Category 6, 16, 26 (initiates). Following a statement of correction or acceptance with a qualifying explanation and information is sometimes referred to as "public criteria" since it discloses publicly why a given behavior is correct or not and is an explanation (Category 6, 16, 26).

Infants can also emit correcting behavior toward the parents. For example, the parent may try to elicit (14, 24) our example of string





69


grabbing in the infant, but may find the infant turning away from or otherwise "disagreeing" with parental behavior. This, then, would be recorded as an 8. Correcting (8, 18, 28) or accepting (2, 12, 22) behaviors then, are task related while warming (1, 11, 21) and cooling (9, 19, 29) behaviors are person related, task irrelevant, emotional expressions.


Amplify-Direct Subdimension

It should be made clear that amplification and direction are not suited to absolute dualistic positions on a continuum. In the truest sense of the word they are not as contrasting, perhaps, as warm-cool, accept-correct, and elicit-initiate. However, there are some qualities of the two categories which are contrasting. For example, to amplify a child's contribution by asking him to extend or clarify a contribution is certainly different from directing him to do something which is not his idea to begin with. Consequently, because they serve vital functions in the RCS, both rationale-wise and operationally, amplification and direction have been included and are treated as dualistic qualities in this presentation.


Amplify Categories 3, 13, 23

Amplification is the clarification of, building on, and/or

developing of actions, behaviors, comments, and/or ideas. It is also the prolonged and continued simple imitation or expansion of another's behavior. Amplification, however, does not mean the exaggeration of an activity. It is more the building on to the behavior as in extension or continuation.





70



An adult may present the infant with a toy, which the infant takes in hand. Amplification by the child occurs if the child builds on and develops other behaviors with the toy after the object has been offered. Ongoing attention to the task beyond adult presentation as well as extension or elaboration of adult presentation without additional adult direction is also amplification.

As the term is used here, the primary purpose of amplification is to prolong, continue, "play up" or build upon one's contributions and behavior. This occurs when a behaver develops, extends and/or expands a behavior initiated by another. The infant's behavior may be amplified to the adult. If the parent says, "Oh, you'd rather crawl," to the child, this is an elaboration or amplification of that infant's behavior.

Example I: A parent's question, "What did you mean by doing that?" would be a request for clarification or amplification of a previous behavior and would be recorded in this category (13, 23). The child's response to the question, if any, might be recorded as a response (5) or amplification (3) depending on the nature of the request as well as his original contribution.

Example II: One parent's comment to the other parent on the child's behavior may be amplification. The mother may say to the father, "Oh, you see how strong he is able to grasp the string!". This is an elaboration and amplification of the child's behavior.

Example III: If a child is given a ball with which to play, amplification (3) would be checked if the behavior is continued or built upon in different ways. The child may throw, bounce, roll, pull, bite, hold, etc., the ball above and beyond a simple request to "Take the ball."





71


Directs Categories 7, 17, 27

"Directs" involves giving of directions, instruction, orders and/or assignments to which another is expected to comply. Grammatically, directing is inherent in declarative and, more appropriately, imperative types of statements which describe a task related behavior to which the directed one is supposed to comply.

For example, an infant may emit behavior which attempts to direct

adult attention, direct adult activity, or convey an expected response. Conversely, an adult may order, instruct, tell, or direct infant behavior in a specific task related direction.

As in the category of accepts or gives positive reinforcement (2, 12, 22) and corrects (8, 18, 28), this category of directs (7, 17, 27) is concerned only with task relevant behavior. If the parent directs the child in a task related manner, either 17 or 27 would be appropriately marked. However, if the parent directs the child with comments that are sharply emotional and task irrelevant, then the category of cools (19 or 29) would be appropriately marked.

Example I: The task is string pulling and the mother says, "Take the string, take the string!" This would be an example of task related directs (17).

Example II: The task is holding a ball and the infant, crying, is told, "Cut that crying out immediately!" Since this comment has a sharply emotional tone and is unrelated to the specific task, the category of cools (19 or 29) would be noted.

In Example II the direction or directing comments are either harshly delivered or given for the purpose of discipline or regimentation and thus would be recorded not as directs, but as cools (9, 19, 29).






72


Example III: "Sit down immediately!" or "Wipe that smile off your face!" would be recorded as Category 19 or 29 rather than 17 or 27 if these comments are unrelated to any specific behavioral task and are only directed at cooling the emotional climate. The category of directs (7, 17, 27) is only marked when the behavior of one person is directed by another towards the relevant task.

Example IV: The infant directs the adult with body movements and activity that convey an expected response. The infant may hold the object toward the adult--conveying a message to "Take it!"


Teaching Subdimension

The teaching concept is predicated on the assumption that transactions occur on a give-and-take basis. In this contest, any participant in a given familial situation--child and parent alike--can elicit (Categories 4, 14, 24) or initiate (Categories 6, 16, 26) information. Should information be requested, it is customary for the other to appropriately respond (Categories 5, 15, 25). Part of a give-and-take experience is the directed exposure of a child to a particular form of behavior and experience as opposed to a general experience with an adult. Elicits Categories 4, 14, 24

Generally, an eliciting verbal behavior takes the grammatical form of a question. For example, "Do you want the ball?" or "Can you lift it up?" are examples of eliciting questions. It is possible to elicit behavior by asking questions and requesting information about content, subject, or procedures being considered, with the intent that the other should answer and respond appropriately (Categories 5, 15, 25). An infant may be seen as eliciting non verbally (4) by "asking for help" and





73



assistance, while parents will elicit behavior (14, 24) by verbally asking the child to respond to task related questions.

Example I: Parent elicits: "Do you see it?" "Can you hold it?" "Do you like it?" "Do you understand?" or other task related questions for the purpose of eliciting a task related response from the child would be appropriately marked in either Categories 14 or 24.

Infants elicit behavior in a variety of ways both verbally and non verbally. The astute observer must note the behavior within the unit of analysis of the transaction between the infant and the parent.

Example II: Sounds made by the infant for the purpose of getting his parent(s) to respond may be examples of elicits (4) or directs, depending on whether the sounds were made in a questioning or directive manner: "Oooo?" or "Oooo!" Also, non verbal behaviors emitted for the purpose of eliciting parental responses are examples of elicits (4). That is, the infant may hold his arm out as he "elicits" attention or requests toys.

Any behavior which is emitted for the purpose of eliciting or securing information or other behavior is correctly recorded in Categories 4, 14, or 24.


Initiates Categories 6, 16, 26

Initiating behaviors are statements of facts, information, and/or

opinions and ideas concerning the content, subject, or procedures being considered that are self-initiated. Initiating is the expression of one's own ideas, or lecturing for the purpose of presenting facts and information.

In many cases, parental initiation will be observed as presentation of information, opinions or ideas. Infant initiation could be





74


exploratory behavior which has no observable antecedent. Initiatory behavior reflects to some degree a quality of individual choice in that the contribution is voluntary, self-initiated and at the discretion of the initiator. Should the contribution or behavior be offered at the request of another person, this is not self-initiated behavior, but a response to another and would be correctly recorded as 5, 15, 25 (responds).

Example I: One parent who may say to the other parent, "This task seems to be related to intelligence," would be an example of initiates since it is the expression of one's opinion for the purpose of presenting unelicited information (16, 26).

Example II: Infant may suddenly start talking and crawling towards a toy on the carpet would be an example of unelicited, voluntary, selfinitiated behavior (6).

Example III: Parent may say to the child, "This is a good toy and you'll enjoy playing with it a lot," or "This is a red ball," are examples of initiating behaviors toward the child since it is a statement of opinions and initiated activity for the purpose of presenting ideas to the infant (16, 26).


Responds Categories 5, 15, 25

Responds means giving of answers or responses to questions or

request for information that are directed, initiated or elicited by another person. It is also behaving in a specific manner which is the result of an elicitation or direction of another. Responses are recorded as 5 for infant, 15 for mother and 25 for father. For example, the parent's question, "Do you want the ball?" followed by the infant's taking the ball would be recorded as elicits (14 or 24) followed by 5.






75

A response can be as simple as a smile by the infant or a yes or

no, or as complex as is reasonable within our framework. Be aware of the behaver when determining whether or not the behavior is a response to another person's request (Categories 5, 15, 25) or a self-initiated, voluntarily emitted behavior (Categories 6, 16, 26). To determine whether or not infant's behavior is Category 5 (response) or 6 (initiates), the following conditions should be considered and met:

A. To which adult is the baby attending? Which adult is attending to the infant?

Example I: If the father is eliciting a behavior in the child (24), and the baby initiates behavior toward the mother (6), in this transactional matrix it should be observed that the infant is not responding to the father, but the mother might be responding to initiations of the infant.

B. Is the behavior appropriate to the question or request? Is the behavior a reasonable response in light of the information or tasks being requested? Each session will include specific tasks for mother, father and child. When one behaver responds appropriately to the behavior of another, this would be recorded as 5, 15, 25.

Example II: When a parent asks for attention and the child complies by looking to the parent, the child's response is recorded as Category 5 even though there may not be any verbal infant behavior.

Example III: If the child takes a toy after the mother says, "Do you want the toy?", this is Category 14 followed by Category 5.

Any response that is appropriate to requests or eliciting stimuli

completes a logical sequence for the purpose of plotting a transactional matrix. The behavior of responding usually follows either eliciting or directing behavior.




































APPENDIX C

HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT
















Introduction

This observation schedule requires that the observer watch behavior for 15 seconds, and then record observed behavior on the coding sheet. As an observer ask yourself, "What are the specifically designated behaviors I saw in this 15 second interval?" and then record them on the coding sheet. The videotaped behaviors you will be observing include seven different parent-infant tasks such as talking and playing.

This observation record is divided into four major categories:

General Activities, Child Activities, Parent Techniques and Encouragement Index. General Activities and Child Activities are coded by a single check or mark if the child is involved in the activity; Parent Techniques and the Encouragement Index items are marked "M" if the mother is involved, "F" if the father is involved and "MF" for both. Within each major category are specific sub-categories listed and described below:

A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES

1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning

2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning

3. Visual Pursuit (Tracking)

4. Object Permanence

5. Means and Ends Differentiation

B. CHILD ACTIVITIES

1. Mastery

2. Exploration

3. Observing by Child


77





78



4. Blank Stares

5. Seeks Emotional Comfort

C. PARENT TECHNIQUES

*1. Labeling, Reading

*2. Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion

3. Actively Engaging Child

4. Observing of Child 5. Refocusing on Task

*6. Suggestion or Command

*Numbers 1, 2, 6 when observed, are always coded additionally as Encouraging.

D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX

1. Encouragement

2. Discouragement


A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES


1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning

The main focus in this activity is on the infant's acquisition of

verbal skills, such as receptive language and formation of speech. Four examples illustrate the differing forms of this activity:

a) Child responds to and/or imitates parental elicitation:

parent says, "Oooo," and child says, "Oooo."

b) Child responds to parental requests, directions, etc.,

indicating infant language acquisition. A parent may

say, "Give it to me," followed by a correct infant response.

If the parent gives a verbal message to which the infant

correctly responds, this would be marked as receptive

language development.






79


c) If the parent gives a verbal and motor message, (e.g.,

"Do you see the toy?" as the parent holds the toy two

inches from the infant's eyes), be careful not to mark if

the child is responding to the motor message. This activity is checked if the child is engaged only in

verbal learning.

d) The infant produces speech sounds without elicitation

indicating verbal acquisition and/or symbolic learning.

Babbling is characteristic of verbal skill acquisition.

This may be incidental sound making, the key words being

speech related sounds. Crying and/or cooing may not be

verbal learning.

The first parent-infant task that has been videotaped is called Dialogue. The parents attempt verbal elicitation of baby speech or sound imitation. At earlier ages the infant only learns simple vowel sounds; the child gradually acquires consonant sounds later.


2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning

The infant differentiates in spatial orientation and visual perception or acquisition of skills for perceptual and fine motor coordination. The infant gradually acquires understanding of size, distance, angle and spatial perspective of objects. Examples may be observed in such tasks as pat-a-cake, two way stretch, dropping buttons in a jar, and bait casting.


3. Visual Pursuit

This involves visual tracking of an object by the infant through his or her visual field. The mother and/or father may hold an object and move it across the infant's visual field. If the infant usually fixes on and follows the object, this sub-category would be marked.





80


4. Object Permanence

The infant is to demonstrate awareness that even though an object is out of sight, it does not cease to exist. In the activity of hide and seek, a toy is hidden under a blanket after the baby has seen it. If the infant attentively and immediately tries to recover the hidden toy, ignoring the blanket which is covering it, then she/he has successfully demonstrated Object Permanence and this category would be marked. If the infant does not immediately go for the toy, or does not realize that the toy is hidden but instead "discovers" the toy, this would not be checked.

The infant or parent may drop an object out of the infant's visual

field and parent says, "Where did it go?" If the child then looks and/or reaches or moves in the direction where the object is, this would be Object Permanence as well as Verbal and Symbolic Learning.


5. Means-End Differentiation

This involves the extent to which the child is aware that something, i.e., a blanket or stick, (means) can be pulled or used to get a desired object (ends). For example, a toy may be placed on the far end of the blanket. The child pulls the blanket (means), in order to get the toy (ends). Here, the blanket in and of itself is not what should be interesting to the child, but instead the child should view the blanket as a means to pull the toy closer. If the child simply plays with the blanket, this would not be checked.


B. CHILD ACTIVITIES

1. Mastery

This is to be coded when the child successfully completes a

particular task or activity in the correct manner. For example, the






81


child places a button in the can, or finds the toy under the blanket.


2. Exploration

This is coded when the child explores, searches and seeks out objects in the environment. This is not task oriented behavior, but is something the child does on his own. For example, the child may cease trying to get buttons in the can and begin to crawl around exploring other things; or the child may just begin active visual exploration of the environment. Through such exploration the child is presumed to gain a certain amount of undefined cognitive input.

The infant may explore toys, gaining presumed cognitive input as

well as enjoyment. In Exploration, the infant manipulates toys, moving a truck back and forth, or inappropriately uses or abuses toys.


3. Observing by the Child

This occurs when the child looks at people or objects in his surroundings but makes no overt behavioral move to follow, respond, etc. An example is when the child just sits and watches his father try to engage him in an activity. The infant makes no overt move to respond or engage in the activity, but instead, just observes and looks.


4. Blank Stares

This is different from Observation in that the child does not seem to be watching any specific object or individual in the environment, but instead is focusing on internal processes.


5. Seeking Emotional Support

This will be difficult to observe during the first five to six months of age due to the infant's lack of person and object permanence. However,






82

seeking of emotional support may be noted during periods of selfstimulation (thumb sucking, holding blankets or other "security objects," e.g., a pacifier) which expresses emotional need for comfort, or the child "reaching out" for mother and/or father is another example of seeking emotional comfort.


C. PARENT TECHNIQUES


1. Labeling and Reading

The parent either reads to the infant or teaches the infant (i.e., how objects may be labeled). In the mirror and toy game, the infant is introduced to a mirror while the parent works with the infant on labeling, e.g., "I see (baby's name) in the mirror." Also, the parent may say, "Find ," "Look at ," or "Where is ?" The parent teaches and provides feedback to the child. If the infant picks up a ball and the parent says, "Yes, that's a ball," this is labeling and would be marked.

Labeling and Reading are always coded additionally as Encouraging.


2. Demonstration, Explanation, and Expansion

Demonstration involves showing the child what to do. Explanation and Expansion provide description of process to the infant. Imparting specific verbal knowledge, or relating information and experience to the child exemplify this activity.

This can also be nonverbal. The mother may show the infant how to get the toy by pulling the blanket while the child watches.

Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion are additionally scored as Encouraging.






83


3. Actively Engaging the Child

This technique indicates the focal effort of the parent is to engage actively in behavior together with the infant. Both parents may actively engage the infant simultaneously by playing with the infant, dramatizing for the infant or entertaining by roughhousing or playful teasing. This technique usually promotes infant enjoyment of life through reciprocal, playful, non task related behaviors.

Example A: Parent makes funny face for infant (entertains)

Example B: Parent tickles infant (Affectionate game)

Example C: Parent playfully holds a toy just beyond the reach of the infant (teasing)


4. Observing of the Child

A special ground rule here is that if and only if the parent is not involved in any other activity, would it be possible to note this behavior. The parent attends to the child by observing or looking at him. This is to be coded only when another technique is not seen throughout a 15 second interval.


5. Refocusing on the Task

This occurs when the adult tries to concentrate the child's interest and attention on an ongoing task. The child's attention may drift after an activity has been initiated and in this activity the parent refocuses the child back on the task in which the child was engaged.


6. Suggestion or Command

This activity indicates that the effort of the parent is to direct the infant to initiate a certain task related behavior. The parent may suggest, command, request, beg, urge, or ask the infant to do something;






84


or the parent may suggest by a physical gesture such as handing the infant a toy; or the parent(s) may give the infant a choice: "Which do you want, the ball or the string?" This activity is an encouragement technique and when observed, the encouragement index would also be marked.

Example A: Parent requests, "Will you hold this?"

Example B: Parent urges, "Please talk to me."

Example C: Parent orders, "No, don't do that!"

Example D: Parent suggests, "Let's try it."


D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX


1. Encouragement

2. Discouragement

The parent may Encourage or Discourage the child with either verbal or nonverbal messages. Parental Encouraging usually involves a positive supportive tone while Discouraging involves a negative tone. This does not have to be specific overt behavior, but only a parental attitude indicator toward the child's behavior.

Parental techniques of 1) Labeling and Reading, 2) Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion, and 6) Suggestion or Command, are always additionally coded as Encouraging. They may also be coded as Discouraging, when applicable.




































APPENDIX D

MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS

























TWO FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES


Factor 1 Factor 2


Accepting .42 .58 Amplifying .53 -.03 Responding .04 -.43 Eliciting .73 .01 Initiating .85 .20 Directing .56 .23



























86






87



















THREE FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES


Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Accepting .23 -.33 .61 Amplifying .47 .10 .23 Responding .00 .51 -.04 Eliciting .73 -.03 .19 Initiating .81 -.19 .32 Directing .34 .08 .60






88



















FOUR FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES


Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4


Accepting .20 -.34 .60 .14 Amplifying .40 .09 .21 .35 Responding -.01 .51 -.03 .03 Eliciting .73 -.01 .22 .04 Initiating .78 -.18 .33 .23 Directing .32 .08 .61 .07



































APPENDIX E

CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS AND INFANT VARIABLES
















***












0'.0 tr 0- 4








4 0 O4 ,-4 0


I I


0
-4


















E-Ii
>) NMOO1 0























u-4
MO N






















H H .u .,4 o --4 -r-4 o O 0 e 0 e kry C









90






91

















CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
WITH INFANT VARIABLES


Mastery Exploration MDQ PDQ



Accepting .31 .15 .01 .13 Amplifying .05 .08 .08 .27 Responding .06 .08 .20 .14 Eliciting .09 .05 .09 .11 Initiating .18 .04 .04 .01 Directing .26 .15 .01 .12





92



















CORRELATION OF INFANT VARIABLES



Mastery Exploration MDQ PDQ Mastery 1.00 .32 .36 .33 Exploration .32 1.00 .00 .04 MDQ .36 .00 1.00 .55 PDQ .33 .04 .55 1.00




Full Text
80
A. Object Permanence
The infant is to demonstrate awareness that even though an object
is out of sight, it does not cease to exist. In the activity of hide
and seek, a toy is hidden under a blanket after the baby has seen it.
If the infant attentively and immediately tries to recover the hidden
toy, ignoring the blanket which is covering it, then she/he has success
fully demonstrated Object Permanence and this category would be marked.
If the infant does not immediately go for the toy, or does not realize
that the toy is hidden but instead "discovers" the toy, this would not
be checked.
The infant or parent may drop an object out of the infant's visual
field and parent says, "Where did it go?" If the child then looks and/or
reaches or moves in the direction where the object is, this would be
Object Permanence as well as Verbal and Symbolic Learning.
5. Means-End Differentiation
This involves the extent to which the child is aware that something,
i.e., a blanket or stick, (means) can be pulled or used to get a desired
object (ends). For example, a toy may be placed on the far end of the
blanket. The child pulls the blanket (means), in order to get the toy
(ends). Here, the blanket in and of itself is not what should be inter
esting to the child, but instead the child should view the blanket as a
means to pull the toy closer. If the child simply plays with the blan
ket, this would not be checked.
B. CHILD ACTIVITIES
1. Mastery
This is to be coded when the child successfully completes a
particular task or activity in the correct manner. For example, the


CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
Accepting
Amplifying
Responding
Eliciting
Initiating
Directing
Accepting
1.00
.23
- .22
.28
.44
.44
Amplifying
.23
1.00
.06
.35
.45
.28
Responding
- .22
.06
1.00
- .02
- .11
.04
Eliciting
.28
.35
- .02
1.00
. 66
.38
Initiating
.44
.45
- .11
. 66
1.00
.45
Directing
.44
.28
.04
.38
.45
1.00


69
grabbing in the infant, but may find the infant turning away from or
otherwise "disagreeing" with parental behavior. This, then, would be
recorded as an 8. Correcting (8, 18, 28) or accepting (2, 12, 22)
behaviors then, are task related while warming (1, 11, 21) and cooling
(9, 19, 29) behaviors are person related, task irrelevant, emotional
expressions.
Amplify-Direct Subdimension
It should be made clear that amplification and direction are not
suited to absolute dualistic positions on a continuum. In the truest
sense of the word they are not as contrasting, perhaps, as warm-cool,
accept-correct, and elicit-initiate. However, there are some qualities
of the two categories which are contrasting. For example, to amplify
a child's contribution by asking him to extend or clarify a contribution
is certainly different from directing him to do something which is not
his idea to begin with. Consequently, because they serve vital functions
in the RCS, both rationale-wise and operationally, amplification and
direction have been included and are treated as dualistic qualities in
this presentation.
Amplify Categories 3, 13, 23
Amplification is the clarification of, building on, and/or
developing of actions, behaviors, comments, and/or ideas. It is also
the prolonged and continued simple imitation or expansion of another's
behavior. Amplification, however, does not mean the exaggeration of an
activity. It is more the building on to the behavior as in extension
or continuation.


CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
One purpose of this study was to determine whether parents interact
with their infants in any particular parenting style or styles. And if
parents did have distinct styles of interaction, another purpose of this
study was to determine if these parenting styles had any relationship to
their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the results of this
study for each of the original hypotheses.
Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped in a labora
tory setting on seven occasions during the infants' first year of life.
In each three-minute videotape segment, the parent-infant dyads were
involved in a structured activity, which varied with the age of the child
(see Appendix B), and infant behaviors which were on-task (mastery) and
off-task (exploration) were coded according to the Home Scale (see
Appendix C). Mental and Physical Development Indices were obtained from
the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for each infant at the age of
one year.
Results of the statistical analyses for each hypothesis of this
study are described below.
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I
Tallies for the parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting,
initiating, and directing behavior were computed over all seven videotaping
28


APPENDIX A
TASK DESCRIPTIONS


27
the Mental Scale. The Motor Scale produced a standard error of measure
ment of 4.6 to 9.0.
Limitations
1. The participants of this study were observed in a laboratory
setting. Researchers provide conflicting reports of the degree to which
a laboratory setting affects people's behavior (Belsky, 1977; Peterson,
1975). Although efforts were made to make the studio comfortable and
non-threatening, it was apparent that behavior of both parents and infants
was affected somewhat by the foreign environment.
2. The parents were informed that their infant's behavior and
development were being studied. The videotaping made it obvious that
they too were being watched. Most likely this realization altered their
behavior to some degree during the videotapings. Although parents could
not perform beyond a certain limit, they generally displayed what they
considered their best parenting behaviors.
3. Participants in this study were volunteers from the community.
The parents were necessarily committed enough to the Project to partici
pate for nearly a year with little extrinsic reward. This suggests that
this sample was not a representative sample of all families in the area
meeting the given criteria for this study.
4. The parents who agreed to be videotaped while interacting with
their first-born infant probably had a unique relationship with their
infant. In addition, they probably possessed more confidence in their
parenting skills than the average parent. This was particularly true of
fathers who customarily are not expected to be as involved with their
infants as mothers are.


63
For example, if the father says, "Do you want the ball?", and the
infant silently takes it, this would then be recorded as 24 followed by 5.
Summarizing, any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal,
unless a 10 is recorded. However, infant behaviors should be appro
priately recorded even if they are not verbal in nature.
Ground Rule II
A single continuous behavior is to be recorded every three seconds.
For example, a father may try unsuccessfully to elicit behavior from the
child for 15 seconds. This would be recorded as such 24 24 24 24 24 .
There is one mark for each three seconds of the same activity. If there
is one continuous behavior that is ongoing without any other behavior
observed, a record is then made every three seconds.
On the other hand, behaviors that occur before a three second inter
val has ended are also recorded. For example, a mother may alternately
elicit and direct her responding infant within one three second interval.
This would be recorded: 14 5 17 5 Thus, the three second interval
becomes unimportant if more than one behavior is observed in a three
second time period.
In summary, the same behavior is to be recorded a minimum of every
three seconds. If there is any change in behavior by either father,
mother or infant, this should be noted as it occurs. You must record
everything that occurs with a minimum of one recorded behavior every
three seconds. At the end of a three minute session, there will be a
minimum of 60 recorded behaviors; the maximum is dependent upon the
number of transactions that have taken place.


Page
V DISCUSSION 44
Results 44
Conclusions and Implications 47
Recommendations for Parent Education 48
Limitations 48
Recommendations for Further Research 49
Summary 50
APPENDICES
A TASK DESCRIPTIONS 53
B RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE
PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT 61
C HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT
TRANSACTION PROJECT 77
D MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS. ... 86
E CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AND INFANT VARIABLES. . 90
BIBLIOGRAPHY 93
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 99
vi


4
associated with competence. Measures of infant mental and motor develop
ment have been studied as well as the infants' mastery of tasks "taught"
by their parents and exploration. In this study exploration involved
the infants' active investigation of their environment, but essentially
off-task behavior. Furthermore, this study has examined the effect of
the infants' and parents' gender on the parents' styles of interaction
and the infant measures of competence.
Design of the Study
This study investigated infant behavior and development in relation
to parents' interactions with their infants in a structured laboratory
setting. As part of the Parent-Infant Transaction Project,* 39 white,
middle-class, two-parent families with first-born infants were recruited
from the community. Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping
sessions, occuring every six weeks, beginning when the child was 13
weeks old and ending when the child reached 49 weeks of age. At each
session, the parents were provided with a written description of an
activity to engage in with their infant (see Appendix A for task
descriptions). Each parent was videotaped separately with his/her infant
for three minutes as he/she interacted with the infant in the suggested
age and developmentally appropriate tasks.
The seven videotapes of each parent-infant dyad provided the data
for analysis for this study. Parents' verbal behaviors on the videotapes
were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The
Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix B). The six parent
behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting,
* NIMH Grant #1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01


26
A one-way analysis of variance provided the MSB and MSW figures
necessary to compute the intra-class correlations. Tallies for task-
mastery and exploration of each infant for each session were the units
of analysis for these two infant ANOVAs. Since the parenting factors
were composite scores of all seven videotaping sessions, the initial
six parent behaviors used to formulate the factor scores for each parent
became the units of analysis for the parent ANOVAs. If it had been
feasible to compute intra-class correlations of the parenting factors,
most likely they would be even greater than the intra-class correlations
obtained for the individual parenting behaviors.
The portion of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development used for this
study consisted of the 163 Mental Scale items and the 81 items of the
Psychomotor Scale. The items were ordered sequentially according to the
age when 50% of the children successfully accomplished a given item. The
instrument was standardized on a sample of 1,262 children, the sample
being stratified on the basis of sex, color, residence (urban or rural),
and educational level of the head of household. The sample was nearly
representative of the United States infant population, with only the rural
population being underrepresented. The 14 age groupings ranged from
2 to 30 months (Bayley, 1969).
Split-half reliability coefficients for the Mental Scale were from
.81 to .93, with a median of .88; while the Motor Scale range was from
.68 to .93 (median of .84). The Motor Scale reliability was presumably
lower due to the smaller number of items involved. The correlation be
tween Mental and Motor Scales was from .50 to .60 in the first year of life.
The standard error of measurement which estimates the margin of error
associated with a test score was from 4.2 to 6.9 standard score points for


APPENDIX D
MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS


58
43 Weeks
Blocks
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 striaght 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 newfound skills and for the
parents and child to enjoy playing together.


88
FOUR FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Accepting
.20
-.34
.60
.14
Amplifying
.40
.09
.21
.35
Responding
-.01
.51
-.03
.03
Eliciting
.73
-.01
.22
.04
Initiating
.78
-.18
.33
.23
Directing
.32
.08
.61
.07


49
2. Since no experimental treatments were implemented,
no direct cause-and-effeet relationships may be made on the basis of
this study.
3. Infant development measures were limited to total
scores, due to the design of this Project. If item by item scores of
the Bayley scores had been available, possibly more specific conclusions
could have been drawn from the mental and motor development scores, in
relationship to the parenting styles.
4. Since exploration was not a major focus of this study,
exploratory behavior was limited to the active, off-task behaviors of the
infants. Thus, the potential effect of infants' exploration on the other
variables being examined in this study was substantially limited.
Recommendations for Further Research
1. The three parenting styles demonstrated by the partici
pants in this study need to be explored further by researchers. Do these
same styles exist for other populations? Will fathers and mothers of
other populations behave similarly or differently? Do parents continue to
interact in the same ways as their children grow older? Additional
parenting styles could be investigated by examining parental behaviors as
parents and infants interact in a variety of situations.
2. Infants' successful completion of a task correlated
positively with parents' "Positive Direction" and negatively with parents'
"Friendly Persuasion." Do similar relationships exist for other popula
tions? Will similar relationships occur when a different set of tasks are
involved? Careful analysis of the effect of varying tasks and situations
on these relationships are also needed.


39
Table 8 continued
Infant Mental Development Index
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
43.18
43.18
.13
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
36
12144.82
337.36
Parent Gender
1
.00
.00
o
o
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.00
.00
.00
NS
Error
36
.00
.00
Infant Motor Development Index
DF SS MS F
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 35
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
64.32
64.32
.10
NS
23609.73
674.56
.00
.00
.00
NS
.00
.00
.00
NS
.00
.00
Error
35


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainsworth, Mary D. Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the infant in
interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10,
51-58.
Ainsworth, Mary D. The development of infant-mother attachment. Review of
Child Development Research III, B.M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti
(Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Bakeman, Roger, & Brown, Josephine. Behaviorial dialogues: An approach to
the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development,
1977, 48, 195-203.
Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
1951.
Bartko, Jay J. On various intra-class correlation reliability coefficients
Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83 (5), 762-765.
Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Manual. New York: The
Psychological Corporation, 1969.
Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between attributes of mothers and their
infants' IQ scores. Child Development, 1971, ^2, 1083-1097. (a)
Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between infants' vocalizations and their
mothers' behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1971, 17, 211-226.
(b)
Beckwith, Leila, Cohen, Sarale E., Kopp, Claire B., Parmelee, Arthur H.,
& Marcy, Toni G. Caregiver-infant interaction and early cogni
tive development in preterm infants, Child Development, 1976,
47, 579-587.
Bell, R.Q., & Harper, L. Effects of the Young on Adults in Man and Other
Animals. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Bell, Silvia M. The development of the concept of object as related to
infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 1970, 41 (2).
291-311.
Belsky, Jay. Mother-infant interaction at home and in the laboratory, the
effect of context. A paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, La.,
March, 1977.
93


81
child places a button in the can, or finds the toy under the blanket.
2. Exploration
This is coded when the child explores, searches and seeks out ob
jects in the environment. This is not task oriented behavior, but is
something the child does on his own. For example, the child may cease
trying to get buttons in the can and begin to crawl around exploring
other things; or the child may just begin active visual exploration of
the environment. Through such exploration the child is presumed to
gain a certain amount of undefined cognitive input.
The infant may explore toys, gaining presumed cognitive input as
well as enjoyment. In Exploration, the infant manipulates toys, moving
a truck back and forth, or inappropriately uses or abuses toys.
3. Observing by the Child
This occurs when the child looks at people or objects in his sur
roundings but makes no overt behavioral move to follow, respond, etc.
An example is when the child just sits and watches his father try to
engage him in an activity. The infant makes no overt move to respond
or engage in the activity, but instead, just observes and looks.
4. Blank Stares
This is different from Observation in that the child does not seem
to be watching any specific object or individual in the environment, but
instead is focusing on internal processes.
5. Seeking Emotional Support
This will be difficult to observe during the first five to six months
of age due to the infant's lack of person and object permanence. However,


30
MEAN
TABLE 1
SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Accepting
13.06
10.04
Amplifying
7.95
6.97
Responding
3.45
2.74
Eliciting
30.03
19.17
Initiating
26.54
19.23
Directing
38.76
22.52


75
A response can be as simple as a smile by the infant or a yes or
no, or as complex as is reasonable within our framework. Be aware of
the behaver when determining whether or not the behavior is a response
to another person's request (Categories 5, 15, 25) or a self-initiated,
voluntarily emitted behavior (Categories 6, 16, 26). To determine
whether or not infant's behavior is Category 5 (response) or 6 (initiates),
the following conditions should be considered and met:
A. To which adult is the baby attending? Which adult is
attending to the infant?
Example I: If the father is eliciting a behavior in the child (24),
and the baby initiates behavior toward the mother (6), in this trans
actional matrix it should be observed that the infant is not responding
to the father, but the mother might be responding to initiations of
the infant.
B. Is the behavior appropriate to the question or request?
Is the behavior a reasonable response in light of the information or
tasks being requested? Each session will include specific tasks for
mother, father and child. When one behaver responds appropriately to
the behavior of another, this would be recorded as 5, 15, 25.
Example II: When a parent asks for attention and the child complies
by looking to the parent, the child's response is recorded as Category 5
even though there may not be any verbal infant behavior.
Example III: If the child takes a toy after the mother says, "Do
you want the toy?", this is Category 14 followed by Category 5.
Any response that is appropriate to requests or eliciting stimuli
completes a logical sequence for the purpose of plotting a transactional
matrix. The behavior of responding usually follows either eliciting or
directing behavior.


5
initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Two infant
behaviors were studied; they were the task-mastery and exploration items
from the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project
(see Appendix C). In addition, the Bayley Scales Of Infant Development
were the basis of obtaining the Mental and Motor Development Indices for
each child at one year of age.
Scope of the Study
The major purposes of this study were:
1. to determine if parents of infants may be categorized
or described by their styles of interaction
2. to determine if infants' mastery of a task, exploration,
mental or motor development relate to their parents'
styles of interaction.
Specific questions posed by this study were:
1. Do parents' behaviors when interacting with their infants
cluster to form distinct styles of interaction or
parenting styles?
2. Is there a relationship between a parent's style of
interaction and the infant's task-mastery, exploration,
mental or motor development?
3. Will the parent's gender or the infant's gender, or the
interaction of parent and infant gender affect the
parent's style of interaction?
4. Will the parent's gender, or the infant's gender, or the
interaction of parent and infant gender affect the infant's
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development?


3
orientation" of mothers were more predictive of boys' competence than of
girls' competence. In addition, differences in parenting techniques
were found to develop over a period of time (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).
Only a few studies have suggested that parents have distinct
styles of interaction with their infants, or that parents' interaction
styles are related to infants' behavior and development (Gordon, 1974;
Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Research on the classroom
behavior of teachers, however, has led to some tentative conclusions
regarding the relationship between teachers' interactional styles and
children's behavior in the classroom, and particularly children's achieve
ment. For example, three prominent studies of low SES primary grade
children concur that "direct instruction" was the most effective pattern
for optimal academic achievement (Rosenshine, 1976a). Time spent on
academic activities was also positively correlated to achievement,
whereas time spent on non-academic activities was negatively correlated
to academic gains (Rosenshine, 1976b). A more surprising finding
indicates that teachers' positive affective behavior may be negatively
correlated with academic achievement (Soar and Soar, 1978) .
Just as academic achievement is of concern to teachers,parents are
concerned about their infant's competence. Most likely, they want their
infant to have average or above average ability in developmental skills
and to be involved and successful in tasks appropriate for their child's
age and developmental level. But what parent behaviors relate most
positively to infant competence? Is one parenting style more appropriate
than another in "teaching" an infant a new task?
This study has investigated the relationships between parents'
styles of interaction with their infants and certain infant variables


My co-workers in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project also deserve
thanks, as well as the parents and infants whose participation in the
project made it such a valuable and enjoyable learning experience. In
addition, I will fondly remember Dr. Ira Gordon for his fine leadership
and genuine delight as parents and infants interacted in the videotaping
sessions.
iv


79
c) If the parent gives a verbal and motor message, (e.g.,
"Do you see the toy?" as the parent holds the toy two
inches from the infant's eyes), be careful not to mark if
the child is responding to the motor message. This
activity is checked if the child is engaged only in
verbal learning.
d) The infant produces speech sounds without elicitation
indicating verbal acquisition and/or symbolic learning.
Babbling is characteristic of verbal skill acquisition.
This may be incidental sound making, the key words being
speech related sounds. Crying and/or cooing may not be
verbal learning.
The first parent-infant task that has been videotaped is called
Dialogue. The parents attempt verbal elicitation of baby speech or
sound imitation. At earlier ages the infant only learns simple vowel
sounds; the child gradually acquires consonant sounds later.
2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning
The infant differentiates in spatial orientation and visual percep
tion or acquisition of skills for perceptual and fine motor coordination.
The infant gradually acquires understanding of size, distance, angle and
spatial perspective of objects. Examples may be observed in such tasks
as pat-a-cake, two way stretch, dropping buttons in a jar, and bait casting.
3. Visual Pursuit
This involves visual tracking of an object by the infant through his
or her visual field. The mother and/or father may hold an object and
move it across the infant's visual field. If the infant usually fixes
on and follows the object, this sub-category would be marked.


56
31 Weeks
Bait Casting
Children love to pull on strings. You may remember the earlier
game of grabbing and pulling on the elastic. Here we take advantage of
his interest and skill to teach him a new way of getting something he
wants. The best arrangement is to sit at a table with your baby on your
lap and place a piece of twine, shoestring, or cord on the table so he'll
pick it up and pull on it.
Later, tie the toy to one end of the string and put it at the far
end of the table so the baby can get it by pulling the string to him.
When he has enjoyed this for a while, leave that string with the
object tied to it and add two plain strings. Let him see what happens
as he pulls each string. He will discover that only one string brings
an object. Accompany this with words like, "You didn't get anything."
"Oh! that one got the toy."
After this general play, see if you can teach him always to pull
the right string. Place them in different places where he can see the
connection between string and toy and say, "Get the toy."
First he'll be interested only in the string, then in the toy.
Gradually he'll be aware of both, but he won't realize they are
connected. Then he'll "experiment" and finally use the string to bring
the toy to him.


36
by the Bayley Scales, are not related to parents' styles of interaction
with their infants.
To summarize, only one of the infant variables related to a signi
ficant degree with the parenting styles. A strong positive relationship
occurred between infant task-mastery and the positive direction of
parents. Surprisingly, the task-mastery correlated negatively with
parents' "Friendly Persuasion." That is, infants whose parents were both
directive and accepting were more successful in the mastery of given
tasks than infants whose parents provided information (initiated), asked
questions (elicited), or amplified in the structured activity setting.
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis III
An ANOVA procedure was run on each of the three parenting factors with
Infant gender, Parent gender, and Infant gender X Parent gender as the
independent measures. Parent gender was treated as a repeated measure and
Family ID was nested within Baby gender to eliminate any common variance
of each family from the error term. As predicted, the analysis indicates
that parenting styles were not affected by infant gender and/or parent
gender (see Table 7).
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis IV
An ANOVA procedure with Parent gender as a repeated measure and
Family ID nested within Baby gender was computed on each of the four
infant variables. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there
was any relationship between infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or
physical development and infant's gender, parent's gender, or the inter
action of parent and infant gender. As predicted and reported in Table 8,
there were no significant results. Mean scores for the infant variables
grouped according to parent and infant gender are reported on Table 9.


APPENDIX B
RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN
THE PARENT-INFANT TRNASACTION PROJECT


57
37 Weeks
Hide-and-Seek
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.


64
Warm-Cool Subdimension
Warms (Informalizes) the Climate Categories 1, 11, 21
Parent or child "warms" deals with feelings and emotions displayed
by the particular person being observed. Warming behavior tends to
reduce or release tension and/or alleviate threat by means of sincere
and genuine warmth on the part of the initiator. If the child is crying,
and a parent verbally coos or laughs while cuddling, fondling, hugging,
or holding the child, this is viewed as warming the climate by the
parent. Clarifying and accepting the feelings and emotions of another
in a warm and friendly manner, even though the feelings or emotions
being clarified are positive or negative is viewed as warming behavior.
If the parent encourages or praises the non-task oriented behavior,
comments, ideas and/or contributions of the child in a sincerely loving
and positive manner, this is warming (11, 21). Generally, this category,
as well as 9, 19 (cools) deals principally with the socioemotional
climate, based mainly on feelings and emotions and not task related behavior.
Baby warming behavior could include smiles, laughs, gurgles, cooing,
etc. Self-reinforcing behavior may also fall into the category of
"warms". An example of this would be if a baby is thumb sucking or
other self-stimulating behaviors.
If there is no ongoing task activity, and the parents tell the child
how "good" he or she is, this is also warming and would come under
this category.
Warming or cooling the environment are task irrelevant, people
oriented behaviors. For example, a parent may say, "Ooh, you're such a
pretty baby,' even though there may be no discernible antecedent or


18
every normal infant's repertoire of behavior whether a mother attempts to
"teach" her infant or not? Would similar results occur for fathers? And
what relationships between parental teaching behaviors and infant measures
of competence exist for white middle-class parents? This study was
designed to answer some of these questions.
Knowledge of other relationships between teaching behaviors and
competence factors is developing from current research on classroom
teachers. Three in-depth, longitudinal studies on the relationship be
tween teachers' interactions in the classroom and student achievement
strongly suggest that directive teaching approaches are more successful
than non-directive approaches. More specifically, children of low socio
economic status profit most from a drill pattern consisting of direct
questions, followed by positive reinforcement of correct responses
(Rosenshine, 1976a).
In addition, the Soars (1978) report that positive affect is negatively
correlated with student gains in basic skills, and studies by Brophy and
Evertson, Soar, and Perham all indicate that teachers of low socioeconomic
status students who are effective at teaching basic skills do less
"amplifying, discussing, or using pupil answers than the ineffective
teacher" (Medley, 1977, p. 17).
Infant researchers must begin to ask if similar relationships exist
between infant competence and the parenting styles of infants' first teachers.
Summary
Infant research has only begun to explore the ways that parents can
and do help their infants learn. Yet, the research conducted thus far has
already suggested that a number of parental attributes and behaviors do or


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillinent of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT
By
Karen Jane Long
June 1979
Chairman: Linda L. Lamme
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had dis
tinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so,
whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. In
addition, the relationship between parenting styles and the gender of the
parent and/or infant was explored as well as the relationship between the
four infant competence measures and parent gender, infant gender, and the
interaction of parent and infant gender.
The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born
infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community
for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project (NIMH //1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01).
Only white, middle-class two-parent families who had completed at least
six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were
included in this sample.
Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions in a
laboratory setting, once every six weeks, beginning when the infant was
13 weeks old and ending at 40 weeks of age. At each session the parents
were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with
vii


87
THREE
FACTOR MATRIX
OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Accepting
.23
-.33
.61
Amplifying
.47
.10
.23
Responding
.00
.51
-.04
Eliciting
.73
-.03
.19
Initiating
.81
-.19
.32
Directing
.34
.08
.60


74
exploratory behavior which has no observable antecedent. Initiatory
behavior reflects to some degree a quality of individual choice in that
the contribution is voluntary, self-initiated and at the discretion of
the initiator. Should the contribution or behavior be offered at the
request of another person, this is not self-initiated behavior, but a
response to another and would be correctly recorded as 5, 15, 25 (responds).
Example I: One parent who may say to the other parent, "This task
seems to be related to intelligence," would be an example of initiates
since it is the expression of one's opinion for the purpose of
presenting unelicited information (16, 26).
Example II: Infant may suddenly start talking and crawling towards
a toy on the carpet would be an example of unelicited, voluntary, self-
initiated behavior (6).
Example III: Parent may say to the child, "This is a good toy and
you'll enjoy playing with it a lot," or "This is a red ball," are
examples of initiating behaviors toward the child since it is a state
ment of opinions and initiated activity for the purpose of presenting
ideas to the infant (16, 26).
Responds Categories 5, 15, 25
Responds means giving of answers or responses to questions or
request for information that are directed, initiated or elicited by
another person. It is also behaving in a specific manner which is the
result of an elicitation or direction of another. Responses are
recorded as 5 for infant, 15 for mother and 25 for father. For example,
the parent's question, "Do you want the ball?" followed by the infant's
taking the ball would be recorded as elicits (14 or 24) followed by 5.


54
19 Weeks
Two-way Stretch
This game's aim is to give your baby practice in controlling things
around him by using his body.
Take the toya small telephone rattle with an elastic strip
attachedand dangle it near the baby. Encourage him to reach and grab
for it. Use such words as "get", "grab" and "catch" while you're
playing together.
When he does grasp it, pull gently away so there's some stretch
between you and him. Get into a push-pull game with him, saying, "Pull.
You'll pull and I'll pull." Then gently release it and repeat. Try it
so that he uses both hands.
Be sure it's fun and not teasing. Keep the toy so he can get it
when he makes an effort. Remember that the underlying principle you
want to convey to your baby is that it's worthwhile trying to do
things, that an effort on his part can have gratifying results.
When he makes sounds of pleasure because he has grabbed it, respond
to these sounds by repeating them. Enjoy his enjoyment.


50
3. Task-mastery was the only infant variable which
related to parenting styles in this study. A more in-depth study of
various aspects and kinds of exploration is needed, to see how these
components related to other aspects of infant competence as well as to
parenting styles. Parents not only may affect infants' exploration by
the way they interact, but also by the type of environments they permit
or create for their infants to explore. It may be wise to investigate
how to encourage creative exploration by our children in addition to
successful task-mastery if they are to be better able to cope with a
quickly changing world around them.
4. Parenting styles in a more natural setting may very
well differ from parents' interactional styles in a laboratory. And
parents' ways of relating to infants from day to day may have a more
significant effect on infants' competence than the styles parents exhibit
in a structured activity. These issues all need to be explored.
5. Measures of infant competence, such as the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development, may have more meaning if analyzed item by
item (Yarrow, 1972) Research on the relationship between competency
items or composites and parenting styles may be relevant for the future.
Summary
The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had
distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and if so,
whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to infants'
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. The minor purposes
of this study were to determine if parenting styles or infants' task-mastery,


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
There is growing interest among educators in the role of the parent
in the development of the infant. More specifically, the interaction of
parent and child in the first year of life is believed to have a signifi
cant influence on the infant's behavior and development. The purpose of
this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles
when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles
of interaction had any relationship to their infants' mastery of a task,
exploration, mental or motor development. The Bayley Scales of Infant
Development (Bayley, 1969), administered to each infant at the age of one
year, provided the Mental and Motor Development Indices for this study.
The parenting behaviors and infants' task-mastery and exploration scores
were based on systematic videotaped observations of structured activities
involving parents and their infants. A parenting style has been defined
as one or more ways in which a parent consistently relates to and verbally
interacts with his/her infant.
Need for the Study
Researchers have found that a variety of parental behaviors during
parent interaction with their infant relates to the infant's development.
For example, stimulation in the form of more handling of low-birth-weight
infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scale (Powell, 1974).
1


The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) consists of nine behavioral
categories, each of which can be assigned to either parental or infant
behaviors as well as one other category (10) reserved for silence,
confusion and sleeping behaviors. When infant behavior is observed,
this is recorded in one of nine appropriate categories and is marked as
a single digit number (1-9). When mother's verbal behavior is observed,
the appropriate category (11-19) is marked. This is similar for father'
verbal behavior which is marked in categories 21-29. With the intro
duction of the reciprocity factorallowing each of the nine categories
to be assigned either to father, mother or childthe system is actually
expanded to an operational total of 28 categories (three different
persons times the nine common categories plus Category 10 for silence,
confusion and sleeping, for a total of 27 + 1 = 28).
This protocol represents a clarification of the original classroom
RCS (Ober, ^t al., 1968) as it was modified for use in an infant-parent
education project (Gordon and Jester, 1972).
Summary of Categories for the Reciprocal Category System
in the
Parent-Infant
Transaction Project
Infant
Category
Mother
Category
Father
Category
Behavioral Title of Category
1
11
21
Warms (informalizes) the climate
2
12
22
Accepts or gives positive reinforce
ment
3
13
23
Amplifies
4
14
24
Elicits
61


38
TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT VARIABLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER
Infant Task-Mastery
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
2.00
2.00
.03
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
2770.85
74.89
Parent Gender
1
.46
.46
.02
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
44.59
44.59
1.74
NS
Error
37
947.95
25.62
Infant Exploration
DF
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
SS
MS
F
442.51
442.51
3.24
NS
5055.98
136.65
22.62
22.62
.68
NS
59.54
59.54
1.79
NS
1230.85
33.27
Error
37


82
seeking of emotional support may be noted during periods of self
stimulation (thumb sucking, holding blankets or other "security objects,"
e.g., a pacifier) which expresses emotional need for comfort, or the
child "reaching out" for mother and/or father is another example of
seeking emotional comfort.
C. PARENT TECHNIQUES
1, Labeling and Reading
The parent either reads to the infant or teaches the infant (i.e.,
how objects may be labeled). In the mirror and toy game, the infant is
introduced to a mirror while the parent works with the infant on label
ing, e.g., "I see (baby's name) in the mirror." Also, the parent
may say, "Find ," "Look at ," or "Where is ?" The
parent teaches and provides feedback to the child. If the infant picks
up a ball and the parent says, "Yes, that's a ball," this is labeling
and would be marked.
Labeling and Reading are always coded additionally as Encouraging.
2. Demonstration, Explanation, and Expansion
Demonstration involves showing the child what to do. Explanation
and Expansion provide description of process to the infant. Imparting
specific verbal knowledge, or relating information and experience to the
child exemplify this activity.
This can also be nonverbal. The mother may show the infant how to
get the toy by pulling the blanket while the child watches.
Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion are additionally scored
as Encouraging.


TOO FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Accepting
.42
.58
Amplifying
.53
-.03
Responding
.04
-.43
Eliciting
.73
.01
Initiating
.85
.20
Directing
.56
.23
86


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.
Gordon D.
Associate Professor of Instructional
Leadership and Support
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Division of
Curriculum and Instruction 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.
June 1979
Dean, Graduate School


84
or the parent may suggest by a physical gesture such as handing the
infant a toy; or the parent(s) may give the infant a choice: "Which do
you want, the ball or the string?" This activity is an encouragement
technique and when observed, the encouragement index would also be marked.
Example A: Parent requests, "Will you hold this?"
Example B: Parent urges, "Please talk to me."
Example C: Parent orders, "No, don't do that!"
Example D: Parent suggests, "Let's try it."
D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX
1, Encouragement
2. Discouragement
The parent may Encourage or Discourage the child with either verbal
or nonverbal messages. Parental Encouraging usually involves a positive
supportive tone while Discouraging involves a negative tone. This does
not have to be specific overt behavior, but only a parental attitude
indicator toward the child's behavior.
Parental techniques of 1) Labeling and Reading, 2) Demonstration,
Explanation and Expansion, and 6) Suggestion or Command, are always
additionally coded as Encouraging. They may also be coded as Discourag
ing, when applicable.


13
each home, the research demonstrated that the variety, responsiveness,
and complexity of objects in the infants' surroundings produce different
yet significant correlations with various factors from the Bayley Scales
of Infant Development. Separate correlations of the Bayley factors also
exist with the level and variety of social stimulation as well as mothers
contingent responsiveness to vocalizations and distress. Although the
specific results of the study are too extensive to itemize in this review
the study emphasized the complexity of environmental factors which affect
infants' competence and capacity for learning.
A more specific concern of infant researchers is the effect of the
laboratory setting on research results. Belsky (1977) directly studied
the differences between mother-child interaction at home and in the
laboratory in his observations of 24 middle-class mothers with their
12-month-old infants. Mothers observed in just the laboratory setting
exhibited twice as much responsive and interactive behavior and were four
times more active than mothers observed only at home. Mothers observed
in both situations also doubled their activity, responsiveness, and inter
action with their infants in the laboratory setting. However, the dis
crepancies in behavior may be at least partially explained by the
instructions mothers were given in the experiment. Prior to the home
observations, mothers were instructed to go about their normal home
activities and to ignore the observer, while mothers in the laboratory
were told to pretend they were home with free time on their hands.
While Belsky noted differences, Peterson (1975) found similarities
in the behaviors emitted in home and laboratory settings. However,
behavioral changes of parents and/or infants varied with the situation in
a number of other studies. With caretaking activities, for example,


21
Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, spaced
six weeks apart. The first session occurred when the infant was 13 weeks
old, and the final session at 49 weeks of age. The videotapings took
place at the University of Florida in a 12' x 12' enclosure with light
blue walls and carpeting within a larger room, designed for the Project.
The videotape equipment consisted of three black and white cameras and
monitors, two %-inch reel-to-reel recorders, and one camera mixer.
These videotaping procedures were designed by a media specialist and
pilot tested prior to use with these subjects.
A few minutes prior to each videotaping the parents were provided
with a written description of an age-appropriate task adapted from
Baby Learning Through Baby Play (Gordon, 1970) (see Appendix A).
Each set of parents received the same instructions for each age and were
asked to interact with their child involving the described activity.
Three separate three-minute long videotape segments were done on each
occasion in a randomly assigned order. These segments consisted of
mother with infant, father with infant, and both parents with infant.
Only segments of videotape involving each parent alone with the infant
were analyzed for this study. The videotaping segments with both
parents and their infant were not included since the interaction of the
two parents would have complicated the statistical analyses beyond the
scope of this study.
When the infants reached one year of age, the Bayley Scales of
Infant Development were administered.


72
Example III: "Sit down immediately!" or "Wipe that smile off your
face!" would be recorded as Category 19 or 29 rather than 17 or 27 if
these comments are unrelated to any specific behavioral task and are
only directed at cooling the emotional climate. The category of directs
(7, 17, 27) is only marked when the behavior of one person is directed
by another towards the relevant task.
Example IV: The infant directs the adult with body movements and
activity that convey an expected response. The infant may hold the
object toward the adultconveying a message to "Take it!"
Teaching Subdimension
The teaching concept is predicated on the assumption that trans
actions occur on a give-and-take basis. In this contest, any participant
in a given familial situationchild and parent alikecan elicit
(Categories 4, 14, 24) or initiate (Categories 6, 16, 26) information.
Should information be requested, it is customary for the other to
appropriately respond (Categories 5, 15, 25). Part of a give-and-take
experience is the directed exposure of a child to a particular form of
behavior and experience as opposed to a general experience with an adult.
Elicits Categories 4, 14, 24
Generally, an eliciting verbal behavior takes the grammatical form of
a question. For example, "Do you want the ball?" or "Can you lift it
up?" are examples of eliciting questions. It is possible to elicit
behavior by asking questions and requesting information about content,
subject, or procedures being considered, with the intent that the other
should answer and respond appropriately (Categories 5, 15, 25). An
infant may be seen as eliciting non verbally (4) by "asking for help" and


31
TABLE 2
FACTOR
LOADINGS OF THREE
PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
"Friendly
Persuasion"
Factor 2
"Responding"
Factor 3
"Positive
Direction"
V5
Initiating
.87
V4
Eliciting
.69
V2
Amplifying
.46
V3
Responding
.59
VI
Accepting
.66
V6
Directing
.58


46
Hypothesis III which states that there will be no difference in
parents' styles of interaction based on infant gender, parent gender, or
the interaction of parent and infant gender was supported. This finding
differs from several other research findings, yet these other studies
are limited to infants' attachment to mothers and fathers, and the
amount and kind of activity and conversation they exhibit with their
infants rather than structured learning situations. Only one study
reported that fathers encouraged infants' curiosity and cognitive and
motoric activities more than mothers did (Biller, 1974). Possibly no
differences existed between mothers' and fathers' parenting styles in
this study because the fathers in this sample were more involved with
their infants or exhibited better parenting skills than the average
father, and thus their parenting behaviors more closely resembled
mothers' parenting styles.
Sex of the infant also had no significant relationship to parents'
interaction styles. Although a few studies have reported differences in
mothers' interactions with their children based on the children's gender,
the nature of these differences have not been consistent. One study,
for example, reported that mothers verbalized more with female than
with male toddlers (Fagot, 1974) while another study stated that mothers
initiated and directed more activity with male infants than with female
infants (Bakeman & Brown, 1977) Possibly the relationship between
children's gender and parents' interaction styles varies with the situa
tion and age of the child. The fact that this study combined the results
of seven videotaping sessions, and thus seven different situations and
ages, may explain why no differences in parenting styles based on infant


12
these differences varied, too, with the age and sex of the infant.
Comparisons of mothers' and fathers' interactions with their infants in
"teaching" situations, however, are practically nonexistent. Nor is
there much evidence on parental sex differences in relationship to
infant measures of competence. Thus, both of these issues have been
included in this study.
Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant Interactions
Responses of infants, particularly in terms or what and how they
learn, may be affected by factors outside of the parent-child relationship.
Observation of toy preferences (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969), for example,
shows that toys offering "the most varied possibilities for manipulation"
(p. 27) such as blocks, receive the most attention. Differences in
amount of infant task-mastery and exploration, two variables which this
study analyzes, possibly were affected by the toys available to the infant
although the selection of toys was limited.
Likewise, the infant's response to social versus non-social objects
seems to differ. One study (Eckerman & Rheingold, 1974) found that
whereas toys were approached and contacted, the infant was more inclined
to just look and smile at people. In addition, more exploration was
apparent with responsive than non-responsive adults. Another researcher
found that the social consequences emitting from a stranger, including
being smiled at, talked to, and touched, increased the vocalization of
institutionalized infants (Weisberg, 1963).
An extensive analysis of the home environment of 41 black infants
(Yarrow et al., 1972) pointed to numerous important relationships between
infants' competence and both the social and inanimate environment.
Based on six hours of time-sampled observations of normal activity in


2
In addition, verbal stimulation (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), mutual gazing
(Schmidt & Hore, 1970), maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967), and
mothers' "sensitive pacing" (Wexler & Yarrow, 1975) all related posi
tively to infants' development.
Although mother-infant dyads have been studied more often than
father-infant dyads, according to some studies, fathers have a unique
impact upon their infants. Fathers, for example, hold their infants
more often for purposes of play while mothers hold their infants more
for caretaking purposes (Lamb, 1977). Available evidence has suggested
that qualitative differences exist in how mothers and fathers relate to
their infants from birth (Lamb, 1975), although these differences have
been viewed as either situational (Lamb, 1975), cultural (Kotelchuck,
1976), or "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction
than a predisposed biological disposition" (Kotelchuck, 1976, p. 343).
A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969;
Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) have demon
strated that the sex of the infant also has a significant relationship
with his or her behavior. In the Goldberg and Lewis study of children
up to the age of thirteen months, for instance, boy infants were signifi
cantly more independent and exploratory than girl infants while girl
infants were more verbal than their male counterparts (1969) .
Other studies have found differences in the ways in which parents
interact with their infants, relative to the infants' sex. Mothers in
one study tended to initiate and direct more activity with boy babies
than with girl babies (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Gordon (1974), looking
at the patterns of behavior occurring in the mother-infant transaction,
also found sex differences. Certain factors such as the "performance


APPENDIX C
HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT


96
Medley, Donald M. Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review
of Process-Product Research. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1977.
Millar, W. Stuart. Social reinforcement of a manipulative response in
six- and nine-month-old infants. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 1976, 17, 205-212.
Moss, H.A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant inter
action. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 19-36.
Moss, H.A., & Robson, K. Maternal influences in early social-visual
behavior. Child Development, 1968, 401-408.
Ober, R.L., Wood, W.E., & Roberts, A. An instructional manual for the
Reciprocal Category System. Based on a paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, 1968.
Olmstead, Patricia. Observational studies of parental teaching behaviors:
A review of the literature. Unpublished paper, University of
Florida, 1975.
Osofsky, Joy, & Hung, David. Personality correlates of parental teaching
behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1972, 121, 3-10.
Osofsky, Joy, & O'Connell, Edward. Parent-child interaction: Daughters'
effects upon mothers' and fathers' behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 1972, 1_ (2), 157-168.
Peterson, M.A. The study of a methodology for observing mother-infant
interaction patterns during the second year of life. Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1975, 36^ (12-8), 895.
Powell, Louisa Feldman. The effect of extra stimulation and maternal
involvement on the development of low-birth-weight infants and
on maternal behavior. Child Development, 1974, 4_5, 106-113.
Radin, Norma. The role of the father in cognitive, academic and intellec
tual development. The Role of the Father in Child Development,
Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 237-275.
Ramey, Craig, Finkelstein, Neal, & O'Brien, Carolyn. Toys and infant
behavior in the first year of life. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1976, 129, 341-342.
Rebelsky, F. & Hanks, C. Fathers' verbal interaction with infants in the
first three months of life. Child Development, 1971, 42, 63-68.
Reichle, Joe, Longhurst, Thomas, & Stepanich, Lyanne. Verbal interaction
in mother-child dyads. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12 (4).
273-277.


their infant. Mothers and fathers were videotaped separately for three
minutes as they interacted with their infant.
Parent verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to
the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction
Project. The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, ampli
fying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing verbalizations of
the parents. Infant task-mastery and exploration item behaviors were
coded according to the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction
Project. Mental and Psychomotor Development Indices were obtained at one
year of age from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development.
Three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant
interactions. The'first parenting style, called "Friendly Persuasion,"
included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behavior. Another
parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third style, called
"Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive
reinforcements to the infant.
Only the infants' mastery of a task correlated significantly with
any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly
Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction."
Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not signifi
cantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no
significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or
parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental
and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or
parent gender.
viii


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Karen Jane Long was born in Long Branch, New Jersey, in 1945. She
attended public schools in New Jersey, graduating from Millville High
School in 1963. She received her B.A. degree from Drew University,
Madison, New Jersey, in 1967, majoring in sociology, and was granted
a M.A.T. degree from George Washington University, Washington, D.C.,
in 1968, with a major in primary education.
For four years, Karen worked for the New Jersey Bureau of
Children's Services, first as a social worker, and later as a supervisor
of day care activities in Camden, New Jersey. She also was director of
the Camden Day Nursery for three years.
In January, 1976, Karen began work towards her Ph.D. in early
childhood education at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.
While studying at Florida, she was a research assistant on the Parent-
Infant Transaction Project with Dr. Ira Gordon, and taught courses in
Early Childhood Education and the Social Foundations of Education.
Karen is presently Assistant Professor of Education and Director
of the Child Development School at the University of South Carolina,
Salkehatchie Campus at Allendale, South Carolina.
99


14
fathers decreased their verbalizations with their infants (Rebelsky &
Hanks, 1971) and the appearance of a stranger changed infants' affilia-
tive behavior towards their parents (Lamb, 1976a). And Clarke-Stewart
(1973) noted significant changes in the entire parent-infant interaction
patterns when comparing free play and structured situations at home.
Three aspects of an infant's world, then, produced differences in
infant and parent behaviors. The type of objects or people in their
environment appeared to alter infants' behavior and the setting of the
interaction affected infant and parent behavior. Furthermore, a rela
tionship was found to exist between infant competence and the complexity
of the environment (Yarrow, et al., 1972). These results emphasized the
need to control extraneous variables as much as possible in order to
minimize error. Thus, in this study, the setting remained constant, the
choice of toys was generally limited, and the activities used were con
sistent at each age.
Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to Infant Competence
Generally no significant relationship between social class and
infants' success on mental competence has been noted under two years of
age (Bayley, 1969). However, one study (Beckwith, 1971a) of 24 adopted
infants living in middle-class homes indicates a positive correlation
between the infants' Cattell 10 scores and their natural mothers' social
class. In addition, Beckwith noted a relationship between infant compe
tence and the experiences provided by the adopter mothers. With increased
verbal and physical contact by the mothers, the infants' Cattell test
scores increased. And more opportunities to explore at home and to inter
act with persons outside of the family both related positively to
infant competence.


CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Results
The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents
had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and
if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to
their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
The minor purposes of this study were to determine if infant gender,
parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender had any
relationship to parents' styles of interaction or to infants' task-
mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
Hypothesis I was supported by the data which indicated that there
were three distinct parenting styles. The first style of interaction,
labelled "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' verbal initiations,
elicitations, and amplifications, as they interacted with their infants.
The second style, "Responsive Parenting," applied to parents who responded
only when the infants requested or demanded a response from them.
"Positive Direction," the third parenting style, described parents who
primarily gave verbal directions, instruction, and positive reinforcement
to their infants.
Hypothesis II, which states that there will be no relationship be
tween a parent's style of interactions and infant's task-mastery, explo
ration, mental or motor development was partially rejected. No significant
44


65
task related motivation for this sort of approval. Warming, in this
example, is purely an expression of love and care, and is not a
reinforcement for some behaviorial task. A general ground rule for the
warm-cool subdimension is to record this dimension only if the warming
or cooling deals with the emotional climate, not the task activity.
This will help you as an observer to differentiate warms from accepts
and cools from corrects. Warms and cools, as mentioned earlier are
emotionally "people" oriented task irrelevant categories, while accepts
and corrects are "task" oriented behavioral categories.
Cools (Formalizes) the Climate Categories 9, 19, 29
As in the warming category, this dimension deals principally with
situations that directly involve feelings and emotions. Some parents
or children may be so logical and dispassionate that warming or cooling
behaviors may not be observed. Conversely, some parents or children may
be predominantly warm and/or cool separately or interchangeably.
Cooling behavior may tend to create tension if statements are
intended to modify behavior of another from an inappropriate toward a
more appropriate pattern. Their tension may occur as a result of such
cooling behaviors as irritation, bawling out someone, rejecting or
criticizing the opinion or judgements or another, or exercising control
in order to gain or maintain authority of a situation.
Cooling behavior tends to produce threat and/or create tension.
Implied in the cooling are usually efforts toward sarcasm, ridicule,
regimentation, or alienation or another. Some examples of infant and/or
adult cooling behaviors are active or passive aggression, crying, hitting,
biting, etc., as well as attempts to leave, crawl away or other uncooperation.


73
assistance, while parents will elicit behavior (14, 24) by verbally
asking the child to respond to task related questions.
Example I: Parent elicits: "Do you see it?" "Can you hold it?"
"Do you like it?" "Do you understand?" or other task related questions
for the purpose of eliciting a task related response from the child
would be appropriately marked in either Categories 14 or 24.
Infants elicit behavior in a variety of ways both verbally and non
verbally. The astute observer must note the behavior within the unit of
analysis of the transaction between the infant and the parent.
Example II: Sounds made by the infant for the purpose of getting
his parent(s) to respond may be examples of elicits (4) or directs,
depending on whether the sounds were made in a questioning or directive
manner: "Oooo?" or "Oooo!" Also, non verbal behaviors emitted for the
purpose of eliciting parental responses are examples of elicits (4).
That is, the infant may hold his arm out as he "elicits" attention or
requests toys.
Any behavior which is emitted for the purpose of eliciting or
securing information or other behavior is correctly recorded in
Categories 4, 14, or 24.
Initiates Categories 6, 16, 26
Initiating behaviors are statements of facts, information, and/or
opinions and ideas concerning the content, subject, or procedures being
considered that are self-initiated. Initiating is the expression of
ones own ideas, or lecturing for the purpose of presenting facts and
information.
In many cases, parental initiation will be observed as presentation
f information, opinions or ideas. Infant initiation could be


68
Parental reinforcement must be verbal in nature and only qualifies
as reinforcement if the verbal acceptance is directed toward some
specific behavior being emitted by the baby. For example, if the parent
were to hold out a string, then the infant takes it and parent follows
with "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this parental comment would
qualify as a positive reinforcement because the parent is expressing his
acceptance of the infant response of string grabbing. If, on the other
hand, the parent were to suddenly pick up and cuddle the child for no
apparent (task related) reason while saying, "Ooh, you're such a good
baby!", this, then, would be an example of warms (1, 11, 21) because it
is solely directed at emotional, task irrelevant feelings.
Corrects Categories 8, 18, 28
Correcting behavior occurs when one tells another that the answer or
behavior emitted is inappropriate or incorrect. This may be seen in
behaviors of disagreement or giving corrective feedback. The verbal
behavior must be directed towards the behavior of another rather than
towards one's self. Parental examples of corrects (18, 28) include:
"No, I disagree," "That's not correct," or "A better way could be found."
If an explanation is offered as to why a particular behavior or answer
is more appropriate or correct than another, this additional information
should be recorded in Category 6, 16, 26 (initiates). Following a
statement of correction or acceptance with a qualifying explanation and
information is sometimes referred to as "public criteria" since it
discloses publicly why a given behavior is correct or not and is an
explanation (Category 6, 16, 26).
Infants can also emit correcting behavior toward the parents. For
example, the parent may try to elicit (14, 24) our example of string


15
Some more specific mental skills show evidence of relating to
mother-infant relationships. In particular, Bell (1970) studied 33
infants from the age of eight and one-half to eleven-months-old and
found that infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired
the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative
or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, the
babies displaying a strong mother attachment developed the concept of
people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object
permanence in 23 out of 24 cases.
Physically relating to an infant also has a significant relationship
to the infant's development. In one study (Powell, 1974), stimulation in
the form of handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better
scores on the Bayley Scores of Infant Development. Mutual gazing (Schmidt
& Hore, 1970) and maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967) are two
additional variables which relate positively to a child's development.
Verbal communication with the infant also has particular importance
to his/her development of mental competence. Peterson (1975) notes that
the amount of language and positive feedback are positively correlated to
infant competence while verbal stimulation was a positive factor in
infant development in the Clarke-Stewart study (1973). Beckwith (1971b)
explains that verbal stimulation before age four months and after ten
months on the part of adults prompts vocal imitation by the infant.
Although infants may discontinue their responsive vocalization between
ages four and ten months, they still will benefit from hearing adult
language.


71
Directs Categories 7, 17, 27
"Directs" involves giving of directions, instruction, orders and/or
assignments to which another is expected to comply. Grammatically,
directing is inherent in declarative and, more appropriately, imperative
types of statements which describe a task related behavior to which the
directed one is supposed to comply.
For example, an infant may emit behavior which attempts to direct
adult attention, direct adult activity, or convey an expected response.
Conversely, an adult may order, instruct, tell, or direct infant
behavior in a specific task related direction.
As in the category of accepts or gives positive reinforcement (2, 12,
22) and corrects (8, 18, 28), this category of directs (7, 17, 27) is
concerned only with task relevant behavior. If the parent directs the
child in a task related manner, either 17 or 27 would be appropriately
marked. However, if the parent directs the child with comments that are
sharply emotional and task irrelevant, then the category of cools (19 or
29) would be appropriately marked.
Example I: The task is string pulling and the mother says, "Take the
string, take the string!" This would be an example of task related
directs (17).
Example II: The task is holding a ball and the infant, crying, is
told, "Cut that crying out immediately!" Since this comment has a
sharply emotional tone and is unrelated to the specific task, the
category of cools (19 or 29) would be noted.
In Example II the direction or directing comments are either harshly
delivered or given for the purpose of discipline or regimentation and
thus would be recorded not as directs, but as cools (9, 19, 29).


83
3. Actively Engaging the Child
This technique indicates the focal effort of the parent is to engage
actively in behavior together with the infant. Both parents may actively
engage the infant simultaneously by playing with the infant, dramatizing
for the infant or entertaining by roughhousing or playful teasing. This
technique usually promotes infant enjoyment of life through reciprocal,
playful, non task related behaviors.
Example A: Parent makes funny face for infant (entertains)
Example B: Parent tickles infant (Affectionate game)
Example C: Parent playfully holds a toy just beyond the reach
of the infant (teasing)
4. Observing of the Child
A special ground rule here is that if and only if the parent is not
involved in any other activity, would it be possible to note this behav
ior. The parent attends to the child by observing or looking at him.
This is to be coded only when another technique is not seen throughout
a 15 second interval.
5. Refocusing on the Task
This occurs when the adult tries to concentrate the child's interest
and attention on an ongoing task. The child's attention may drift after
an activity has been initiated and in this activity the parent refocuses
the child back on the task in which the child was engaged.
6. Suggestion or Command
This activity indicates that the effort of the parent is to direct
the infant to initiate a certain task related behavior. The parent may
suggest, command, request, beg, urge, or ask the infant to do something;


24
Observer Training
Two observers were trained to code the Reciprocal Category System,
and two additional persons were trained to code the Home Scale. The
training which lasted for approximately one month ended when the two
observers for each observation schedule were within two tallies of each
other on each item. Recognizing the likelihood that the coders would
drift from the initial coding standards, additional comparisons of their
tallies on the individual items were made every two weeks during the year
they were coding the videotapes. Interrater agreement was not computed
for the parent variables, but the average interrater agreement for the
two Home Scale items was 91.7%.
Method of Analysis
The total number of occurrences over all seven sessions was tallied
for each of the six parent behaviors and the infant task-mastery and
exploration items. Hypotheses of this study and the corresponding analy
sis procedures used are stated below:
Hypothesis I: The six parent behaviors are not
independent but will cluster to form distinct systems of
behavior, or parenting styles.
Principal component analysis with a maximum of five factors being
rotated was applied to the six parent variables. The analysis consisted
of an orthogonal solution with varimax rotation, using a SAS program.
Hypothesis II: There will be no relationship between
a parents style of interaction and the infant's task-mastery,
exploration, Mental Development Index (MDI), and/or Physical
Development Index (PDI).
Each of the infant's scores on the task-mastery, exploration, MDI,
and PDI were entered as dependent variables. Thus, four separate
multiple regression analyses, using a step-wise solution, were obtained.


45
relationship was found between the three parenting styles and infants'
exploration, mental or motor development. In contrast, infants' mastery
of a task was significantly related to two parenting styles. The
"Positive Direction" parental approach correlated positively with
infants' task-mastery, and the "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style
correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task.
These results are very similar to the research findings on teachers'
classroom interactions. As reported by Rosenshine (1976a), several
studies have reported that the directive teaching approach was most
effective in the classroom. More specifically, for low socioeconomic
children, drill instruction, consisting of direct questions followed by
teachers' acknowledgements of correct responses, correlated most positively
with student achievement gains in basic skills. Direct questions in a
classroom situation could easily be compared to the directive approach
in this study. In both cases, the children are clearly informed of what
is expected of them; then they are given feedback as to the appropriate
ness, and particularly the correctness, of these responses.
In contrast, this study and research on teachers' classroom behaviors
both found indirect interactions with children to be ineffective. The
"Friendly Persuasion" parenting style, including parents' initiating,
eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations, closely resembles the indirect
teaching approach involving discussion, amplification, and use of the
pupil answers in the classroom (Medley, 1977). Just as these indirect
teacher interactions correlated negatively with pupil gains in low level
cognitive skills, "Friendly Persuasion" of parents correlated negatively
with infants' mastery of a task.


91
CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
WITH INFANT VARIABLES
Mastery
Exploration
MDQ
PDQ
Accepting
.31
- .15
.01
.13
Amplifying
- .05
.08
- .08
- .27
Responding
.06
- .08
.20
- .14
Eliciting
- .09
.05
.09
.11
Initiating
- .18
.04
- .04
- .01
Directing
.26
- .15
.01
.12


32
"Friendly Persuasion," "Responsive Parenting," and "Positive Direction."
Factor scores for each parent were computed based on their individual
tallies of the six behaviors using the factor loading of the three
parenting styles.
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis II
Hypothesis II investigated the relationship of infant behavior and
development with the parents' styles of interaction. Did the on-task
(mastery) or off-task (exploration) behavior of the infants correlate
with any particular style of parenting? Or did parenting styles relate
more to infants' mental or motor development? Results of the four
regression analyses are described below.
The step-wise regression of the parenting factors on infants' task-
mastery produced highly significant results for two factors (Table 3
reports the results). Factor 3, which is the positive directive approach,
entered the equation first and correlated positively with infants'
successful on-task behavior (mastery). The second factor to enter the
equation, "Friendly Persuasion," was negatively correlated with infants'
mastery of a task.
Infant exploration, or active off-task behavior, did not correlate
significantly with any of the parenting styles (see Table 4). Again,
"Positive Direction" (Factor 3) entered the regression equation first,
and approached but did not reach significance.
The two regression analyses involving infants' developmental scores
and parenting styles produced non-significant results, although they both
correlated most highly with parent's responsive behavior (see Tables 5
and 6). Apparently, mental and motor development at one year as measured


8
the male infants than with the female infants, causing the female infants
to spend more time alone. These researchers also found a higher activity
level between first-born neonates and their mothers than between new-borns
and multiparous mothers. Possibly the observation of these infants and
mothers at feeding time, at such a young age, and in a hospital setting
produced the contradictory results when compared to other studies.
Gordon (1974) conducted a longitudinal study of 53 low-income black
mother-infant dyads and identified a number of factors which combine both
parent and infant behaviors and relate to infant sex. The first factor,
labelled Performance Orientation, includes several maternal techniques
which stress performance as well as infants' mastery and intellectual
activity. This factor was a significant predictor of boys' behavior from
early to later observations. Two other factors were predictive for the
female infants. The first of these factors, a mother-infant teaching
transaction, consisted of active teaching techniques on the mother's
part, including initiating, eliciting, amplifying, and directing behaviors
by the infant. The second factor with predictive ability for the girls
in the Gordon study was labelled Maternal Push, composed of maternal task-
orienting behaviors without responsiveness to the baby's emotional
comfort seeking. Gordon (1974) also uncovered an age by sex interaction.
In general, boys' scores at 25 weeks of age and younger held more pre
dictive value for later transactions while scores at 25 weeks of age and
later were more predictive for girls.
Behavioral changes were noted among 180 white first-born infants on
a variety of measures at ages 4, 8, 13, and 27 months (Kagan, 1971).
Other researchers reporting similar discontinuities with increased age
indicate the emerging social behaviors (Emde, Gaensbauer, & Harmon, 1976).


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT
BY
KAREN JANE LONG
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
1979


33
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF
WITH
VARIANCE
PARENTING
OF INFANTS'
1 FACTORS 3
' TASK-MASTERY
AND 1
DF
SS
MS
F
Regression
2
1056.09
528.04
14.61**
Residual
75
2709.76
36.13
DF
B
Beta
STD Error B
F
Factor 3
1
4.47
00
.93
22.95**
Factor 1
1
-2.72
-.35
.78
12.18**
Residual
75
17.23
**P = .01
*P = .05


48
3. The infants of parents who are indirect in their
interaction with their infants by initiating activities, asking questions,
and providing information will not master the tasks being taught as
frequently as the infants of parents who do not use this indirect
parenting style called "Friendly Persuasion."
Recommendations for Parent Education
Parent educators need to inform parents of the three types of
parenting styles demonstrated in this study and the implications of
these modes of interaction on infants' behavior. Although no direct
cause-and-effect relationships may be assumed, the research does suggest
that parents who are directive and accepting with their infants are more
likely to have infants who are successful at completing age-appropriate
tasks than parents who use more indirect interactional behaviors with
their infants. Other parental styles of interaction may be more
appropriate in other situations, but the more directive, positive
approach seems to be most effective when a parent wants a child to
complete a task. Parent educators should explore ways of instructing
parents to interact directly and positively with their infants as well
as to recognize the appropriate situation(s) in which to use this
parenting style.
Limitations
1. The sample used in this study consisted of white,
middle-class parents where both mother and father were actively involved
with their infant. The infants were normal, first-born children under
the age of one year. Conclusions or implications drawn from this study
must be limited to populations similar to this sample.


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.
Linda L. Lamme, Chairperson
Assistant Professor of General Teacher
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.
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.
Athol B. Packer
Associate Professor of General Teacher
Education
1 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.
. {Ut.c
Patricia T. Ashton
Assistant Professor of Foundations of
Education


25
Hypothesis III: There will be no difference in a
parent's style of interaction based on infant gender, parent
gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.
Three repeated measures Parent Gender X Baby Gender analyses of
variance using the parenting style factor scores as the dependent
measures were completed to assess the effect of infant and/or parent
gender on the parents' styles of interaction. The possibility that parents
of the same infant might share some common interaction patterns was also
speculated; therefore, this common variance was controlled by nesting
Family ID within baby gender. A SAS GLM program was used.
Hypothesis IV: There will be no difference in
infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, or PDI based on
infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent
and infant gender.
Four analyses of variance with parent gender as repeated measures
and Family ID nested with baby gender were completed, also using a SAS GLM
program. In these analyses, infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and
PDI were the dependent variables.
Reliability
Intra-class correlations for infant and parent behaviors were com
puted on the basis of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula which is
as follows:
ICC = (MSB-MSW)/MSB
where MSB represents the mean square between sessions and the MSW
represents the mean square within sessions. This method of analysis has
been recommended by Bartko because it "assesses the reliability of average
ratings, rather than the reliability of a single rating" (1976, p. 764).


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Parents interact with their babies in many ways. In addition to
their mutual involvement in daily care-giving functions, parents and
infants often interact in a purely playful and/or affectionate manner.
They also are jointly involved more frequently in what may either be
called teaching or learning situations (depending on one's perspective)
such as the activities related to this study. As parents increase their
awareness of the importance of the very early months and years of a
child's life, they seem to make more conscious efforts to involve their
infants in cognitively-oriented activities.
Just how parents go about "teaching" their children differs greatly.
Similarly, how infants respond to a learning situation varies. These
differences may correlate with personality attributes, race, or social
class factors (Beckwith, 1971; Olmstead, 1975; Zegiob & Forehand, 1975).
Both the infant's sex and the parent's sex may relate significantly to
these interactions (Biller, 1974; Lamb, 1975). In addition, there is
reason to believe that the specific teaching styles or behaviors adopted
by the parent may affect the infant in particular ways (Bromwich, 1977;
Millar, 1976). And it may be that infant behaviors in turn cause parents
to respond in certain ways (Goldberg, 1977) The literature exploring
these various factors associated with the parent-infant relationship will
be reviewed in this chapter.
6


51
exploration, mental or motor development had any relationship to infant
gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.
The results demonstrated that the parents exhibited three distinct
styles of interaction. Parents who initiated, elicited, and amplified
verbally with their infants exhibited the parenting style labelled
"Friendly Persuasion." The second parenting style was "Responsive
Parenting," and the third interactional style, "Positive Direction"
included the directive and positive reinforcement parents verbalized to
their infants. None of the parenting styles or infant variables related
significantly to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of
parent and infant gender.
Parenting styles did not relate significantly to infants' explo
ration, mental or motor development; nor were parenting styles or infants'
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development significantly
related to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent
and infant gender.
Two parenting styles were found to have a significant relationship
to infants' successful completion of a task. "Positive Direction"
correlated positively to infants' task-mastery, and "Friendly Persuasion"
correlated negatively to the task-mastery measure. These results
resemble research findings on classroom teacher behaviors which indicate
that directive teaching approaches are more effective than nondirective
teaching methods in producing student achievement gains in basic skills.
Apparently, infants develop competency in completing tasks when they know
what is expected of them and are given positive reinforcement for
their accomplishments.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere thanks go first to all those who lived and worked with me
throughout this endeavorfor their calmness, patience, and confidence
displayed at just the right moments.
The members of my committee have been particularly helpful and
supportive:
Dr. Linda Lamme who so willingly contributed both the
technical assistance of an advisor and the enthusiasm of a friend.
Dr. Robert Soar who frequently made himself available at
odd times and places for guidance in research methodology.
I am indebted to Dr. Athol Packer for reinforcing my
interest in parent education as well as for being an outstanding model
in the field.
In addition to her gentle, warm support, I appreciate
Dr. Patricia Ashton's professionalism.
And finally, Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who exemplifies some of
the most admirable qualities of a parent-teacher in his daily interactions
with people, added a special dimension to my committee.
Many others provided assistance. Among them are Ruth Soar and
Ray Burke, who provided valuable insight into the mysteries of the
computer world; also, Sharon Strong and Karen Evans, who saved my sanity
with their typing assistance. Very special thanks go to Greg Wilmoth for
his constant concern and encouragement.
iii


35
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT MENTAL DEVELOPMENT
INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2
DF
SS
MS
F
Factor 2
1
996.87
996.87
1.93
NS
Residual
76
38786.92
510.35
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE OF INFANT
INDEX WITH PARENTING
PHYSICAL
FACTOR 2
DEVELOPMENT
DF
SS
MS
F
Factor 2 1
.16
.16
1.58
NS
Regression 76
7.57
.10


62
Infant
Category
Mother
Category
Father
Category
Behavioral Title of Category
5
15
25
Responds
6
16
26
Initiates
7
17
27
Directs
8
18
28
Corrects
9
19
29
Cools (formalizes the climate)
Category 10 Includes both parental and infant behaviors: Silence:
pauses, periods of no activity; Confusion: yawns, sneezing, coughing,
wetting, "accidents" or unintentional interruptions; period of confusion
in which communication cannot be understood by the observer; Infant
Sleeping: going to sleep.
Ground Rules
Ground Rule I
Any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal in nature. This
would include words, sentences, laughing, imitating baby sounds, as well
as any other verbal noises or sounds that the adult may make, For
example, if the adult holds out a ball for the infant but doesn't say
anything, this would be recorded as adult silence. When the mother
holds out a toy for the child and says, "Do you want the toy?", this
then would be recorded as a 14 (elicits).
Recorded infant behavior need not be verbal and can include physical
motor movements as well as any sounds or utterances that may be made.



PAGE 1

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY, EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT BY KAREN JANE LONG 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 1979

PAGE 2

TO MY FAMILY Who nurtured my sense of competence from Infancy

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sincere thanks go first to all those who lived and worked with me throughout this endeavor — for their calmness, patience, and confidence displayed at just the right moments. The members of my committee have been particularly helpful and supportive: Dr. Linda Lamme who so willingly contributed both the technical assistance of an advisor and the enthusiasm of a friend. Dr. Robert Soar who frequently made himself available at odd times and places for guidance in research methodology. I am indebted to Dr. Athol Packer for reinforcing my interest in parent education as well as for being an outstanding model in the field. In addition to her gentle, warm support, I appreciate Dr. Patricia Ashton's professionalism. And finally, Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who exemplifies some of the most admirable qualities of a parent-teacher in his daily interactions with people, added a special dimension to my committee. Many others provided assistance. Among them are Ruth Soar and Ray Burke, who provided valuable insight into the mysteries of the computer world; also, Sharon Strong and Karen Evans, who saved my sanity with their typing assistance. Very special thanks go to Greg Wilmoth for his constant concern and encouragement. iii

PAGE 4

My co-workers in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project also deserve thanks, as well as the parents and infants whose participation in the project made it such a valuable and enjoyable learning experience. In addition, I will fondly remember Dr. Ira Gordon for his fine leadership and genuine delight as parents and infants interacted in the videotaping sessions iv

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT vll I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Problem 1 Need for Study 1 Design of the Study 4 Scope of the Study 5 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6 Infants' Gender and Age 7 Parents' Gender 9 Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant Interactions 12 Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to Infant Competence 14 Parent-Infant Interactions 16 Teaching Behaviors 17 Summary 18 III DESIGN 20 Sample 20 Procedure 20 Data Collection 22 Observer Training 24 Method of Analysis 24 Reliability 25 Limitations 27 IV RESULTS 28 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I 28 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis II 32 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis III 36 Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis IV 36 Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors 41 Summary 41 V

PAGE 6

P age V DISCUSSION 44 Results 44 Conclusions and Implications 47 Recommendations for Parent Education 48 Limitations 48 Recommendations for Further Research 49 Summary 50 APPENDICES A TASK DESCRIPTIONS 53 B RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT 61 C HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT 77 D MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS. ... 86 E CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AND INFANT VARIABLES. 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 99 vi

PAGE 7

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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY, EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT By Karen Jane Long June 1979 Chairman: Linda L. Lamme Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. In addition, the relationship between parenting styles and the gender of the parent and/or infant was explored as well as the relationship between the four infant competence measures and parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent and infant gender. The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project (NIMH //I ROL MH/HD 27480-01). Only white, middle-class two-parent families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were included in this sample. Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions in a laboratory setting, once every six weeks, beginning when the infant was 13 weeks old and ending at 40 weeks of age. At each session the parents were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with vii

PAGE 8

their infant. Mothers and fathers were videotaped separately for three minutes as they interacted with their infant. Parent verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project. The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Infant task-mastery and exploration item behaviors were coded according to the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Mental and Psychomotor Development Indices were obtained at one year of age from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant interactions. The" first parenting style, called "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behavior. Another parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive reinforcements to the infant. Only the infants' mastery of a task correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction." Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender. viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem There Is growing interest among educators in the role of the parent in the development of the infant. More specifically, the interaction of parent and child in the first year of life is believed to have a significant influence on the infant's behavior and development. The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' mastery of a task, exploration, mental or motor development. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969), administered to each infant at the age of one year, provided the Mental and Motor Development Indices for this study. The parenting behaviors and infants' task-mastery and exploration scores were based on systematic videotaped observations of structured activities involving parents and their infants. A parenting style has been defined as one or more ways in which a parent consistently relates to and verbally interacts with his/her infant. Need for the Study Researchers have found that a variety of parental behaviors during parent interaction with their Infant relates to the infant's development. For example, stimulation in the form of more handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scale (Powell, 1974).

PAGE 10

2 In addition, verbal stimulation (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), mutual gazing (Schmidt & Hore, 1970), maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967), and mothers' "sensitive pacing" (Wexler & Yarrow, 1975) all related positively to infants' development. Although mother-infant dyads have been studied more often than father-infant dyads, according to some studies, fathers have a unique impact upon their infants. Fathers, for example, hold their infants more often for purposes of play while mothers hold their infants more for caretaking purposes (Lamb, 1977). Available evidence has suggested that qualitative differences exist in how mothers and fathers relate to their infants from birth (Lamb, 1975), although these differences have been viewed as either situational (Lamb, 1975), cultural (Kotelchuck, 1976), or "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a predisposed biological disposition" (Kotelchuck, 1976, p. 343), A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gord on, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) have demonstrated that the sex of the infant also has a significant relationship with his or her behavior. In the Goldberg and Lewis study of children up to the age of thirteen months, for instance, boy infants were significantly more independent and exploratory than girl infants while girl infants were more verbal than their male counterparts (1969) Other studies have found differences in the ways in which parents interact with their infants, relative to the infants' sex. Mothers in one study tended to initiate and direct more activity with boy babies than with girl babies (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Gordon (1974), looking at the patterns of behavior occurring in the mother-infant transaction, also found sex differences. Certain factors such as the "performance

PAGE 11

orientation" of mothers were more predictive of boys' competence than of girls' competence. In addition, differences in parenting techniques were found to develop over a period of time (Clarke-Stewart, 1973). Only a few studies have suggested that parents have distinct styles of interaction with their infants, or that parents' interaction styles are related to infants' behavior and development (Gordon, 1974; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Bakeman & Brown, 1977), Research on the classroom behavior of teachers, however, has led to some tentative conclusions regarding the relationship between teachers' interactional styles and children's behavior in the classroom, and particularly children's achievement. For example, three prominent studies of low SES primary grade children concur that "direct instruction" was the most effective pattern for optimal academic achievement (Rosenshine, 1976a) Time spent on academic activities was also positively correlated to achievement, whereas time spent on non-academic activities was negatively correlated to academic gains (Rosenshine, 1976b). A more surprising finding indicates that teachers' positive affective behavior may be negatively correlated with academic achievement (Soar and Soar, 1978). Just as academic achievement is of concern to teachers, parents are concerned about their infant's competence. Most likely, they want their infant to have average or above average ability in developmental skills and to be involved and successful in tasks appropriate for their child's age and developmental level. But what parent behaviors relate most positively to infant competence? Is one parenting style more appropriate than another in "teaching" an infant a new task? This study has investigated the relationships between parents' styles of interaction with their infants and certain infant variables

PAGE 12

4 associated with competence. Measures of infant mental and motor development have been studied as well as the infants' mastery of tasks "taught" by their parents and exploration. In this study exploration involved the infants' active investigation of their environment, but essentially off-task behavior. Furthermore, this study has examined the effect of the Infants' and parents' gender on the parents' styles of interaction and the infant measures of competence. Design of the Study This study investigated infant behavior and development in relation to parents' interactions with their infants in a structured laboratory setting. As part of the Parent-Infant Transaction Project,* 39 white, middle-class, two-parent families with first-born infants were recruited from the community. Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, occuring every six weeks, beginning when the child was 13 weeks old and ending when the child reached 49 weeks of age. At each session, the parents were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with their infant (see Appendix A for task descriptions) Each parent was videotaped separately with his/her infant for three minutes as he/she interacted with the infant in the suggested age and developmentally appropriate tasks. The seven videotapes of each parent-infant dyad provided the data for analysis for this study. Parents' verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix B) The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting. NIMH Grant #1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01

PAGE 13

5 initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Two infant behaviors were studied; they were the task-mastery and exploration items from the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C) In addition, the Bayley Scales Of Infant Development were the basis of obtaining the Mental and Motor Development Indices for each child at one year of age. Scope of the Study The major purposes of this study were: 1. to determine if parents of infants may be categorized or described by their styles of interaction 2. to determine if infants' mastery of a task, exploration, mental or motor development relate to their parents' styles of interaction. Specific questions posed by this study were: 1. Do parents' behaviors when interacting with their infants cluster to form distinct styles of interaction or parenting styles? 2. Is there a relationship between a parent's style of interaction and the infant's task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development? 3. Will the parent's gender or the infant's gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender affect the parent's style of interaction? 4. Will the parent's gender, or the infant's gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender affect the infant's task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development?

PAGE 14

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Parents interact with their babies in many ways. In addition to their mutual involvement in daily care-giving functions, parents and infants often interact in a purely playful and/or affectionate manner. They also are jointly involved more frequently in what may either be called teaching or learning situations (depending on one's perspective) such as the activities related to this study. As parents increase their awareness of the importance of the very early months and years of a child's life, they seem to make more conscious efforts to involve their infants in cognitively-oriented activities. Just how parents go about "teaching" their children differs greatly. Similarly, how infants respond to a learning situation varies. These differences may correlate with personality attributes, race, or social class factors (Beckwith, 1971; Olmstead, 1975; Zegiob & Forehand, 1975). Both the infant's sex and the parent's sex may relate significantly to these interactions (Biller, 1974; Lamb, 1975). In addition, there is reason to believe that the specific teaching styles or behaviors adopted by the parent may affect the infant in particular ways (Bromwich, 1977; Millar, 1976). And it may be that infant behaviors in turn cause parents to respond in certain ways (Goldberg, 1977) The literature exploring these various factors associated with the parent-infant relationship will be reviewed in this chapter.

PAGE 15

7 Infants' Gender and Age A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969; Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) demonstrate that the sex of the infant has a significant correlation with his/her behavior in parent-infant interactions. Clarke-Stewart (1973) conducted a longitudinal study of 36 lowincome mothers and their first-born infants from the age of nine to eighteen months. She found that boys in the study were generally more object-oriented while girls were more sociallyoriented. Sex differences were also apparent in the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969) of 64 thirteen-month-old infants. In particular, boys were significantly more independent and were involved in more active and exploratory behavior than the girls. The girls, on the other hand, were more dependent and more verbal than their male counterparts. In a related study of toddlers and their parents. Fagot (1974) found that parents who made strong claims that they did not treat their children differently because of the sex of their children did exhibit extreme differences in behavior when actually observed with their children. The researcher suggests that inherent differences in the children's behavior due to his/her sex may in fact "exert pressure for certain types of parental reactions" (p. 558). Examples she cites include parents of girls who respond to the females' greater sensitivity to sound by verbalizing more with them. Similarly, boys respond less to soothing by touch or talk, so parents tend to leave boys alone more, possibly accounting for their greater independence. The transactions between mothers and their new-born infants produced rather different results in another study (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). The mothers in this study tended to initiate and direct more activity with

PAGE 16

8 the male infants than with the female infants, causing the female infants to spend more time alone. These researchers also found a higher activity level between first-born neonates and their mothers than between new-borns and multiparous mothers. Possibly the observation of these infants and mothers at feeding time, at such a young age, and in a hospital setting produced the contradictory results when compared to other studies. Gordon (1974) conducted a longitudinal study of 53 low-income black mother-infant dyads and identified a number of factors which combine both parent and infant behaviors and relate to infant sex. The first factor, labelled Performance Orientation, includes several maternal techniques which stress performance as well as infants' mastery and intellectual activity. This factor was a significant predictor of boys' behavior from early to later observations. Two other factors were predictive for the female infants. The first of these factors, a mother-infant teaching transaction, consisted of active teaching techniques on the mother's part, including initiating, eliciting, amplifying, and directing behaviors by the infant. The second factor with predictive ability for the girls in the Gordon study was labelled Maternal Push, composed of maternal taskorienting behaviors without responsiveness to the baby's emotional comfort seeking. Gordon (1974) also uncovered an age by sex interaction. In general, boys' scores at 25 weeks of age and younger held more predictive value for later transactions while scores at 25 weeks of age and later were more predictive for girls. Behavioral changes were noted among 180 white first-born infants on a variety of measures at ages 4, 8, 13, and 27 months (Kagan, 1971). Other researchers reporting similar discontinuities with increased age Indicate the emerging social behaviors (Emde, Gaensbauer, & Harmon, 1976).

PAGE 17

9 ability to react to environmental stimulation (Bell & Harper, 1977), and advancing motor skills (Crawley et al., 1978) may account for the infants' behavioral changes over time. Existing research, then, suggests that infants' age and gender had a bearing on their behavior and competence. In addition, mothers' interactions differed with male and female infants. The findings are Inconsistent, however, so more research needs to be done in this area. Thus, this study has addressed the question of infant gender as it relates to parenting styles and infant competence, limited to infants under one year of age. Parents' Gender Prior to 1964, only the mother-infant dyad had been studied (Lamb, 1975). Mothers, because they are usually the primary care-givers of young children, were believed to have a unique and superior relationship with their infants (Bowlby, 1951; Ainsworth, 1973). The mother-infant relationship Is also considered to be the foundation of subsequent social relationships (Kagan, Wimberger & Bobbitt, 1969) and cognitive development. In Bell's study (1970) of 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half months to eleven-months-old, infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, babies displaying strong mother attachment developed the concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object permanence, in 23 out of 24 cases. Recently, the role of the father has been examined more closely. Although some of the research analyzes the effect of the father's absence (Radin, 1976) rather than the impact of his presence on the infant, other

PAGE 18

10 studies have compared the effects of each parent on the child. In the first of these studies (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964), babies at nine months of age protested more to being separated from their mothers than from their fathers. At eighteen-months-old however, the same babies protested just as much when separated from their fathers. In contrast, other studies report a preference for mother in infants' attachment behavior only in stressful situations (Lamb, 1976b), while another study found a preference for either parent over a stranger (Lamb, 1977). In spite of conflicting details, all of these studies confirm that infants are attached to their fathers as soon as attachment behaviors begin, although the nature of the father-infant relationship may differ qualitatively from the motherinfant relationship. Possibly the differences in attachment behavior depend on differences in the amount and kind of interaction the two parents have with their baby. Gewirtz and Gewirtz (1968) in their study of 24 fourand eightmonth-olds in eleven Israeli Kibbutzim calculated that the infants spent approximately twice as much time with their mothers as with their fathers. Most of the additional time spent with the mothers, however, consisted of caretaking activities. Similarly, Lamb (1977) observed that mothers held their infants more often to perform caretaking functions while fathers held their infants more often for purposes of play. This may account for the infants' more positive reactions to playing with their fathers than with their mothers in the same study, although the types of play the two parents engaged in were essentially the same. Other differences between a mother's and father's involvement with their infant have been noted. In Rebelsky and Hank's study (1971) of ten infants from two weeks to three months of age, fathers talked 1 Less

PAGE 19

11 frequently and for shorter periods of time to their infants before the age of three months than mothers did. In yet another study (Biller, 1974), fathers encouraged their infants' curiosity, and cognitive and motoric activity more than mothers did. In addition, how mothers and fathers react to their infants may vary according to the age and sex of the children, some research contends. In particular, fathers of female infants verbalized more before the infants were a month old (Rebelsky & Hank, 1971) but fathers verbalized more with their male infants after three months of age (Moss, 1967). Mothers reacted just the opposite, according to the Moss study (1967) ; that is, at age three weeks, mothers verbalized more with their male infants, but they verbalized more with their female infants at three months of age. In a comparison of parents in the United States and Guatamala, Kotelchuck (1976) reports less of a difference between the mother-infant and fatherinfant relationships in the United States than between the two Guatamalan parents' relationships with their infants, suggesting specific variations in cultural patterns. He claims that these differences are "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a predisposed biological disposition" (p. 343). A study of preschool girls and their parents (Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972) supports the same notion that cultural expectations affect adult behavior, for although the daughters in the study behaved the same with both parents, fathers focused more on the task at hand while mothers encouraged interpersonal interaction with their daughters. Differences between mothers and fathers have been found in the amount of time spent with their infant, the type of activities they became involved in, and the amount and kind of verbalizations. Some of

PAGE 20

12 these differences varied, too, with the age and sex of the infant. Comparisons of mothers' and fathers' interactions with their infants in "teaching" situations, however, are practically nonexistent. Nor is there much evidence on parental sex differences in relationship to infant measures of competence. Thus, both of these issues have been included in this study. Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant Interactions Responses of infants, particularly in terms or what and how they learn, may be affected by factors outside of the parent-child relationship. Observation of toy preferences (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969), for example, shows that toys offering "the most varied possibilities for manipulation" (p. 27) such as blocks, receive the most attention. Differences in amount of infant task-mastery and exploration, two variables which this study analyzes, possibly were affected by the toys available to the infant although the selection of toys was limited. Likewise, the infant's response to social versus non-social objects seems to differ. One study (Eckerman & Rheingold, 1974) found that whereas toys were approached and contacted, the infant was more inclined to just look and smile at people. In addition, more exploration was apparent with responsive than non-responsive adults. Another researcher found that the social consequences emitting from a stranger, including being smiled at, talked to, and touched, increased the vocalization of institutionalized infants (Weisberg, 1963). An extensive analysis of the home environment of 41 black infants (Yarrow et al., 1972) pointed to numerous important relationships between infants' competence and both the social and inanimate environment. Based on six hours of time-sampled observations of normal activity in

PAGE 21

13 each home, the research demonstrated that the variety, responsiveness, and complexity of objects In the Infants' surroundings produce different yet significant correlations with various factors from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. Separate correlations of the Bayley factors also exist with the level and variety of social stimulation as well as mothers contingent responsiveness to vocalizations and distress. Although the specific results of the study are too extensive to itemize in this review the study emphasized the complexity of environmental factors which affect infants' competence and capacity for learning. A more specific concern of infant researchers is the effect of the laboratory setting on research results. Belsky (1977) directly studied the differences between mother-child interaction at home and in the laboratory in his observations of 24 middle-class mothers with their 12-month-old infants. Mothers observed in just the laboratory setting exhibited twice as much responsive and interactive behavior and were four times more active than mothers observed only at home. Mothers observed in both situations also doubled their activity, responsiveness, and interaction with their infants in the laboratory setting. However, the discrepancies in behavior may be at least partially explained by the instructions mothers were given in the experiment. Prior to the home observations, mothers were Instructed to go about their normal home activities and to Ignore the observer, while mothers in the laboratory were told to pretend they were home with free time on their hands. While Belsky noted differences. Peterson (1975) found similarities in the behaviors emitted in home and laboratory settings. However, behavioral changes of parents and/or infants varied with the situation in a number of other studies. With caretaking activities, for example.

PAGE 22

14 fathers decreased their verbalizations with their infants (Rebelsky & Hanks, 1971) and the appearance of a stranger changed infants' affiliatlve behavior towards their parents (Lamb, 1976a). And Clarke-Stewart (1973) noted significant changes in the entire parent-infant interaction patterns when comparing free play and structured situations at home. Three aspects of an infant's world, then, produced differences in infant and parent behaviors. The type of objects or people in their environment appeared to alter infants' behavior and the setting of the interaction affected infant and parent behavior. Furthermore, a relationship was found to exist between infant competence and the complexity of the environment (Yarrow, et al., 1972). These results emphasized the need to control extraneous variables as much as possible in order to minimize error. Thus, in this study, the setting remained constant, the choice of toys was generally limited, and the activities used were consistent at each age. Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to Infant Competence Generally no significant relationship between social class and infants' success on mental competence has been noted under two years of age (Bayley, 1969). However, one study (Beckwith, 1971a) of 24 adopted infants living in middle-class homes indicates a positive correlation between the infants' Cattell 10 scores and their natural mothers' social class. In addition, Beckwith noted a relationship between infant competence and the experiences provided by the adopter mothers. With Increased verbal and physical contact by the mothers, the infants' Cattell test scores Increased. And more opportunities to explore at home and to interact with persons outside of the family both related positively to Infant competence.

PAGE 23

15 Some more specific mental skills show evidence of relating to mother-infant relationships. In particular. Bell (1970) studied 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half to eleven-months-old and found that infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, the babies displaying a strong mother attachment developed the concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object permanence in 23 out of Ik cases. Physically relating to an infant also has a significant relationship to the infant's development. In one study (Powell, 1974), stimulation in the form of handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scores of Infant Development. Mutual gazing (Schmidt & Hore, 1970) and maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967) are two additional variables which relate positively to a child's development. Verbal communication with the infant also has particular importance to his/her development of mental competence. Peterson (1975) notes that the amount of language and positive feedback are positively correlated to infant competence while verbal stimulation was a positive factor in infant development in the Clarke-Stewart study (1973) Beckwith (1971b) explains that verbal stimulation before age four months and after ten months on the part of adults prompts vocal imitation by the infant. Although infants may discontinue their responsive vocalization between ages four and ten months, they still will benefit from hearing adult language.

PAGE 24

16 Parent-Infant Interactions Several researchers have looked specifically at the type of verbal interactions which take place between mother and child. Mothers involved with their 9 to 13-months-old children, according to Clarke-Stewart (1973), 40 to 45% of the time demonstrated use of labeling, description, and expansion techniques while communicating verbally with their infants. By the time the infants were 16 to 17-months-old these same mothers used these techniques only 20% of the time, but their directive verbal approaches increased to better than 40% of their total vocalizations. When mothers and their toddlers were observed (Reichle, Longhurst, and Stepanich, 1976), however, the mothers used mostly expatiation and modeled questions in their verbalizations, while the children communicated mostly with reduction, imitation, and question utterances. In short, the mothers seemed to add to the message to be transmitted to their children and the toddlers only verbalized the most essential words in their communications. More and more research indicates the significance of the parents' contingent responsiveness to the Infants' cues; that is, infants seem to "learn" to repeat those behaviors which have resulted in a satisfactory positive parental response (Bromwich, 1976; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Gordon, 1974; Kagan, 1971; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). Thus, in a study of both lowand middle-class mothers and infants in a focused modeling situation. Waxier and Yarrow (1975) found that a "sensitive pacing" is the most significant factor in the mother's modeling behavior. The frequency of attempts to model the preferred behavior was not as effective as the pacing of her attempts.

PAGE 25

17 Teaching Behaviors Infant researchers have only recently begun to examine the relationship between parents' teaching behaviors and infant measures. As noted before, for example, Bakeman and Brown found that mothers initiate and direct more activity with boys than with girls. In spite of that finding, Gordon (1974) demonstrated that mothers' more neutral teaching behaviors were better predictors of girls' competence, while personal-social interactions correlated more the boys' competence. Both of these studies involved lowincome black families, however, and no comparable studies exist for other samples. Gordon (1974) provided still other clues into the relationship between mothers' teaching techniques and infant behavior and competence. Maternal teaching was found to have more impact upon later than earlier infant competence in the infants' first year of life, and boys' compliance which may be a forerunner to infants' task-mastery in this study was influenced more by mothers' maternal behavior than girls' compliance was. In addition, in one factor numerous maternal teaching behaviors, including mothers' initiations, elicitations directions, acceptance, and amplifications occurred along with baby responses. Among the infant activities associated with "Maternal Push," a factor described earlier in this chapter, were mastery of a task and exploration (Gordon, 1974), the two Infant behaviors examined in this study. Since exploration is basically a cognitive activity but essentially off-task behavior, it is interesting that this item has loaded on the same factor with task-mastery. Is it possible that both of these activities are stimulated by maternal "teaching" behavior, or do they occur together in

PAGE 26

18 every normal infant's repertoire of behavior whether a mother attempts to "teach" her infant or not? Would similar results occur for fathers? And what relationships between parental teaching behaviors and infant measures of competence exist for white middle-class parents? This study was designed to answer some of these questions. Knowledge of other relationships between teaching behaviors and competence factors is developing from current research on classroom teachers. Three in-depth, longitudinal studies on the relationship between teachers' interactions in the classroom and student achievement strongly suggest that directive teaching approaches are more successful than non-directive approaches. More specifically, children of low socioeconomic status profit most from a drill pattern consisting of direct questions, followed by positive reinforcement of correct responses (Rosenshine, 1976a). In addition, the Soars (1978) report that positive affect is negatively correlated with student gains in basic skills, and studies by Brophy and Evertson, Soar, and Perham all indicate that teachers of low socioeconomic status students who are effective at teaching basic skills do less "amplifying, discussing, or using pupil answers than the ineffective teacher" (Medley, 1977, p. 17). Infant researchers must begin to ask if similar relationships exist between infant competence and the parenting styles of infants' first teachers. Summa ry Infant research has only begun to explore the ways that parents can and do help their infants learn. Yet, the research conducted thus far has already suggested that a number of parental attributes and behaviors do or

PAGE 27

19 may influence or correlate with measures of Infant competence. In addition, both the age and sex of an infant had a significant relationship to various infant and parent behaviors. And mothers and fathers differed in how they related to their infants as well as how the infants related to them. Finally, the research leads to the tentative conclusion that particular teaching techniques may be more effective than others for developing children's competence. This study endeavored to broaden the field of infant research by: 1. determining if parents have distinct styles of parenting 2. exploring the relationship between parents' styles of interaction, and infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and motor development 3. examining the relationship between parenting styles and parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent and infant gender 4. determining if parent and/or infant gender had any bearing on infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and motor development

PAGE 28

CHAPTER III DESIGN The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parent's styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development. This chapter describes the research design and analysis procedures employed in this study. Sample The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community via radio, television, newspapers, and local physicians for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Only white, middle-class, two-parent families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were included in this sample. Socioeconomic status was determined by the Two Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957). Normal physical condition of the infant was determined by a physical examination at three months of age. Procedure Each family was visited in the home when the infant was approximately ten -weeks -old. The home visits provided the opportunity to gather necessary background information, to verify socioeconomic status of the family and to explain details of the Project to the parents. The visits also helped to establish a good rapport with the family. 20

PAGE 29

21 Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, spaced six weeks apart. The first session occurred when the infant was 13 weeks old, and the final session at 49 weeks of age. The videotapings took place at the University of Florida in a 12' x 12' enclosure with light blue walls and carpeting within a larger room, designed for the Project, The videotape equipment consisted of three black and white cameras and monitors, two Ij-inch reel-to-reel recorders, and one camera mixer. These videotaping procedures were designed by a media specialist and pilot tested prior to use with these subjects. A few minutes prior to each videotaping the parents were provided with a written description of an age-appropriate task adapted from B aby Learning Through Baby Plav (Gordon, 1970) (see Appendix A). Each set of parents received the same instructions for each age and were asked to interact with their child involving the described activity. Three separate three-minute long videotape segments were done on each occasion in a randomly assigned order. These segments consisted of mother with infant, father with infant, and both parents with infant. Only segments of videotape involving each parent alone with the infant were analyzed for this study. The videotaping segments with both parents and their Infant were not included since the interaction of the two parents would have complicated the statistical analyses beyond the scope of this study. When the infants reached one year of age, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development were administered.

PAGE 30

22 Data Collection Data for the parent and infant behaviors were based on the total number of observations for each behavior in all seven videotaping sessions. Only the taping segments for mothers and infants and for fathers and infants were analyzed, making a total of 78 cases. The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) was the method of data collection used in this study for the parent behaviors (see Appendix B) Adapted from the coding systems of Gordon and Jester (1972) and Ober, Wood and Roberts (1968), the RCS was initially an outgrowth of the Flanders (1965) and Bales (1951) coding devices. Although the RCS code both parent and infant behaviors every three seconds, only six parent variables from the RCS were selected for analysis in this study. Operational definitions of these six variables are as follows: Accepts: Accepts the action, behavior, comments, ideas, and/or contributions of another; positive reinforcement of these. Amplifies: Asks for clarification of, builds on, and/or develops the action, behavior, comments, ideas and/or contributions of another. Elicits: Asks a question or requests information about the content, subject, or procedure being considered with the intent that another should answer (respond) Responds: Gives direct answer or response to questions or requests for information that are initiated by another; includes answers to one's own question. Initiates: Presents facts, information, and/or opinion concerning the content, subject, or procedures being considered that are self-initiated; expresses one's own ideas; lectures (includes rhetorical questions — not intended to be answered) Directs: Gives directions, instruction, orders, and/or assignments to which another is expected to comply.

PAGE 31

23 Parent variables were limited to verbal behaviors, including but not limited to language, laughing, and imitation of baby sounds. The RCS also stipulated that a continuous behavior be recorded for each three second interval that it occurred. In addition, all accepting, responding, and amplifying behaviors were tallied only when preceded by an infant behavior, and accepting, eliciting, and directing behaviors were by definition task-related. This study also involved the analysis of four infant variables in relation to the parent variables. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development provided the measure of the infants' mental and physical development at the age of one year. Tallies of the amount of task-mastery and exploration by the infants were collected through the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C) Like the original Home Scale, which was developed by Watts and Barnett (1971) for the observation of mothers and toddlers in the home, this observation schedule requires a tally for each parent, child, or general activity listed which occurs during each fifteen second interval. Mastery of the task was coded for each fifteen second interval the infant successfully completed the activity presented to him/her. It was important to note what task was presented to the infant by the parent rather than what task had been described in the written instruction. In contrast, exploration was coded each fifteen second interval the child was observed seeking out objects in the environment not related to the task. Occasionally, exploration Included involvement of the child with a task-related object in an task-unrelated fashion. For example, the child who purposefully dropped buttons on the floor rather than into the slot was exploring.

PAGE 32

24 Observer Training Two observers were trained to code the Reciprocal Category System, and two additional persons were trained to code the Home Scale. The training which lasted for approximately one month ended when the two observers for each observation schedule were within two tallies of each other on each item. Recognizing the likelihood that the coders would drift from the initial coding standards, additional comparisons of their tallies on the individual items were made every two weeks during the year they were coding the videotapes. Interrater agreement was not computed for the parent variables, but the average interrater agreement for the two Home Scale items was 91.7%. Method of Analysis The total number of occurrences over all seven sessions was tallied for each of the six parent behaviors and the infant task-mastery and exploration items. Hypotheses of this study and the corresponding analysis procedures used are stated below: Hypothesis I : The six parent behaviors are not Independent but will cluster to form distinct systems of behavior, or parenting styles. Principal component analysis with a maximum of five factors being rotated was applied to the six parent variables. The analysis consisted of an orthogonal solution with varimax rotation, using a SAS program. Hypothesis II : There will be no relationship between a parent's style of interaction and the Infant's task-mastery, exploration, Mental Development Index (mi), and/or Physical Development Index (PDI) Each of the infant's scores on the task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and PDI were entered as dependent variables. Thus, four separate multiple regression analyses, using a step-wise solution, were obtained.

PAGE 33

25 Hypothesis III : There will be no difference in a parent's style of interaction based on infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. Three repeated measures Parent Gender X Baby Gender analyses of variance using the parenting style factor scores as the dependent measures were completed to assess the effect of Infant and/or parent gender on the parents' styles of interaction. The possibility that parents of the same infant might share some common interaction patterns was also speculated; therefore, this common variance was controlled by nesting Family ID within baby gender. A SAS GLM program was used. Hypothesis IV : There will be no difference in infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI or PDI based on infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. Four analyses of variance with parent gender as repeated measures and Family ID nested with baby gender were completed, also using a SAS GLM program. In these analyses, infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and PDI were the dependent variables. Reliability Intra-class correlations for infant and parent behaviors were computed on the basis of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula which is as follows: ICC = (MSB-MSW) /MSB where MSB represents the mean square between sessions and the MSW represents the mean square within sessions. This method of analysis has been recommended by Bartko because it "assesses the reliability of average ratings, rather than the reliability of a single rating" (1976, p. 764).

PAGE 34

26 A one-way analysis of variance provided the MSB and MSW figures necessary to compute the intra-class correlations. Tallies for taskmastery and exploration of each infant for each session were the units of analysis for these two infant ANOVAs Since the parenting factors were composite scores of all seven videotaping sessions, the initial six parent behaviors used to formulate the factor scores for each parent became the units of analysis for the parent ANOVAs. If it had been feasible to compute intra-class correlations of the parenting factors, most likely they would be even greater than the intra-class correlations obtained for the individual parenting behaviors. The portion of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development used for this study consisted of the 163 Mental Scale items and the 81 items of the Psychomotor Scale. The items were ordered sequentially according to the age when 50% of the children successfully accomplished a given item. The instrument was standardized on a sample of 1,262 children, the sample being stratified on the basis of sex, color, residence (urban or rural), and educational level of the head of household. The sample was nearly representative of the United States infant population, with only the rural population being underrepresented The 14 age groupings ranged from 2 to 30 months (Bayley, 1969) Split-half reliability coefficients for the Mental Scale were from .81 to .93, with a median of .88; while the Motor Scale range was from .68 to .93 (median of .84). The Motor Scale reliability was presumably lower due to the smaller number of items involved. The correlation between Mental and Motor Scales was from .50 to .60 in the first year of life. The standard error of measurement which estimates the margin of error associated with a test score was from 4.2 to 6.9 standard score points for

PAGE 35

27 the Mental Scale. The Motor Scale produced a standard error of measurement of 4.6 to 9.0. Limitations 1. The participants of this study were observed in a laboratory setting. Researchers provide conflicting reports of the degree to which a laboratory setting affects people's behavior (Belsky, 1977; Peterson, 1975). Although efforts were made to make the studio comfortable and non-threatening, it was apparent that behavior of both parents and infants was affected somewhat by the foreign environment. 2. The parents were informed that their infant's behavior and development were being studied. The videotaping made it obvious that they too were being watched. Most likely this realization altered their behavior to some degree during the videotapings Although parents could not perform beyond a certain limit, they generally displayed what they considered their best parenting behaviors. 3. Participants in this study were volunteers from the community. The parents were necessarily committed enough to the Project to participate for nearly a year with little extrinsic reward. This suggests that this sample was not a representative sample of all families in the area meeting the given criteria for this study. 4. The parents who agreed to be videotaped while interacting with their first-born infant probably had a unique relationship with their infant. In addition, they probably possessed more confidence in their parenting skills than the average parent. This was particularly true of fathers who customarily are not expected to be as involved with their infants as mothers are.

PAGE 36

CHAPTER IV RESULTS One purpose of this study was to determine whether parents interact with their infants in any particular parenting style or styles. And if parents did have distinct styles of interaction, another purpose of this study was to determine if these parenting styles had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the results of this study for each of the original hypotheses. Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped in a laboratory setting on seven occasions during the infants' first year of life. In each three-minute videotape segment, the parent-infant dyads were involved in a structured activity, which varied with the age of the child (see Appendix B) and infant behaviors which were on-task (mastery) and off-task (exploration) were coded according to the Home Scale (see Appendix C) Mental and Physical Development Indices were obtained from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for each infant at the age of one year. Results of the statistical analyses for each hypothesis of this study are described below. Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I Tallies for the parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behavior were computed over all seven videotaping 28

PAGE 37

29 sessions for each parent. The mean scores and standard deviations for the six parent behaviors are presented in Table 1. Principal component analysis with an orthogonal solution rotated to varimax criterion was applied to the six parent behaviors. Matrices of two, three, and four factors were obtained (see Appendix D for a table of each matrix). When a minimum loading of .40 was applied, the threefactor matrix produced the most independent factors. These three factors, found in Table 2, have been used in the remaining analyses. Consequently, the hypothesis that distinct, independent styles of parenting would result from the parents' interaction with their Infants was confirmed. In fact, three distinct parenting styles were found to exist. The first of these parenting styles, labeled "Friendly Persuasion," included the parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations. Providing Information, asking questions, and building on to the Infants' activity were all a part of this parenting style. The second style was the "Responsive Parenting" mode of Interaction. With this approach of relating to the infant, a parent would merely respond to the infant's activity or request rather than actively pursuing Involvement with his/her child. Thus, this parenting style was more passive than the other two parenting styles. "Positive Direction," the third style of interaction, combined parents' accepting and directing behaviors. That is, parents gave their child instructions as well as positive reinforcement. For example, the parent might have said "Pull the string," followed by "Good, you did it!" when the task was completed. And so the pattern continued. In summary, then, three parenting styles were found to exist as parents interacted with their Infants. These three styles were labeled

PAGE 38

30 TABLE 1 MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS Variable Mean Standard Deviation Accepting 13.06 10.04 Amplifying 7.95 6.97 Responding 3.45 2.74 Eliciting 30.03 19.17 Initiating 26.54 19.23 Directing 38.76 22.52

PAGE 39

31 TABLE 2 FACTOR LOADINGS OF THREE PARENTING STYLES Persuasion" "Responding" Direction" V5 Initiating .87 V4 Eliciting .69 V2 Amplifying .46 V3 Responding .59 VI Accepting .66 V6 Directing .58

PAGE 40

32 "Friendly Persuasion," "Responsive Parenting," and "Positive Direction." Factor scores for each parent were computed based on their individual tallies of the six behaviors using the factor loading of the three parenting styles. Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis II Hypothesis II investigated the relationship of infant behavior and development with the parents' styles of interaction. Did the on-task (mastery) or off-task (exploration) behavior of the infants correlate with any particular style of parenting? Or did parenting styles relate more to infants' mental or motor development? Results of the four regression analyses are described below. The step-wise regression of the parenting factors on infants' taskmastery produced highly significant results for two factors (Table 3 reports the results). Factor 3, which is the positive directive approach, entered the equation first and correlated positively with infants' successful on-task behavior (mastery) The second factor to enter the equation, "Friendly Persuasion," was negatively correlated with infants' mastery of a task. Infant exploration, or active off-task behavior, did not correlate significantly with any of the parenting styles (see Table 4). Again, "Positive Direction" (Factor 3) entered the regression equation first, and approached but did not reach significance. The two regression analyses Involving infants' developmental scores and parenting styles produced non-significant results, although they both correlated most highly with parent's responsive behavior (see Tables 5 and 6) Apparently, mental and motor development at one year as measured

PAGE 41

33 TABLE 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY WITH PARENTING FACTORS 3 AND 1 DF SB MS F Regression 2 1056.09 528.04 14.61** Residual 75 2709.76 36.13 DF B Beta STD Error B F Factor 3 1 k.kl .48 .93 22.95** Factor 1 1 -1.11 -.35 .78 12.18** Residual 75 17.23 **P = .01 *P = .05

PAGE 42

34 TABLE 4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS' EXPLORATION WITH PARENTING FACTOR 3 DF SS MS Factor 3 1 276.66 276.66 3.22 NS Residual 76 6534.83 85.98

PAGE 43

35 TABLE 5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT MENTAL DEVELOPMENT INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2 DF SS MS F Factor 2 1 996.87 996.87 1.93 NS Residual 76 38786.92 510.35 TABLE 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2 DF SS MS Factor 2 1 .16 .16 1.58 NS Regression 76 7.57 .10

PAGE 44

36 by the Bayley Scales, are not related to parents' styles of interaction with their infants. To summarize, only one of the Infant variables related to a significant degree with the parenting styles. A strong positive relationship occurred between infant task-mastery and the positive direction of parents. Surprisingly, the task-mastery correlated negatively with parents' "Friendly Persuasion." That is, infants whose parents were both directive and accepting were more successful in the mastery of given tasks than infants whose parents provided information (initiated) asked questions (elicited), or amplified in the structured activity setting. Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis III An ANOVA procedure was run on each of the three parenting factors with Infant gender. Parent gender, and Infant gender X Parent gender as the independent measures. Parent gender was treated as a repeated measure and Family ID was nested within Baby gender to eliminate any common variance of each family from the error term. As predicted, the analysis indicates that parenting styles were not affected by Infant gender and/or parent gender (see Table 7) Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis IV An ANOVA procedure with Parent gender as a repeated measure and Family ID nested within Baby gender was computed on each of the four Infant variables. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there was any relationship between Infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development and infant's gender, parent's gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. As predicted and reported in Table 8, there were no significant results. Mean scores for the infant variables grouped according to parent and Infant gender are reported on Table 9.

PAGE 45

37 TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PARENTING STYLES WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER Parenting Factor 1: "Positive Direction" DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 1.25 1.25 .93 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 49.58 1.34 Parent Gender 1 .87 .87 3.00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .20 .20 .69 NS Error 37 10.74 .29 Parenting Factor 2; "Responsive Parenting" DF SS MS Baby Gender 1 .31 .31 .43 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 26.52 .72 Parent Gender 1 .43 .43 2.26 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Error 37 7.13 ,19 Parenting Factor 3: "Friendly Persuasion" DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 .16 .16 .17 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 35.49 .96 Parent Gender 1 .18 .18 .86 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .03 .03 .14 NS Error 37 7.75 .21

PAGE 46

38 TABLE 8 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT VARIABLES WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER Infant Task-Mastery DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 2 .00 2 .00 .03 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 2770 .85 74 .89 Parent Gender 1 .46 .46 .02 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 44 .59 44 .59 1.74 NS Error 37 947 .95 25 .62 Infant Exploration DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 442, .51 442, .51 3.24 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 37 5055, .98 136, .65 Parent Gender 1 22, .62 22. ,62 .68 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 59. ,54 59, ,54 1.79 NS Error 37 1230. ,85 33. ,27

PAGE 47

39 Table 8 continued Infant Mental Development Index DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 43.18 43.18 .13 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 36 12144.82 337.36 Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Error 36 .00 .00 Infant Motor Development Index DF SS MS F Baby Gender 1 64.32 64.32 .10 NS Family ID (Baby Gender) 35 23609.73 674.56 Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Baby Gender Parent Gender 1 .00 .00 .00 NS Error 35 .00 .00

PAGE 48

40 TABLE 9 MEAN SCORES OF INFANT VARIABLES BY PARENT AND INFANT GENDER Males 23 Females 15 Mothers Task-Mastery Exploration 17.17 38.83 18.47 31.93 Fathers Task-Mastery Exploration 18.17 36.17 16.40 33.07 MDI 119.61 118.07 PDI 119.57 118.07

PAGE 49

41 In addition to the analyses reported above, a complete report of the correlations of all parent behaviors and infant variables is listed in Appendix E. Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors Intra-class correlation reliability coefficients for the six parent measures were computed separately for mothers and fathers and can be found in Table 10. The range of reliability scores was from ,39 to .94, with the exception of mothers' amplifying behavior. Reliability of maternal amplification has been recorded as zero, as is conventionally done with negative coefficients. Apparently this item is highly unstable from session to session with this sample. Since amplifying behavior scores were pooled with two other parental behaviors in Factor 1 (Friendly Persuasion) in the data analysis, the seriousness of a zero .00 coefficient was somewhat reduced although not eliminated. Reliability coefficients for the two Infant behaviors were quite high, with the score for task-mastery being .98 and the exploration coefficient being .97. Summary Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped as they interacted in a structured learning activity every six weeks during the infant's first year for a total of seven times. Parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behaviors from the videotaped sessions were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation demonstrated that three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant interactions. The first parenting style, called "Friendly

PAGE 50

42 TABLE 10 RELIABILITY OF PARENT BEHAVIOR VARIABLES Fathers Mothers Accepting .80** .66* Amplifying .46 .00 Responding 94 ** .71** Eliciting .82 ** .76** Initiating .57 .39 Directing .88 ** .84 ** .05 level of significance ** .01 level of significance

PAGE 51

43 Persuasion," Included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behaviors. Another parenting style was simply responsive, and the third style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive reinforcement. Multiple regression analysis indicated that only task-mastery of the infant correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction," Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Results The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their Infants, and if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. The minor purposes of this study were to determine if infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender had any relationship to parents' styles of interaction or to infants' taskmastery, exploration, mental or motor development. Hypothesis I was supported by the data which indicated that there were three distinct parenting styles. The first style of interaction, labelled "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' verbal initiations, elicitations, and amplifications, as they interacted with their infants. The second style, "Responsive Parenting," applied to parents who responded only when the infants requested or demanded a response from them. "Positive Direction," the third parenting style, described parents who primarily gave verbal directions, instruction, and positive reinforcement to their infants. Hypothesis II, which states that there will be no relationship between a parent's style of interactions and infant's task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development was partially rejected. No significant 44

PAGE 53

45 relationship was found between the three parenting styles and infants' exploration, mental or motor development. In contrast, infants' mastery of a task was significantly related to two parenting styles. The "Positive Direction" parental approach correlated positively with infants' task-mastery, and the "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task. These results are very similar to the research findings on teachers' classroom interactions. As reported by Rosenshine (1976a), several studies have reported that the directive teaching approach was most effective in the classroom. More specifically, for low socioeconomic children, drill instruction, consisting of direct questions followed by teachers' acknowledgements of correct responses, correlated most positively with student achievement gains in basic skills. Direct questions in a classroom situation could easily be compared to the directive approach in this study. In both cases, the children are clearly informed of what is expected of them; then they are given feedback as to the appropriateness, and particularly the correctness, of these responses. In contrast, this study and research on teachers' classroom behaviors both found indirect interactions with children to be ineffective. The "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style, including parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations, closely resembles the indirect teaching approach involving discussion, amplification, and use of the pupil answers in the classroom (Medley, 1977). Just as these indirect teacher interactions correlated negatively with pupil gains in low level cognitive skills, "Friendly Persuasion" of parents correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task.

PAGE 54

46 Hypothesis III which states that there will be no difference in parents' styles of interaction based on infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender was supported. This finding differs from several other research findings, yet these other studies are limited to infants' attachment to mothers and fathers, and the amount and kind of activity and conversation they exhibit with their infants rather than structured learning situations. Only one study reported that fathers encouraged infants' curiosity and cognitive and motoric activities more than mothers did (Biller, 1974). Possibly no differences existed between mothers' and fathers' parenting styles in this study because the fathers in this sample were more involved with their infants or exhibited better parenting skills than the average father, and thus their parenting behaviors more closely resembled mothers' parenting styles. Sex of the infant also had no significant relationship to parents' interaction styles. Although a few studies have reported differences in mothers' interactions with their children based on the children's gender, the nature of these differences have not been consistent. One study, for example, reported that mothers verbalized more with female than with male toddlers (Fagot, 1974) while another study stated that mothers initiated and directed more activity with male infants than with female infants (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Possibly the relationship between children's gender and parents' interaction styles varies with the situation and age of the child. The fact that this study combined the results of seven videotaping sessions, and thus seven different situations and ages, may explain why no differences in parenting styles based on infant

PAGE 55

hi gender were evident. Other analyses from the Parent-Infant Transaction Project, which treated the seven videotaping sessions separately, in fact support this contention (Huitt, 1978). The fourth and final hypothesis of this study stated that there will be no difference in infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development relative to parent gender, infant gender, or the interaction between parent and infant gender. This hypothesis was also supported and corresponds with most other findings in the infant literature. The only notable exception was the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969) which demonstrated that boys were significantly more active and exploratory than girls were. Although there was a similar tendency for boys to be more exploratory in this study, the difference between boys' and girls' exploration did not reach a significant level. If the Infants had been given more opportunity to explore, however, possibly the infant sex differences would have been more obvious. Conclusions and Implications The results of this study have led to the following conclusions: 1. Parents exhibit three distinct parenting styles while interacting with their infants in structured learning activities. Some parents are more directive and accepting with their infants while some parents are merely responsive. Finally, "Friendly Persuasion" describes the parents who initiate activities, ask questions, and provide information as they interact with their infants. 2. Infants of parents who are directive and accepting in their interactions are most apt to master the tasks the parents attempt to teach them.

PAGE 56

48 3. The infants of parents who are indirect in their interaction with their infants by initiating activities, asking questions, and providing Information will not master the tasks being taught as frequently as the infants of parents who do not use this indirect parenting style called "Friendly Persuasion." Recommendations for Parent Education Parent educators need to inform parents of the three types of parenting styles demonstrated in this study and the implications of these modes of interaction on infants' behavior. Although no direct cause-and-effect relationships may be assumed, the research does suggest that parents who are directive and accepting with their infants are more likely to have infants who are successful at completing age-appropriate tasks than parents who use more indirect interactional behaviors with their infants. Other parental styles of interaction may be more appropriate in other situations, but the more directive, positive approach seems to be most effective when a parent wants a child to complete a task. Parent educators should explore ways of instructing parents to interact directly and positively with their infants as well as to recognize the appropriate situation(s) in which to use this parenting style. Limitations 1. The sample used in this study consisted of white, middle-class parents where both mother and father were actively involved with their infant. The infants were normal, first-born children under the age of one year. Conclusions or implications drawn from this study must be limited to populations similar to this sample.

PAGE 57

49 2. Since no experimental treatments were implemented, no direct cause-and-ef f ect relationships may be made on the basis of this study. 3. Infant development measures were limited to total scores, due to the design of this Project. If item by item scores of the Bayley scores had been available, possibly more specific conclusions could have been drawn from the mental and motor development scores, in relationship to the parenting styles. 4. Since exploration was not a major focus of this study, exploratory behavior was limited to the active, off-task behaviors of the infants. Thus, the potential effect of Infants' exploration on the other variables being examined in this study was substantially limited. Recommendations for Further Research 1. The three parenting styles demonstrated by the participants in this study need to be explored further by researchers. Do these same styles exist for other populations? Will fathers and mothers of other populations behave similarly or differently? Do parents continue to interact in the same ways as their children grow older? Additional parenting styles could be Investigated by examining parental behaviors as parents and infants interact in a variety of situations. 2. Infants' successful completion of a task correlated positively with parents' "Positive Direction" and negatively with parents' "Friendly Persuasion." Do similar relationships exist for other populations? Will similar relationships occur when a different set of tasks are involved? Careful analysis of the effect of varying tasks and situations on these relationships are also needed.

PAGE 58

50 3. Task-mastery was the only infant variable which related to parenting styles in this study. A more in-depth study of various aspects and kinds of exploration is needed, to see how these components related to other aspects of infant competence as well as to parenting styles. Parents not only may affect infants' exploration by the way they interact, but also by the type of environments they permit or create for their infants to explore. It may be wise to investigate how to encourage creative exploration by our children in addition to successful task-mastery if they are to be better able to cope with a quickly changing world around them. 4. Parenting styles in a more natural setting may very well differ from parents' interactional styles in a laboratory. And parents' ways of relating to infants from day to day may have a more significant effect on infants' competence than the styles parents exhibit in a structured activity. These issues all need to be explored. 5. Measures of infant competence, such as the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, may have more meaning if analyzed item by item (Yarrow, 1972) Research on the relationship between competency items or composites and parenting styles may be relevant for the future. Summary The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. The minor purposes of this study were to determine if parenting styles or infants' task-mastery.

PAGE 59

51 exploration, mental or motor development had any relationship to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. The results demonstrated that the parents exhibited three distinct styles of interaction. Parents who initiated, elicited, and amplified verbally with their infants exhibited the parenting style labelled "Friendly Persuasion." The second parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third interactional style, "Positive Direction" included the directive and positive reinforcement parents verbalized to their infants. None of the parenting styles or infant variables related significantly to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. Parenting styles did not relate significantly to infants' exploration, mental or motor development; nor were parenting styles or infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development significantly related to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender. Two parenting styles were found to have a significant relationship to infants' successful completion of a task, "Positive Direction" correlated positively to infants' task-mastery, and "Friendly Persuasion" correlated negatively to the task-mastery measure. These results resemble research findings on classroom teacher behaviors which indicate that directive teaching approaches are more effective than nondirective teaching methods in producing student achievement gains in basic skills. Apparently, infants develop competency in completing tasks when they know what is expected of them and are given positive reinforcement for their accomplishments.

PAGE 60

APPENDIX A TASK DESCRIPTIONS

PAGE 61

13 Weeks Dialogue This is probably a familiar activity. The purpose of this activity is to engage in a conversation with your baby. Try to get your baby to make a sound. When your baby does make a sound like a coo or gurgle, respond to him by a combination of stroking his stomach, moving your head close enough and smiling so you're sure he sees you, and repeating the sound s/he makes. S/he may then coo some more and you have a "conversation" in progress. 53

PAGE 62

54 19 Weeks Two-way Stretch This game's aim is to give your baby practice in controlling things around him by using his body. Take the toy — a small telephone rattle with an elastic strip attached — and dangle it near the baby. Encourage him to reach and grab for it. Use such words as "get", "grab" and "catch" while you're playing together. When he does grasp it, pull gently away so there's some stretch between you and him. Get into a push-pull game with him, saying, "Pull. You'll pull and I'll pull." Then gently release it and repeat. Try it so that he uses both hands. Be sure it's fun and not teasing. Keep the toy so he can get it when he makes an effort. Remember that the underlying principle you want to convey to your baby is that it's worthwhile trying to do things, that an effort on his part can have gratifying results. When he makes sounds of pleasure because he has grabbed it, respond to these sounds by repeating them. Enjoy his enjoyment.

PAGE 63

55 25 Weeks Mirror and Toy The aims of this game are to help the baby become aware of his own appearance and to give him experiences in seeing objects reflected in a mirror. Place your baby in your lap so that he is facing the same direction that you are. Hold a mirror so that he can see himself. Point to his reflection and say, "I see (your baby's name)." "Where is ?" "Find ." "Look at ." Pick up the objects on the table, one at a time, move them behind your baby's head so that he can see them in the mirror along with himself. Name the objects, telling something about the object, such as, "This is a ball and it is round." Then say, "Where is the ball?" as you remove it from the mirror's reflection.

PAGE 64

56 31 Weeks Bait Casting Children love to pull on strings. You may remember the earlier game of grabbing and pulling on the elastic. Here we take advantage of his interest and skill to teach him a new way of getting something he wants. The best arrangement is to sit at a table with your baby on your lap and place a piece of twine, shoestring, or cord on the table so he'll pick it up and pull on it. Later, tie the toy to one end of the string and put it at the far end of the table so the baby can get it by pulling the string to him. When he has enjoyed this for a while, leave that string with the object tied to it and add two plain strings. Let him see what happens as he pulls each string. He will discover that only one string brings an object. Accompany this with words like, "You didn't get anything." "Oh! that one got the toy." After this general play, see if you can teach him always to pull the right string. Place them in different places where he can see the connection between string and toy and say, "Get the toy." First he'll be interested only in the string, then in the toy. Gradually he'll be aware of both, but he won't realize they are connected. Then he'll "experiment" and finally use the string to bring the toy to him.

PAGE 65

57 37 Weeks Hide-and-Seek 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.

PAGE 66

58 43 Weeks Blocks 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 striaght 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 newfound skills and for the parents and child to enjoy playing together.

PAGE 67

59 49 Weeks Dropping Buttons in Jar 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 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.

PAGE 68

APPENDIX B RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRNASACTION PROJECT

PAGE 69

The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) consists of nine behavioral categories, each of which can be assigned to either parental or infant behaviors as well as one other category (10) reserved for silence, confusion and sleeping behaviors. When infant behavior is observed, this is recorded in one of nine appropriate categories and is marked as a single digit number (1-9). When mother's verbal behavior is observed, the appropriate category (11-19) is marked. This is similar for father's verbal behavior which is marked in categories 21-29. Vfith the introduction of the reciprocity factor — allowing each of the nine categories to be assigned either to father, mother or child — the system is actually expanded to an operational total of 28 categories (three different persons times the nine common categories plus Category 10 for silence, confusion and sleeping, for a total of 27 + 1 = 28). This protocol represents a clarification of the original classroom RCS (Ober, et^ al 1968) as it was modified for use in an infant-parent education project (Gordon and Jester, 1972). Summary of Categories for the Reciprocal Category System in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project Infant Category Mother Category Father Category Behavioral Title of Category 1 11 21 Warms (inf ormalizes) the climate 2 12 22 Accepts or gives positive reinforcement 3 13 23 Amplifies 4 14 24 Elicits 61

PAGE 70

62 Infant Category Mother Category Father Category Behavioral Title of Category 5 15 25 Responds 6 16 26 Initiates 7 17 27 Directs 8 18 28 Corrects 9 19 29 Cools (formalizes the climate) Category 10 includes both parental and Infant behaviors: Silence : pauses, periods of no activity; Confusion : yawns, sneezing, coughing, wetting, "accidents" or unintentional interruptions; period of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer; Infant Sleeping : going to sleep. Ground Rules Ground Rule I Any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal in nature. This would include words, sentences, laughing, imitating baby sounds, as well as any other verbal noises or sounds that the adult may make. For example, if the adult holds out a ball for the infant but doesn't say anything, this would be recorded as adult silence. When the mother holds out a toy for the child and says, "Do you want the toy?", thifl then would be recorded as a 14 (elicits) Recorded infant behavior need not be verbal and can include physical motor movements as well as any sounds or utterances that may be made.

PAGE 71

63 For example, if the father says, "Do you want the ball?", and the infant silently takes it, this would then be recorded as 24 followed by 5. Summarizing, any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal, unless a 10 is recorded. However, infant behaviors should be appropriately recorded even if they are not verbal in nature. Ground Rule II A single continuous behavior is to be recorded every three seconds. For example, a father may try unsuccessfully to elicit behavior from the child for 15 seconds. This would be recorded as such 24 24 24 24 24 There is one mark for each three seconds of the same activity. If there is one continuous behavior that is ongoing without any other behavior observed, a record is then made every three seconds. On the other hand, behaviors that occur before a three second interval has ended are also recorded. For example, a mother may alternately elicit and direct her responding infant within one three second interval. This would be recorded: 14 5 17 5 Thus, the three second interval becomes unimportant if more than one behavior is observed in a three second time period. In summary, the same behavior is to be recorded a minimum of every three seconds. If there is any change in behavior by either father, mother or infant, this should be noted as it occurs. You must record everything that occurs with a minimum of one recorded behavior every three seconds. At the end of a three minute session, there will be a minimum of 60 recorded behaviors; the maximum is dependent upon the number of transactions that have taken place.

PAGE 72

64 Warm-Cool Subdimension Warms (Inf ormalizes) the Climate Categories 1, 11, 21 Parent or child "warms" deals with feelings and emotions displayed by the particular person being observed. Warming behavior tends to reduce or release tension and/or alleviate threat by means of sincere and genuine warmth on the part of the initiator. If the child is crying, and a parent verbally coos or laughs while cuddling, fondling, hugging, or holding the child, this is viewed as warming the climate by the parent. Clarifying and accepting the feelings and emotions of another in a warm and friendly manner, even though the feelings or emotions being clarified are positive or negative is viewed as warming behavior. If the parent encourages or praises the non-task oriented behavior, comments, ideas and/or contributions of the child in a sincerely loving and positive manner, this is warming (11, 21). Generally, this category, as well as 9, 19 (cools) deals principally with the socioemotlonal climate, based mainly on feelings and emotions and not task related behavior. Baby warming behavior could include smiles, laughs, gurgles, cooing, etc. Self-reinforcing behavior may also fall into the category of "warms". An example of this would be if a baby is thumb sucking or other self-stimulating behaviors. If there is no ongoing task activity, and the parents tell the child how "good" he or she is, this is also warming and would come under this category. Warming or cooling the environment are task irrelevant, people oriented behaviors. For example, a parent may say, "Ooh, you're such a pretty baby," even though there may be no discernible antecedent or

PAGE 73

65 task related motivation for this sort of approval. Warming, In this example, Is purely an expression of love and care, and is not a reinforcement for some behavlorlal task. A general ground rule for the warm-cool subdiraension is to record this dimension only if the warming or cooling deals with the emotional climate, not the task activity. This will help you as an observer to differentiate warms from accepts and cools from corrects. Warms and cools, as mentioned earlier are emotionally "people" oriented task irrelevant categories, while accepts and corrects are "task" oriented behavioral categories. Cools (Formalizes) the Climate Categories 9, 19, 29 As in the warming category, this dimension deals principally with situations that directly involve feelings and emotions. Some parents or children may be so logical and dispassionate that warming or cooling behaviors may not be observed. Conversely, some parents or children may be predominantly warm and/or cool separately or interchangeably. Cooling behavior may tend to create tension if statements are intended to modify behavior of another from an Inappropriate toward a more appropriate pattern. Their tension may occur as a result of such cooling behaviors as irritation, bawling out someone, rejecting or criticizing the opinion or judgements or another, or exercising control in order to gain or maintain authority of a situation. Cooling behavior tends to produce threat and/or create tension. Implied in the cooling are usually efforts toward sarcasm, ridicule, regimentation, or alienation or another. Some examples of infant and/or adult cooling behaviors are active or passive aggression, crying, hitting, biting, etc., as well as attempts to leave, crawl away or other uncooperation.

PAGE 74

66 Once again, as in the warms category, we are primarily interested in the task irrelevant, person oriented displays of emotion. For example, a parent may say, "I don't like you," or "Boy, you are a dumb kid," or utter other sounds that produce threat, create tension or in some other way cool and formalize the climate. If these comments are task irrelevant and mainly cooling emotional expression, then they would qualify under the category of cools (1, 19, 29). Accept-Correct Subdimension In contrast to the person oriented behaviors that are covered in the warm-cool subdimension, specific task related behaviors and actions, including ideas, comments, opinions, contributions, acts, etc., are covered by the accept-correct subdimension. Accepts Categories 2, 12, 22 By accepting the action, behavior, comments, ideas, opinions, and/or contributions of another, one is seen as positively reinforcing these. A spirit of agreement and support is reflected by accepting as well as reinforcing and strengthening of a particular accepted response. The use of this category should be limited to situations where it is obvious that the verbal behavior was intended to be a positive reinforcement. Some parents may be observed to emit a repeated monotonous "O.K." or "yes" that has little, if any, significance to the child. These should be regarded by the observer as nothing more than verbal tics, not qualifying as positive reinforcement, and should be ignored. There needs to be a degree of awareness and sincerity on the part of the acceptor or reinforcer.

PAGE 75

67 Accepting and reinforcing another behavior may have a subtle or indirect effect on the other's feelings or emotions. However, the principal activity here is that of reinforcing and accepting, not warming or cooling, and should be coded as such. The distinction should be made between Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive reinforcement) and Category 1, 11, 21 (warmth perceived as a positive reinforcer) While Category 1, 11, 21, as we have described, deals primarily with emotional climate, Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive reinforcement) deals with and relates to specific tasks and behaviors. Reinforcement can only occur where there is a specific task-related behavior to reinforce. For example, if the child holds the toys as requested, this specific behavior might be reinforced by the parent saying, "That's very good!" or "Yes, that's it," or "You're doing it beautifully!" or a whole other variety of positive verbal reinforcements that relate to the specific behavior being emitted by the child. Whereas the warming category emphasizes only purely emotional task irrelevant feelings, this category of accepts (2, 12, 22) places its emphasis on the strengthening, reinforcing and accepting of specific task relevant behavior. Infants can accept or reinforce parental behavior. For example, a parent may try to elicit the specific infant response of grabbing a string. The baby may not grab that string, but may turn toward and orient itself to the string in a smiling or otherwise positive manner. Here the infant is not emitting the specific desired response, but does "accept" the parental behavior. This behavior would be appropriately recorded as accepts (2)

PAGE 76

68 Parental reinforcement must be verbal in nature and only qualifies as reinforcement if the verbal acceptance is directed toward some specific behavior being emitted by the baby. For example, if the parent were to hold out a string, then the infant takes it and parent follows with "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this parental comment would qualify as a positive reinforcement because the parent is expressing his acceptance of the infant response of string grabbing. If, on the other hand, the parent were to suddenly pick up and cuddle the child for no apparent (task related) reason while saying, "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this, then, would be an example of warms (1, 11, 21) because it is solely directed at emotional, task irrelevant feelings. Corrects Categories 8, 18, 28 Correcting behavior occurs when one tells another that the answer or behavior emitted is inappropriate or incorrect. This may be seen in behaviors of disagreement or giving corrective feedback. The verbal behavior must be directed towards the behavior of another rather than towards one's self. Parental examples of corrects (18, 28) include: "No, I disagree," "That's not correct," or "A better way could be found." If an explanation is offered as to why a particular behavior or answer is more appropriate or correct than another, this additional information should be recorded in Category 6, 16, 26 (initiates). Following a statement of correction or acceptance with a qualifying explanation and information is sometimes referred to as "public criteria" since it discloses publicly why a given behavior is correct or not and is an explanation (Category 6, 16, 26). Infants can also emit correcting behavior toward the parents. For example, the parent may try to elicit (14, 24) our example of string

PAGE 77

69 grabbing in the infant, but may find the infant turning away from or otherwise "disagreeing" with parental behavior. This, then, would be recorded as an 8. Correcting (8, 18, 28) or accepting (2, 12, 22) behaviors then, are task related while warming (1, 11, 21) and cooling (9, 19, 29) behaviors are person related, task irrelevant, emotional expressions. Amplify-Direct Subdimension It should be made clear that amplification and direction are not suited to absolute dualistic positions on a continuum. In the truest sense of the word they are not as contrasting, perhaps, as warm-cool, accept-correct and elicit-initiate However, there are some qualities of the two categories which are contrasting. For example, to amplify a child's contribution by asking him to extend or clarify a contribution is certainly different from directing him to do something which is not his idea to begin with. Consequently, because they serve vital functions in the RCS, both rationale-wise and operationally, amplification and direction have been included and are treated as dualistic qualities in this presentation. Amplify Categories 3, 13, 23 Amplification is the clarification of, building on, and/or developing of actions, behaviors, comments, and/or ideas. It is also the prolonged and continued simple imitation or expansion of another's behavior. Amplification, however, does not mean the exaggeration of an activity. It is more the building on to the behavior as in extension or continuation.

PAGE 78

70 An adult may present the infant with a toy, which the infant takes in hand. Amplification by the child occurs if the child builds on and develops other behaviors with the toy after the object has been offered. Ongoing attention to the task beyond adult presentation as well as extension or elaboration of adult presentation without additional adult direction is also amplification. As the term is used here, the primary purpose of amplification is to prolong, continue, "play up" or build upon one's contributions and behavior. This occurs when a behaver develops, extends and/or expands a behavior initiated by another. The infant's behavior may be amplified to the adult. If the parent says, "Oh, you'd rather crawl," to the child, this is an elaboration or amplification of that infant's behavior. Example I ; A parent's question, "I'Jhat did you mean by doing that?" would be a request for clarification or amplification of a previous behavior and would be recorded in this category (13, 23). The child's response to the question, if any, might be recorded as a response (5) or amplification (3) depending on the nature of the request as well as his original contribution. Example II : One parent's comment to the other parent on the child's behavior may be amplification. The mother may say to the father, "Oh, you see how strong he is able to grasp the string!". This is an elaboration and amplification of the child's behavior. Example III : If a child is given a ball with which to play, amplification (3) would be checked if the behavior is continued or built upon in different ways. The child may throw, bounce, roll, pull, bite, hold, etc., the ball above and beyond a simple request to "Take the ball."

PAGE 79

71 Directs Categories 7, 17, 27 "Directs" involves giving of directions, instruction, orders and/or assignments to which another is expected to comply. Grammatically, directing is inherent in declarative and, more appropriately, imperative types of statements which describe a task related behavior to which the directed one is supposed to comply. For example, an infant may emit behavior which attempts to direct adult attention, direct adult activity, or convey an expected response. Conversely, an adult may order, instruct, tell, or direct infant behavior in a specific task related direction. As in the category of accepts or gives positive reinforcement (2, 12, 22) and corrects (8, 18, 28), this category of directs (7, 17, 27) is concerned only with task relevant behavior. If the parent directs the child in a task related manner, either 17 or 27 would be appropriately marked. However, if the parent directs the child with comments that are sharply emotional and task irrelevant, then the category of cools (19 or 29) would be appropriately marked. Example 1 : The task is string pulling and the mother says, "Take the string, take the string!" This would be an example of task related directs (17). Example II : The task is holding a ball and the infant, crying, is told, "Cut that crying out immediately!" Since this comment has a sharply emotional tone and is unrelated to the specific task, the category of cools (19 or 29) would be noted. In Example II the direction or directing comments are either harshly delivered or given for the purpose of discipline or regimentation and thus would be recorded not as directs, but as cools (9, 19, 29),

PAGE 80

72 Example III; "Sit down iiranediately or "Wipe that smile off your face!" would be recorded as Category 19 or 29 rather than 17 or 27 if these comments are unrelated to any specific behavioral task and are only directed at cooling the emotional climate. The category of directs (7, 17, 27) is only marked when the behavior of one person is directed by another towards the relevant task. Example IV: The infant directs the adult with body movements and activity that convey an expected response. The infant may hold the object toward the adult— conveying a message to "Take it!" Teaching Subdimension The teaching concept is predicated on the assumption that transactions occur on a give-and-take basis. In this contest, any participant in a given familial situation-child and parent alike-can elicit (Categories 4, 14, 24) or initiate (Categories 6, 16, 26) information. Should information be requested, it is customary for the other to appropriately respond (Categories 5, 15, 25). Part of a give-and-take experience is the directed exposure of a child to a particular form of behavior and experience as opposed to a general experience with an adult. Elicits Categories 4, 14. 24 Generally, an eliciting verbal behavior takes the grammatical form of a question. For example, "Do you want the ball?" or "Can you lift it up?" are examples of eliciting questions. It is possible to elicit behavior by asking questions and requesting information about content, subject, or procedures being considered, with the intent that the other should answer and respond appropriately (Categories 5, 15, 25). An Infant may be seen as eliciting non verbally (4) by "asking for help" and

PAGE 81

73 assistance, while parents will elicit behavior (14, 24) by verbally asking the child to respond to task related questions. Example I : Parent elicits: "Do you see it?" "Can you hold it?" "Do you like it?" "Do you understand?" or other task related questions for the purpose of eliciting a task related response from the child would be appropriately marked in either Categories 14 or 24. Infants elicit behavior in a variety of ways both verbally and non verbally. The astute observer must note the behavior within the unit of analysis of the transaction between the infant and the parent. Example II : Sounds made by the infant for the purpose of getting his parent(s) to respond may be examples of elicits (4) or directs, depending on whether the sounds were made in a questioning or directive manner: "Oooo?" or "Oooo!" Also, non verbal behaviors emitted for the purpose of eliciting parental responses are examples of elicits (4) That is, the infant may hold his arm out as he "elicits" attention or requests toys. Any behavior which is emitted for the purpose of eliciting or securing information or other behavior is correctly recorded in Categories 4, 14, or 24. Initiates Categories 6, 16, 26 Initiating behaviors are statements of facts, information, and/or opinions and ideas concerning the content, subject, or procedures being considered that are self-initiated. Initiating is the expression of one's own ideas, or lecturing for the purpose of presenting facts and information. In many cases, parental initiation will be observed as presentation of information, opinions or ideas. Infant initiation could be

PAGE 82

74 exploratory behavior which has no observable antecedent. Initiatory behavior reflects to some degree a quality of individual choice in that the contribution is voluntary, self-initiated and at the discretion of the initiator. Should the contribution or behavior be offered at the request of another person, this is not self-initiated behavior, but a response to another and would be correctly recorded as 5, 15, 25 (responds). Example 1 : One parent who may say to the other parent, "This task seems to be related to intelligence," would be an example of initiates since it is the expression of one's opinion for the purpose of presenting unelicited information (16, 26). Example II : Infant may suddenly start talking and crawling towards a toy on the carpet would be an example of unelicited, voluntary, selfinitiated behavior (6) Example III : Parent may say to the child, "This is a good toy and you'll enjoy playing with it a lot," or "This is a red ball," are examples of initiating behaviors toward the child since it is a statement of opinions and initiated activity for the purpose of presenting ideas to the infant (16, 26). Responds Categories 5, 15, 25 Responds means giving of answers or responses to questions or request for information that are directed, initiated or elicited by another person. It is also behaving in a specific manner which is the result of an elicitation or direction of another. Responses are recorded as 5 for infant, 15 for mother and 25 for father. For example, the parent's question, "Do you want the ball?" followed by the infant's taking the ball would be recorded as elicits (14 or 24) followed by 5.

PAGE 83

75 A response can be as simple as a smile by the infant or a yes or no, or as complex as is reasonable within our framework. Be aware of the behaver when determining whether or not the behavior is a response to another person's request (Categories 5, 15, 25) or a self-initiated, voluntarily emitted behavior (Categories 6, 16, 26). To determine whether or not infant's behavior is Category 5 (response) or 6 (initiates the following conditions should be considered and met: A. To which adult is the baby attending? Which adult is attending to the infant? Example I : If the father is eliciting a behavior in the child (24), and the baby initiates behavior toward the mother (6), in this transactional matrix it should be observed that the infant is not responding to the father, but the mother might be responding to initiations of the infant. B. Is the behavior appropriate to the question or request? Is the behavior a reasonable response in light of the information or tasks being requested? Each session will include specific tasks for mother, father and child. When one behaver responds appropriately to the behavior of another, this would be recorded as 5, 15, 25. Example II : When a parent asks for attention and the child complies by looking to the parent, the child's response is recorded as Category 5 even though there may not be any verbal infant behavior. Example III: If the child takes a toy after the mother says, "Do you want the toy?", this is Category 14 followed by Category 5. Any response that is appropriate to requests or eliciting stimuli completes a logical sequence for the purpose of plotting a transactional matrix. The behavior of responding usually follows either eliciting or directing behavior.

PAGE 84

APPENDIX C HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT

PAGE 85

Introduction This observation schedule requires that the observer watch behavior for 15 seconds, and then record observed behavior on the coding sheet. As an observer ask yourself, "What are the specifically designated behaviors I saw in this 15 second interval?" and then record them on the coding sheet. The videotaped behaviors you will be observing include seven different parent-infant tasks such as talking and playing. This observation record is divided into four major categories: General Activities, Child Activities, Parent Techniques and Encouragement Index. General Activities and Child Activities are coded by a single check or mark if the child is involved in the activity; Parent Techniques and the Encouragement Index items are marked "M" if the mother is involved, "F" if the father Is involved and "MF" for both. Within each major category are specific sub-categories listed and described below: A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES 1. Verbal and S3Tnbolic Learning 2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning 3. Visual Pursuit (Tracking) 4. Object Permanence 5. Means and Ends Differentiation B. CHILD ACTIVITIES 1. Mastery 2. Exploration 3. Observing by Child 77

PAGE 86

78 4. Blank Stares 5. Seeks Emotional Comfort C. PARENT TECHNIQUES *1. Labeling, Reading *2. Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion 3. Actively Engaging Child A. Observing of Child 5. Refocusing on Task *6. Suggestion or Command *Numbers 1, 2, 6 when observed, are always coded additionally as Encouraging D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX 1. Encouragement 2. Discouragement A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES 1. Verbal and S3Tnbolic Learning The main focus in this activity is on the infant's acquisition of verbal skills, such as receptive language and formation of speech. Four examples illustrate the differing forms of this activity: a) Child responds to and/or imitates parental elicitation: parent says, "Oooo," and child says, "Oooo." b) Child responds to parental requests, directions, etc., indicating infant language acquisition. A parent may say, "Give it to me," followed by a correct infant response. If the parent gives a verbal message to which the infant correctly responds, this would be marked as receptive language development.

PAGE 87

79 c) If the parent gives a verbal and motor message, (e.g., "Do you see the toy?" as the parent holds the toy two Inches from the infant's eyes), be careful not to mark, if the child is responding to the motor message. This activity is checked if the child is engaged only in verbal learning. d) The infant produces speech sounds without ellcitatlon indicating verbal acquisition and/or symbolic learning. Babbling is characteristic of verbal skill acquisition. This may be incidental sound making, the key words being speech related sounds. Crying and/or cooing may not be verbal learning. The first parent-infant task that has been videotaped is called Dialogue. The parents attempt verbal elicitation of baby speech or sound imitation. At earlier ages the infant only learns simple vowel sounds; the child gradually acquires consonant sounds later. 2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning The infant differentiates in spatial orientation and visual perception or acquisition of skills for perceptual and fine motor coordination. The infant gradually acquires understanding of size, distance, angle and spatial perspective of objects. Examples may be observed in such tasks as pat-a-cake, two way stretch, dropping buttons in a jar, and bait casting. 3. Visual Pursuit This involves visual tracking of an object by the infant through his or her visual field. The mother and/or father may hold an object and move it across the infant's visual field. If the infant usually fixes on and follows the object, this sub-category would be marked.

PAGE 88

80 4. Object Permanence The infant is to demonstrate awareness that even though an object is out of sight, it does not cease to exist. In the activity of hide and seek, a toy is hidden under a blanket after the baby has seen it. If the infant attentively and immediately tries to recover the hidden toy, ignoring the blanket which is covering it, then she/he has successfully demonstrated Object Permanence and this category would be marked. If the infant does not immediately go for the toy, or does not realize that the toy is hidden but instead "discovers" the toy, this would not be checked. The infant or parent may drop an object out of the infant's visual field and parent says, "Where did it go?" If the child then looks and/or reaches or moves in the direction where the object is, this would be Object Permanence as well as Verbal and Sjnnbolic Learning. 5. Means-End Differentiation This involves the extent to which the child is aware that something, i.e., a blanket or stick, (means) can be pulled or used to get a desired object (ends). For example, a toy may be placed on the far end of the blanket. The child pulls the blanket (means), in order to get the toy (ends). Here, the blanket in and of itself is not what should be interesting to the child, but instead the child should view the blanket as a means to pull the toy closer. If the child simply plays with the blanket, this would not be checked. B. CHILD ACTIVITIES 1. Mastery This is to be coded when the child successfully completes a particular task or activity in the correct manner. For example, the

PAGE 89

81 child places a button in the can, or finds the toy under the blanket. 2. Exploration This is coded when the child explores, searches and seeks out objects in the environment. This is not task oriented behavior, but is something the child does on his ovm. For example, the child may cease trying to get buttons in the can and begin to crawl around exploring other things; or the child may just begin active visual exploration of the environment. Through such exploration the child is presumed to gain a certain amount of undefined cognitive input. The infant may explore toys, gaining presumed cognitive input as well as enjojrment. In Exploration, the infant manipulates toys, moving a truck back and forth, or inappropriately uses or abuses toys. 3. Observing by the Child This occurs when the child looks at people or objects in his surroundings but makes no overt behavioral move to follow, respond, etc. An example is when the child just sits and watches his father try to engage him in an activity. The infant makes no overt move to respond or engage in the activity, but instead, just observes and looks. 4. Blank Stares This is different from Observation in that the child does not seem to be watching any specific object or individual in the environment, but instead is focusing on internal processes. 5. Seeking Emotional Support This will be difficult to observe during the first five to six months of age due to the infant's lack of person and object permanence. However,

PAGE 90

82 seeking of emotional support may be noted during periods of selfstimulation (thumb sucking, holding blankets or other "security objects, e.g., a pacifier) which expresses emotional need for comfort, or the child "reaching out" for mother and/or father Is another example of seeking emotional comfort. C. PARENT TECHNIQUES 1. Labeling and Reading The parent either reads to the Infant or teaches the Infant (I.e., how objects may be labeled). In the mirror and toy game, the Infant is Introduced to a mirror while the parent works with the infant on labeling, e.g., "I see (baby's name) in the mirror." Also, the parent may say, "Find ," "Look at ," or "Where is ?" The parent teaches and provides feedback to the child. If the infant picks up a ball and the parent says, "Yes, that's a ball," this is labeling and would be marked. Labeling and Reading are always coded additionally as Encouraging. 2. Demonstration, Explanation, and Expansion Demonstration involves showing the child what to do. Explanation and Expansion provide description of process to the Infant. Imparting specific verbal knowledge, or relating Information and experience to the child exemplify this activity. This can also be nonverbal. The mother may show the infant how to get the toy by pulling the blanket while the child watches. Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion are additionally scored as Encouraging.

PAGE 91

83 3. Actively Engaging the Child This technique indicates the focal effort of the parent is to engage actively in behavior together with the infant. Both parents may actively engage the infant simultaneously by playing with the infant, dramatizing for the infant or entertaining by roughhousing or playful teasing. This technique usually promotes infant enjoyment of life through reciprocal, playful, non task related behaviors. Example A : Parent makes funny face for infant (entertains) Example B : Parent tickles infant (Affectionate game) Example C : Parent playfully holds a toy just beyond the reach of the infant (teasing) 4. Observing of the Child A special ground rule here is that if and only if the parent is not involved in any other activity, would it be possible to note this behavior. The parent attends to the child by observing or looking at him. This is to be coded only when another technique is not seen throughout a 15 second interval. 5. Refocusing on the Task This occurs when the adult tries to concentrate the child's interest and attention on an ongoing task. The child's attention may drift after an activity has been initiated and in this activity the parent refocuses the child back on the task in which the child was engaged. 6. Suggestion or Command This activity indicates that the effort of the parent is to direct the infant to initiate a certain task related behavior. The parent may suggest, command, request, beg, urge, or ask the infant to do something;

PAGE 92

84 or the parent may suggest by a physical gesture such as handing the Infant a toy; or the parent (s) may give the infant a choice: "Which do you want, the ball or the string?" This activity is an encouragement technique and when observed, the encouragement index would also be marked. Example A : Parent requests, "Will you hold this?" Example B : Parent urges, "Please talk to me." Example C : Parent orders, "No, don't do that!" Example D : Parent suggests, "Let's try it." D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX 1. Encouragement 2. Discouragement The parent may Encourage or Discourage the child with either verbal or nonverbal messages. Parental Encouraging usually involves a positive supportive tone while Discouraging involves a negative tone. This does not have to be specific overt behavior, but only a parental attitude indicator toward the child's behavior. Parental techniques of 1) Labeling and Reading, 2) Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion, and 6) Suggestion or Command, are always additionally coded as Encouraging. They may also be coded as Discouraging, when applicable.

PAGE 93

APPENDIX D MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS

PAGE 94

TOO FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES Factor 1 Factor 2 Accepting .42 .58 Amplifying .53 -.03 Responding .OA -.43 Eliciting .73 .01 Initiating .85 .20 Directing .56 .23 86

PAGE 95

87 THREE FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Accepting .23 -.33 .61 Amplifying .47 .10 ,23 Responding .00 .51 -.04 Eliciting .73 -.03 .19 Initiating .81 -.19 .32 Directing .34 .08 .60

PAGE 96

88 FOUR FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Accepting .20 -.34 .60 .14 Amplifying .40 .09 .21 .35 Responding -.01 .51 -.03 .03 Eliciting .73 -.01 .22 .04 Initiating .78 -.18 .33 .23 Directing .32 .08 .61 .07

PAGE 97

APPENDIX E CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS AND INFANT VARIABLES

PAGE 98

90

PAGE 99

91 CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS WITH INFANT VARIABLES Mastery Exploration MDQ PDQ Accepting .31 .15 .01 .13 Amplifying .05 .08 .08 .27 Responding .06 .08 ,20 .14 Eliciting .09 ,05 .09 .11 Initiating ,18 .04 .04 .01 Directing .26 .15 .01 .12

PAGE 100

92 CORRELATION OF INFANT VARIABLES Mastery Exploration MDQ PDQ Mastery 1,00 ,32 ^35 33 Exploration .32 l.OQ .qO .04 -36 .00 1.00 .55 PDQ .33 .04 .55 1.00

PAGE 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ainsworth, Mary D. Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the infant in interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1964. 10 51-58. ^ — Ainsworth, Mary D. The development of infant-mother attachment. Review of Child Development Research III B.M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Bakeman, Roger, & Brown, Josephine. Behaviorlal dialogues: An approach to the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development 1977, 48, 195-203. Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Weslev. 1951. Bartko, Jay J. On various intra-class correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological Bulletin 1976, 83 (5), 762-765, Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Manual New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1969. Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between attributes of mothers and their infants' IQ scores. Child Development 1971, 42, 1083-1097. (a) Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between infants' vocalizations and their mothers' behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1971, 17, 211-226. (b) — Beckwith, Leila, Cohen, Sarale E., Kopp, Claire B., Parmelee, Arthur H., & Marcy, Toni G. Caregiver-infant interaction and early cognitive development in preterm infants. Child Deve lopment. 1976. 47 579-587. Bell, R.Q. & Harper, L. Effects of the Young on Adults in Man and O ther Animals. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. Bell, Silvia M. The development of the concept of object as related to infant-mother attachment. Child D evelopment. 1970 41 (2) 291-311. ^ ^ K^), Belsky, Jay Mother-infant interaction at home and in the laboratory, the effect of context. A paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, La.. 93

PAGE 102

94 Biller, H.B. The father-infant relationship: Some naturalistic observations Unpublished manuscript. University of Rhode Island, 1974. Bowlby, J. Maternal Care and Mental Health Geneva: I'Jho, 1951. Bowlby, J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 1958, 39^, 350-373. Bromwich, Rose M. Focus of maternal behavior in infant intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1976, 4^, 439-446. Bromwich, Rose M. Stimulation in the first year of life? A perspective on infant development. Young Children 1977, 32. (2), 71-82. Caldwell, Bettye, & Hersher, Leonard. Motherinfant interactions during the first year of life. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1964, 10 119-128. Carew, Jean V. Effective home learning environment in the preschool years. Paper presented at IDHR Conference, Gainesville, Fla., March 1976 Clarke-Stewart, K. Alison. Interactions between mothers and their young child ren : Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1973, 38. (6-7), 1-109. Crawley, S.B., Rogers, P.P., Freidman, S., lacobbo, M. Criticos, A., Richardson, L. & Thompson, M.A. Developmental changes in the structure of mother-infant play. Developmental Psychology 1978, 14, 30-36. Eckerman, Carol, & Rheingold, Harriet. Infants' exploratory responses to toys and people. Developmental Psychology 1974, 10 (2), 255-259. Emde, R.N., Gaensbauer, T.J., & Harmon, R.J. Emotional expression in infancy: A biobehavioral study. Psychological Issues, Monograph Series 1976, 40. Fagot, Beverly. Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental reaction. Developmental Psychology 1974, 1^ (4), 554-558. Flanders, N.A. Teacher influence, pupil attitude, and achievement. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Cooperative Research, Monograph No. 12, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1965. Gewirtz, H., & Gewirtz, J. Visiting and caretaking patterns for kibbutz infants: Age and sex trends. American Jo urnal of Orthopsychiatry. 1968, 38, 427-443. Goldberg, Susan. Social competence in infancy: A model of parent-infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1977, 23, (3), 163-177.

PAGE 103

95 Goldberg, Susan, & Lewis, Michael. Play behavior in the year-old infant: Early sex differences. Child Development 1969, 40, 21-31. Gordon, Ira J. Baby Learning Through Baby Play New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1970. Gordon, Ira J. An investigation of the social roots of competence. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida, TDHR, final report to NIMH on Project //I ROL MH22724, October, 1974. Gordon, Ira J. The Infant Experience Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. 1975. Gordon, Ira J., & Jester, Eraile R. Instructional strategies in infant stimulation. JSAS Selected Documents in Psychology 1972, 2, 122. Henderson, Bruce, & Moore, Shirley G. Measuring exploratory behavior in young children: A factor-analytic study. Developmental Psychology 1979, 15 (2), 113-119. Hollingshead, A.B. Two-factor index of social position Unpublished manuscript, 1957. Huitt, William G. Analysis of reliability of parent-infant interaction through the use of generalizability theory. Gainesville, Fla.: Dissertation, University of Florida, 1978. Kagan, J. Change and Continuity in Infancy New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1971. Kagan, K.L., Wimberger, H.C., & Bobbitt, R.A. Analysis of mother-child interaction in young mental retardates. Child Devel opment, 1969, 40, 799-812. Kotelchuck, Milton. The Infant's relationship to the father: Experimental evidence. The Role of the Father in Child Development Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 329-344. Lamb, Michael E. Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development. Human Development 1975, 18 (4), 245-266. Lamb, Michael E. Interactions between 8-month-old children and their fathers and mothers. The Role of the Father in Child Development Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 307-328. (a) Lamb, Michael E. Twelve-month-olds and their parents: Interaction in a laboratory playroom. Develop mental Psychology, 1976. 12 (3) 237-244. (b) — Michael E. Lamb. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of life. Child Development 1977, 48, 167-181.

PAGE 104

96 Medley, Donald M. Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review of Process-Product Research Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1977. Millar, W, Stuart. Social reinforcement of a manipulative response in sixand nine-month-old infants. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1976, 17, 205-212. Moss, H.A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant interaction. Merrill -Palmer Quarterly 1967, 13, 19-36. Moss, H.A., & Robson, K. Maternal influences in early social-visual behavior. Child Development 1968, _39, 401-408. Ober, R.L., Wood, W.E., & Roberts, A. An instructional manual for the Reciprocal Category System. Based on a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, 1968. Olmstead, Patricia. Observational studies of parental teaching behavi. A review of the literature. Unpublished paper. University of Florida, 1975. ors : Osofsky, Joy, & Hung, David. Personality correlates of parental teaching behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology 1972, 121, 3-10. Osofsky, Joy, & O'Connell, Edward. Parent-child interaction: Daughters' effects upon mothers' and fathers' behaviors. Developmental Psychology 1972, 1_ (2), 157-168. Peterson, M.A. The study of a methodology for observing mother-infant interaction patterns during the second year of life. Dissertation Abstracts International 1975, 36 (12-8), 895. Powell, Louisa Feldman. The effect of extra stimulation and maternal involvement on the development of low-blrth-weight infants and on maternal behavior. Child Development 1974, 45, 106-113. Radin, Norma. The role of the father in cognitive, academic and intellectual development. The Role of the Father in Child Developme nt. Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 237-275. Ramey, Craig Flnkelstein, Neal. & O'Brien, Carolyn. Toys and infant ^95rm%Jl!3l2"' Journal of Genetic Psvcholnp. Rebelsky, F. & Hanks, C. Fathers' verbal interaction with infants in the tirst three months of life. Child Development 1971, 42, 63-68. Reichle, Joe, Longhurst Thomas, & Stepanich. Lyanne. Verbal interaction 273-27^^ P^^^l^P-^^^tal Psvrhol npv, 1976, 12 (4),

PAGE 105

97 Rosenshine, Barak. Classroom instruction. National Society for the Study of Education 1976, Yearbook, 335-371. (a) Rosenshine, Barak. Recent research on teaching behaviors and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education 1976, 22, 61-64. (b) Rubenstein, Judith. Maternal attentiveness and subsequent exploratory behavior in the infant. Child Development 1967, 38. 1089-1100. Schaffer, H.,& Emerson, P. The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 1964, 29 (Serial No. 94). Schmidt, Wilfred, & Hore, Terence. Some nonverbal aspects of communication between mother and preschool child. Child Development 1970, 41, 889-896. Soar, Robert S.,& Soar, Ruth M. Setting variables, classroom interaction, and multiple pupil outcomes. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Education, Basic Skills, Gainesville, Fla., June, 1978. Stayton, Donelda, Hogan, Robert, & Alnsworth, Mary D. Salter. Infant obedience and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization reconsidered. Child Development 1971, 42^, 1057-1069. Walters, James, & Stinnett, Nick. Parent-child relationships: A decade review of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family 1971, 23, 70-103. Watts, J.C., & Barnett, I.C. Environments compared. Mimeographed manuscript of Chapter 9, 1971. Waxier, Carolyn, & Yarrow, Marian. An observational study of maternal models. Develo pmental Psychology 1975, 1 (4), 485-494. Weisberg, Paul. Social and nonsoclal conditioning of infant vocalizations. Child Development 1963, 34, 377-388. Weisler, Ann, & McCall, Robert B. Exploration and play: Resume and redirection. American Psychologist 1976, ^i, 492-508. White, Burton, Watts, Jean Carew, Barnett, Ttty Chan, Kaban, Barbara, Marmor, Janice, & Shapiro, Bernlce. Experience and Environment : Major In fluences on the Development of the Young Child, Vol. 1 Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Yarrow, Leon J., Rubenstein, Judith L., Pedersen, Frank A., & Jankowski, Joseph J. Dimensions of early stimulation and their differential effects on infant development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 1972 18, 205-218. ^'

PAGE 106

98 Yarrow, Marian R. Research on child-rearing as a basis for practice. Child Welfare, 1973, 52, 209-219. Zegiob, Leslie E., & Forehand, Rex. Maternal interactive behavior as a function of race, socioeconomic status, and sex of the child. Child Development 1975, 46, 564-568.

PAGE 107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Karen Jane Long was born in Long Branch, New Jersey, in 1945. She attended public schools in New Jersey, graduating from Millville High School in 1963. She received her B.A. degree from Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, in 1967, majoring in sociology, and was granted a M.A.T. degree from George Washington University, Washington, D.C., in 1968, with a major in primary education. For four years, Karen worked for the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services, first as a social worker, and later as a supervisor of day care activities in Camden, New Jersey. She also was director of the Camden Day Nursery for three years. In January, 1976, Karen began work towards her Ph.D. in early childhood education at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. While studying at Florida, she was a research assistant on the ParentInfant Transaction Project with Dr. Ira Gordon, and taught courses in Early Childhood Education and the Social Foundations of Education. Karen is presently Assistant Professor of Education and Director of the Child Development School at the University of South Carolina, Salkehatchie Campus at Allendale, South Carolina. 99

PAGE 108

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. Linda L. Lamme, Chairperson Assistant Professor of General Teacher 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. 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. Athol B. Packer Associate Professor of General Teacher 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. Patricia T. Ashton Assistant Professor of Foundations of Education

PAGE 109

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. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Division of Curriculum and Instruction 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. June 1979 Gordon D. Lawrence Associate Professor of Instructional Leadership and Support Dean, Graduate School


47
gender were evident. Other analyses from the Parent-Infant Transaction
Project, which treated the seven videotaping sessions separately, in
fact support this contention (Huitt, 1978).
The fourth and final hypothesis of this study stated that there
will be no difference in infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or
motor development relative to parent gender, infant gender, or the
interaction between parent and infant gender. This hypothesis was also
supported and corresponds with most other findings in the infant litera
ture. The only notable exception was the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969)
which demonstrated that boys were significantly more active and exploratory
than girls were. Although there was a similar tendency for boys to be
more exploratory in this study, the difference between boys' and girls'
exploration did not reach a significant level. If the infants had been
given more opportunity to explore, however, possibly the infant sex
differences would have been more obvious.
Conclusions and Implications
The results of this study have led to the following conclusions:
1. Parents exhibit three distinct parenting styles while
interacting with their infants in structured learning activities. Some
parents are more directive and accepting with their infants while some
parents are merely responsive. Finally, "Friendly Persuasion" describes
the parents who initiate activities, ask questions, and provide infor
mation as they interact with their infants.
2. Infants of parents who are directive and accepting in
their interactions are most apt to master the tasks the parents attempt
to teach them.


13 Weeks
Dialogue
This is probably a familiar activity. The purpose of this activity
is to engage in a conversation with your baby. Try to get your baby to
make a sound. When your baby does make a sound like a coo or gurgle,
respond to him by a combination of stroking his stomach, moving your
head close enough and smiling so you're sure he sees you, and repeating
the sound s/he makes. S/he may then coo some more and you have a
"conversation" in progress.
53


APPENDIX E
CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS AND INFANT VARIABLES


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vii
IINTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Problem 1
Need for Study 1
Design of the Study 4
Scope of the Study 5
IIREVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6
Infants' Gender and Age 7
Parents' Gender 9
Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant
Interactions 12
Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to
Infant Competence 14
Parent-Infant Interactions 16
Teaching Behaviors 17
Summary 18
IIIDESIGN 20
Sample 20
Procedure 20
Data Collection 22
Observer Training 24
Method of Analysis 24
Reliability 25
Limitations 27
IVRESULTS 28
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I 28
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis II 32
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis III 36
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis IV 36
Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors 41
Summary 41
v


59
49 Weeks
Dropping Buttons in Jar
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 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.


11
frequently and for shorter periods of time to their infants before the
age of three months than mothers did. In yet another study (Biller,
1974), fathers encouraged their infants' curiosity, and cognitive and
motoric activity more than mothers did.
In addition, how mothers and fathers react to their infants may vary
according to the age and sex of the children, some research contends. In
particular, fathers of female infants verbalized more before the infants
were a month old (Rebelsky & Hank, 1971) but fathers verbalized more
with their male infants after three months of age (Moss, 1967). Mothers
reacted just the opposite, according to the Moss study (1967); that is,
at age three weeks, mothers verbalized more with their male infants, but
they verbalized more with their female infants at three months of age.
In a comparison of parents in the United States and Guatamala, Kotel-
chuck (1976) reports less of a difference between the mother-infant and
father-infant relationships in the United States than between the two
Guatamalan parents' relationships with their infants, suggesting specific
variations in cultural patterns. He claims that these differences are
"more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a
predisposed biological disposition" (p. 343). A study of preschool girls
and their parents (Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972) supports the same notion
that cultural expectations affect adult behavior, for although the
daughters in the study behaved the same with both parents, fathers
focused more on the task at hand while mothers encouraged interpersonal
interaction with their daughters.
Differences between mothers and fathers have been found in the
amount of time spent with their infant, the type of activities they
became involved in, and the amount and kind of verbalizations. Some of


29
sessions for each parent. The mean scores and standard deviations for
the six parent behaviors are presented in Table 1.
Principal component analysis with an orthogonal solution rotated to
varimax criterion was applied to the six parent behaviors. Matrices of
two, three, and four factors were obtained (see Appendix D for a table of
each matrix). When a minimum loading of .40 was applied, the three-
factor matrix produced the most independent factors. These three factors,
found in Table 2, have been used in the remaining analyses.
Consequently, the hypothesis that distinct, independent styles of
parenting would result from the parents' interaction with their infants
was confirmed. In fact, three distinct parenting styles were found to
exist. The first of these parenting styles, labeled "Friendly Persua
sion," included the parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying
verbalizations. Providing information, asking questions, and building
on to the infants' activity were all a part of this parenting style.
The second style was the "Responsive Parenting" mode of interaction.
With this approach of relating to the infant, a parent would merely
respond to the infant's activity or request rather than actively pursuing
involvement with his/her child. Thus, this parenting style was more
passive than the other two parenting styles.
"Positive Direction," the third style of interaction, combined
parents' accepting and directing behaviors. That is, parents gave their
child instructions as well as positive reinforcement. For example, the
parent might have said "Pull the string," followed by "Good, you did it!"
when the task was completed. And so the pattern continued.
In summary, then, three parenting styles were found to exist as
parents interacted with their infants. These three styles were labeled


10
studies have compared the effects of each parent on the child. In the
first of these studies (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964) babies at nine months
of age protested more to being separated from their mothers than from
their fathers. At eighteen-months-old, however, the same babies protested
just as much when separated from their fathers. In contrast, other studies
report a preference for mother in infants' attachment behavior only in
stressful situations (Lamb, 1976b), while another study found a preference
for either parent over a stranger (Lamb, 1977). In spite of conflicting
details, all of these studies confirm that infants are attached to their
fathers as soon as attachment behaviors begin, although the nature of the
father-infant relationship may differ qualitatively from the mother-
infant relationship.
Possibly the differences in attachment behavior depend on differences
in the amount and kind of interaction the two parents have with their
baby. Gewirtz and Gewirtz (1968) in their study of 24 four- and eight-
month-olds in eleven Israeli Kibbutzim calculated that the infants spent
approximately twice as much time with their mothers as with their fathers.
Most of the additional time spent with the mothers, however, consisted of
caretaking activities. Similarly, Lamb (1977) observed that mothers held
their infants more often to perform caretaking functions while fathers
held their infants more often for purposes of play. This may account for
the infants' more positive reactions to playing with their fathers than
with their mothers in the same study, although the types of play the two
parents engaged in were essentially the same.
Other differences between a mother's and father's involvement with
their infant have been noted. In Rebelsky and Hank's study (1971) of
ten infants from two weeks to three months of age, fathers talked less


19
may influence or correlate with measures of infant competence. In
addition, both the age and sex of an infant had a significant relationship
to various infant and parent behaviors. And mothers and fathers differed
in how they related to their infants as well as how the infants related
to them. Finally, the research leads to the tentative conclusion that
particular teaching techniques may be more effective than others for
developing children's competence.
This study endeavored to broaden the field of infant research by:
1. determining if parents have distinct styles of parenting
2. exploring the relationship between parents' styles of
interaction, and infants' task-mastery, exploration,
mental and motor development
3. examining the relationship between parenting styles and
parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent
and infant gender
4. determining if parent and/or infant gender had any bearing
on infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and motor
development.


16
Parent-Infant Interactions
Several researchers have looked specifically at the type of verbal
interactions which take place between mother and child. Mothers involved
with their 9 to 13-months-old children, according to Clarke-Stewart (1973),
40 to 45% of the time demonstrated use of labeling, description, and
expansion techniques while communicating verbally with their infants. By
the time the infants were 16 to 17-months-old, these same mothers used
these techniques only 20% of the time, but their directive verbal approaches
increased to better than 40% of their total vocalizations. When mothers
and their toddlers were observed (Reichle, Longhurst, and Stepanich, 1976),
however, the mothers used mostly expatiation and modeled questions in their
verbalizations, while the children communicated mostly with reduction,
imitation, and question utterances. In short, the mothers seemed to add
to the message to be transmitted to their children and the toddlers only
verbalized the most essential words in their communications.
More and more research indicates the significance of the parents'
contingent responsiveness to the infants' cues; that is, infants seem to
"learn" to repeat those behaviors which have resulted in a satisfactory
positive parental response (Bromwich, 1976; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Gordon,
1974; Kagan, 1971; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). Thus, in a study of both
low- and middle-class mothers and infants in a focused modeling situation,
Waxier and Yarrow (1975) found that a "sensitive pacing" is the most
significant factor in the mother's modeling behavior. The frequency of
attempts to model the preferred behavior was not as effective as the
pacing of her attempts.


22
Data Collection
Data for the parent and infant behaviors were based on the total
number of observations for each behavior in all seven videotaping
sessions. Only the taping segments for mothers and infants and for
fathers and infants were analyzed, making a total of 78 cases.
The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) was the method of data
collection used in this study for the parent behaviors (see Appendix B).
Adapted from the coding systems of Gordon and Jester (1972) and Ober,
Wood and Roberts (1968), the RCS was initially an outgrowth of the
Flanders (1965) and Bales (1951) coding devices. Although the RCS codes
both parent and infant behaviors every three seconds, only six parent
variables from the RCS were selected for analysis in this study.
Operational definitions of these six variables are as follows:
Accepts: Accepts the action, behavior, comments, ideas,
and/or contributions of another; positive rein
forcement of these.
Amplifies: Asks for clarification of, builds on, and/or
develops the action, behavior, comments, ideas
and/or contributions of another.
Elicits: Asks a question or requests information about
the content, subject, or procedure being con
sidered with the intent that another should
answer (respond).
Responds: Gives direct answer or response to questions
or requests for information that are initiated
by another; includes answers to one's own question.
Initiates: Presents facts, information, and/or opinion
concerning the content, subject, or procedures
being considered that are self-initiated; expresses
one's own ideas; lectures (includes rhetorical
questionsnot intended to be answered).
Directs: Gives directions, instruction, orders, and/or
assignments to which another is expected to
comply.


CHAPTER III
DESIGN
The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had
distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if
so, whether parent's styles of interaction had any relationship to their
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development.
This chapter describes the research design and analysis procedures
employed in this study.
Sample
The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born
infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the commu
nity via radio, television, newspapers, and local physicians for the
Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Only white, middle-class, two-parent
families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled video
taping sessions in the Project were included in this sample. Socio
economic status was determined by the Two Factor Index of Social
Position (Hollingshead, 1957). Normal physical condition of the infant
was determined by a physical examination at three months of age.
Procedure
Each family was visited in the home when the infant was approximately
ten-weeks-old. The home visits provided the opportunity to gather
necessary background information, to verify socioeconomic status of the
family and to explain details of the Project to the parents. The visits
also helped to establish a good rapport with the family.
20


70
An adult may present the infant with a toy, which the infant takes
in hand. Amplification by the child occurs if the child builds on and
develops other behaviors with the toy after the object has been offered.
Ongoing attention to the task beyond adult presentation as well as
extension or elaboration of adult presentation without additional adult
direction is also amplification.
As the term is used here, the primary purpose of amplification is to
prolong, continue, "play up" or build upon one's contributions and
behavior. This occurs when a behaver develops, extends and/or expands
a behavior initiated by another. The infant's behavior may be amplified
to the adult. If the parent says, "Oh, you'd rather crawl," to the
child, this is an elaboration or amplification of that infant's behavior.
Example I: A parent's question, "What did you mean by doing that?"
would be a request for clarification or amplification of a previous
behavior and would be recorded in this category (13, 23). The child's
response to the question, if any, might be recorded as a response (5) or
amplification (3) depending on the nature of the request as well as his
original contribution.
Example II: One parent's comment to the other parent on the child's
behavior may be amplification. The mother may say to the father, "Oh,
you see how strong he is able to grasp the string!". This is an
elaboration and amplification of the child's behavior.
Example III: If a child is given a ball with which to play, ampli
fication (3) would be checked if the behavior is continued or built upon
in different ways. The child may throw, bounce, roll, pull, bite, hold,
etc., the ball above and beyond a simple request to "Take the ball."


43
Persuasion," included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating
behaviors. Another parenting style was simply responsive, and the third
style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions
and positive reinforcement.
Multiple regression analysis indicated that only task-mastery of
the infant correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles,
relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating
positively to parents' "Positive Direction." Infants' exploration,
mental and physical development were not significantly related to the
parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship
between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition,
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were
not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender.


94
Biller, H.B. The father-infant relationship: Some naturalistic observations
Unpublished manuscript, University of Rhode Island, 1974.
Bowlby, J. Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: Who, 1951.
Bowlby, J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1958, _3£, 350-373.
Bromwich, Rose M. Focus of maternal behavior in infant intervention.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 4^, 439-446.
Bromwich, Rose M. Stimulation in the first year of life? A perspective on
infant development. Young Children, 1977, 32^ (2), 71-82.
Caldwell, Bettye, & Hersher, Leonard. Mother-infant interactions during
the first year of life. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10,
119-128.
Carew, Jean V. Effective home learning environment in the preschool years.
Paper presented at IDHR Conference, Gainesville, Fla., March 1976
Clarke-Stewart, K. Alison. Interactions between mothers and their young
children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, 3j3 (6-7), 1-109.
Crawley, S.B., Rogers, P.P., Freidman, S., Iacobbo, M., Criticos, A.,
Richardson, L., & Thompson, M.A. Developmental changes in the
structure of mother-infant play. Developmental Psychology, 1978,
14, 30-36.
Eckerman, Carol,& Rheingold, Harriet. Infants' exploratory responses to
toys and people. Developmental Psychology, 1974, H) (2), 255-259.
Emde, R.N., Gaensbauer, T.J., & Harmon, R.J. Emotional expression in
infancy: Abiobehavioral study. Psychological Issues, Monograph
Series, 1976, 40.
Fagot, Beverly. Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental
reaction. Developmental Psychology, 1974, K) (4), 554-558.
Flanders, N.A. Teacher influence, pupil attitude, and achievement. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education,
Cooperative Research, Monograph No. 12, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1965.
Gewirtz, H., & Gewirtz, J. Visiting and caretaking patterns for kibbutz
infants: Age and sex trends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1968, 38, 427-443.
Goldberg, Susan. Social competence in infancy: A model of parentinfant
interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1977, 23, (3), 163-177.


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT
BY
KAREN JANE LONG
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
1979

TO
MY FAMILY
Who nurtured my sense
of competence from infancy

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Sincere thanks go first to all those who lived and worked with me
throughout this endeavorfor their calmness, patience, and confidence
displayed at just the right moments.
The members of my committee have been particularly helpful and
supportive:
Dr. Linda Lamme who so willingly contributed both the
technical assistance of an advisor and the enthusiasm of a friend.
Dr. Robert Soar who frequently made himself available at
odd times and places for guidance in research methodology.
I am indebted to Dr. Athol Packer for reinforcing my
interest in parent education as well as for being an outstanding model
in the field.
In addition to her gentle, warm support, I appreciate
Dr. Patricia Ashton's professionalism.
And finally, Dr. Gordon Lawrence, who exemplifies some of
the most admirable qualities of a parent-teacher in his daily interactions
with people, added a special dimension to my committee.
Many others provided assistance. Among them are Ruth Soar and
Ray Burke, who provided valuable insight into the mysteries of the
computer world; also, Sharon Strong and Karen Evans, who saved my sanity
with their typing assistance. Very special thanks go to Greg Wilmoth for
his constant concern and encouragement.
iii

My co-workers in the Parent-Infant Transaction Project also deserve
thanks, as well as the parents and infants whose participation in the
project made it such a valuable and enjoyable learning experience. In
addition, I will fondly remember Dr. Ira Gordon for his fine leadership
and genuine delight as parents and infants interacted in the videotaping
sessions.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vii
IINTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Problem 1
Need for Study 1
Design of the Study 4
Scope of the Study 5
IIREVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 6
Infants' Gender and Age 7
Parents' Gender 9
Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant
Interactions 12
Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to
Infant Competence 14
Parent-Infant Interactions 16
Teaching Behaviors 17
Summary 18
IIIDESIGN 20
Sample 20
Procedure 20
Data Collection 22
Observer Training 24
Method of Analysis 24
Reliability 25
Limitations 27
IVRESULTS 28
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I 28
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis II 32
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis III 36
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis IV 36
Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors 41
Summary 41
v

Page
V DISCUSSION 44
Results 44
Conclusions and Implications 47
Recommendations for Parent Education 48
Limitations 48
Recommendations for Further Research 49
Summary 50
APPENDICES
A TASK DESCRIPTIONS 53
B RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN THE
PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT 61
C HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT
TRANSACTION PROJECT 77
D MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS. ... 86
E CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AND INFANT VARIABLES. . 90
BIBLIOGRAPHY 93
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 99
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillinent of the Requirements
For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND INFANTS' TASK-MASTERY,
EXPLORATION, AND MENTAL AND MOTOR DEVELOPMENT
By
Karen Jane Long
June 1979
Chairman: Linda L. Lamme
Major Department: Curriculum and Instruction
The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had dis
tinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if so,
whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to their
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. In
addition, the relationship between parenting styles and the gender of the
parent and/or infant was explored as well as the relationship between the
four infant competence measures and parent gender, infant gender, and the
interaction of parent and infant gender.
The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born
infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the community
for the Parent-Infant Transaction Project (NIMH //1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01).
Only white, middle-class two-parent families who had completed at least
six of the seven scheduled videotaping sessions in the Project were
included in this sample.
Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions in a
laboratory setting, once every six weeks, beginning when the infant was
13 weeks old and ending at 40 weeks of age. At each session the parents
were provided with a written description of an activity to engage in with
vii

their infant. Mothers and fathers were videotaped separately for three
minutes as they interacted with their infant.
Parent verbal behaviors on the videotapes were coded according to
the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction
Project. The six parent behaviors examined were the accepting, ampli
fying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing verbalizations of
the parents. Infant task-mastery and exploration item behaviors were
coded according to the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction
Project. Mental and Psychomotor Development Indices were obtained at one
year of age from the Bayley Scales of Infant Development.
Three independent parenting styles occurred during the parent-infant
interactions. The'first parenting style, called "Friendly Persuasion,"
included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating behavior. Another
parenting style was "Responsive Parenting," and the third style, called
"Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions and positive
reinforcements to the infant.
Only the infants' mastery of a task correlated significantly with
any of the parenting styles, relating negatively to parents' "Friendly
Persuasion" and relating positively to parents' "Positive Direction."
Infants' exploration, mental and physical development were not signifi
cantly related to the parents' styles of interaction, and there was no
significant relationship between parenting styles and infant and/or
parent gender. In addition, infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental
and physical development were not significantly affected by infant and/or
parent gender.
viii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
There is growing interest among educators in the role of the parent
in the development of the infant. More specifically, the interaction of
parent and child in the first year of life is believed to have a signifi
cant influence on the infant's behavior and development. The purpose of
this study was to determine whether parents had distinct parenting styles
when interacting with their infants, and, if so, whether parents' styles
of interaction had any relationship to their infants' mastery of a task,
exploration, mental or motor development. The Bayley Scales of Infant
Development (Bayley, 1969), administered to each infant at the age of one
year, provided the Mental and Motor Development Indices for this study.
The parenting behaviors and infants' task-mastery and exploration scores
were based on systematic videotaped observations of structured activities
involving parents and their infants. A parenting style has been defined
as one or more ways in which a parent consistently relates to and verbally
interacts with his/her infant.
Need for the Study
Researchers have found that a variety of parental behaviors during
parent interaction with their infant relates to the infant's development.
For example, stimulation in the form of more handling of low-birth-weight
infants correlated with better scores on the Bayley Scale (Powell, 1974).
1

2
In addition, verbal stimulation (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), mutual gazing
(Schmidt & Hore, 1970), maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967), and
mothers' "sensitive pacing" (Wexler & Yarrow, 1975) all related posi
tively to infants' development.
Although mother-infant dyads have been studied more often than
father-infant dyads, according to some studies, fathers have a unique
impact upon their infants. Fathers, for example, hold their infants
more often for purposes of play while mothers hold their infants more
for caretaking purposes (Lamb, 1977). Available evidence has suggested
that qualitative differences exist in how mothers and fathers relate to
their infants from birth (Lamb, 1975), although these differences have
been viewed as either situational (Lamb, 1975), cultural (Kotelchuck,
1976), or "more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction
than a predisposed biological disposition" (Kotelchuck, 1976, p. 343).
A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969;
Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) have demon
strated that the sex of the infant also has a significant relationship
with his or her behavior. In the Goldberg and Lewis study of children
up to the age of thirteen months, for instance, boy infants were signifi
cantly more independent and exploratory than girl infants while girl
infants were more verbal than their male counterparts (1969) .
Other studies have found differences in the ways in which parents
interact with their infants, relative to the infants' sex. Mothers in
one study tended to initiate and direct more activity with boy babies
than with girl babies (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Gordon (1974), looking
at the patterns of behavior occurring in the mother-infant transaction,
also found sex differences. Certain factors such as the "performance

3
orientation" of mothers were more predictive of boys' competence than of
girls' competence. In addition, differences in parenting techniques
were found to develop over a period of time (Clarke-Stewart, 1973).
Only a few studies have suggested that parents have distinct
styles of interaction with their infants, or that parents' interaction
styles are related to infants' behavior and development (Gordon, 1974;
Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Research on the classroom
behavior of teachers, however, has led to some tentative conclusions
regarding the relationship between teachers' interactional styles and
children's behavior in the classroom, and particularly children's achieve
ment. For example, three prominent studies of low SES primary grade
children concur that "direct instruction" was the most effective pattern
for optimal academic achievement (Rosenshine, 1976a). Time spent on
academic activities was also positively correlated to achievement,
whereas time spent on non-academic activities was negatively correlated
to academic gains (Rosenshine, 1976b). A more surprising finding
indicates that teachers' positive affective behavior may be negatively
correlated with academic achievement (Soar and Soar, 1978) .
Just as academic achievement is of concern to teachers,parents are
concerned about their infant's competence. Most likely, they want their
infant to have average or above average ability in developmental skills
and to be involved and successful in tasks appropriate for their child's
age and developmental level. But what parent behaviors relate most
positively to infant competence? Is one parenting style more appropriate
than another in "teaching" an infant a new task?
This study has investigated the relationships between parents'
styles of interaction with their infants and certain infant variables

4
associated with competence. Measures of infant mental and motor develop
ment have been studied as well as the infants' mastery of tasks "taught"
by their parents and exploration. In this study exploration involved
the infants' active investigation of their environment, but essentially
off-task behavior. Furthermore, this study has examined the effect of
the infants' and parents' gender on the parents' styles of interaction
and the infant measures of competence.
Design of the Study
This study investigated infant behavior and development in relation
to parents' interactions with their infants in a structured laboratory
setting. As part of the Parent-Infant Transaction Project,* 39 white,
middle-class, two-parent families with first-born infants were recruited
from the community. Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping
sessions, occuring every six weeks, beginning when the child was 13
weeks old and ending when the child reached 49 weeks of age. At each
session, the parents were provided with a written description of an
activity to engage in with their infant (see Appendix A for task
descriptions). Each parent was videotaped separately with his/her infant
for three minutes as he/she interacted with the infant in the suggested
age and developmentally appropriate tasks.
The seven videotapes of each parent-infant dyad provided the data
for analysis for this study. Parents' verbal behaviors on the videotapes
were coded according to the Reciprocal Category System For Use In The
Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix B). The six parent
behaviors examined were the accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting,
* NIMH Grant #1 ROL MH/HD 27480-01

5
initiating, and directing verbalizations of the parents. Two infant
behaviors were studied; they were the task-mastery and exploration items
from the Home Scale For Use In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project
(see Appendix C). In addition, the Bayley Scales Of Infant Development
were the basis of obtaining the Mental and Motor Development Indices for
each child at one year of age.
Scope of the Study
The major purposes of this study were:
1. to determine if parents of infants may be categorized
or described by their styles of interaction
2. to determine if infants' mastery of a task, exploration,
mental or motor development relate to their parents'
styles of interaction.
Specific questions posed by this study were:
1. Do parents' behaviors when interacting with their infants
cluster to form distinct styles of interaction or
parenting styles?
2. Is there a relationship between a parent's style of
interaction and the infant's task-mastery, exploration,
mental or motor development?
3. Will the parent's gender or the infant's gender, or the
interaction of parent and infant gender affect the
parent's style of interaction?
4. Will the parent's gender, or the infant's gender, or the
interaction of parent and infant gender affect the infant's
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development?

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Parents interact with their babies in many ways. In addition to
their mutual involvement in daily care-giving functions, parents and
infants often interact in a purely playful and/or affectionate manner.
They also are jointly involved more frequently in what may either be
called teaching or learning situations (depending on one's perspective)
such as the activities related to this study. As parents increase their
awareness of the importance of the very early months and years of a
child's life, they seem to make more conscious efforts to involve their
infants in cognitively-oriented activities.
Just how parents go about "teaching" their children differs greatly.
Similarly, how infants respond to a learning situation varies. These
differences may correlate with personality attributes, race, or social
class factors (Beckwith, 1971; Olmstead, 1975; Zegiob & Forehand, 1975).
Both the infant's sex and the parent's sex may relate significantly to
these interactions (Biller, 1974; Lamb, 1975). In addition, there is
reason to believe that the specific teaching styles or behaviors adopted
by the parent may affect the infant in particular ways (Bromwich, 1977;
Millar, 1976). And it may be that infant behaviors in turn cause parents
to respond in certain ways (Goldberg, 1977) The literature exploring
these various factors associated with the parent-infant relationship will
be reviewed in this chapter.
6

7
Infants' Gender and Age
A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969;
Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) demonstrate
that the sex of the infant has a significant correlation with his/her
behavior in parent-infant interactions. Clarke-Stewart (1973) conducted
a longitudinal study of 36 low-income mothers and their first-born infants
from the age of nine to eighteen months. She found that boys in the
study were generally more object-oriented while girls were more socially-
oriented. Sex differences were also apparent in the Goldberg & Lewis
study (1969) of 64 thirteen-month-old infants. In particular, boys were
significantly more independent and were involved in more active and
exploratory behavior than the girls. The girls, on the other hand, were
more dependent and more verbal than their male counterparts.
In a related study of toddlers and their parents, Fagot (1974) found
that parents who made strong claims that they did not treat their children
differently because of the sex of their children did exhibit extreme
differences in behavior when actually observed with their children. The
researcher suggests that inherent differences in the children's behavior
due to his/her sex may in fact "exert . pressure for certain types of
parental reactions" (p. 558). Examples she cites include parents of girls
who respond to the females' greater sensitivity to sound by verbalizing
more with them. Similarly, boys respond less to soothing by touch or
talk, so parents tend to leave boys alone more, possibly accounting for
their greater independence.
The transactions between mothers and their new-born infants produced
rather different results in another study (Bakeman & Brown, 1977) The
mothers in this study tended to initiate and direct more activity with

8
the male infants than with the female infants, causing the female infants
to spend more time alone. These researchers also found a higher activity
level between first-born neonates and their mothers than between new-borns
and multiparous mothers. Possibly the observation of these infants and
mothers at feeding time, at such a young age, and in a hospital setting
produced the contradictory results when compared to other studies.
Gordon (1974) conducted a longitudinal study of 53 low-income black
mother-infant dyads and identified a number of factors which combine both
parent and infant behaviors and relate to infant sex. The first factor,
labelled Performance Orientation, includes several maternal techniques
which stress performance as well as infants' mastery and intellectual
activity. This factor was a significant predictor of boys' behavior from
early to later observations. Two other factors were predictive for the
female infants. The first of these factors, a mother-infant teaching
transaction, consisted of active teaching techniques on the mother's
part, including initiating, eliciting, amplifying, and directing behaviors
by the infant. The second factor with predictive ability for the girls
in the Gordon study was labelled Maternal Push, composed of maternal task-
orienting behaviors without responsiveness to the baby's emotional
comfort seeking. Gordon (1974) also uncovered an age by sex interaction.
In general, boys' scores at 25 weeks of age and younger held more pre
dictive value for later transactions while scores at 25 weeks of age and
later were more predictive for girls.
Behavioral changes were noted among 180 white first-born infants on
a variety of measures at ages 4, 8, 13, and 27 months (Kagan, 1971).
Other researchers reporting similar discontinuities with increased age
indicate the emerging social behaviors (Emde, Gaensbauer, & Harmon, 1976).

9
ability to react to environmental stimulation (Bell & Harper, 1977),
and advancing motor skills (Crawley et al., 1978) may account for the
infants' behavioral changes over time.
Existing research, then, suggests that infants' age and gender had
a bearing on their behavior and competence. In addition, mothers'
interactions differed with male and female infants. The findings are
inconsistent, however, so more research needs to be done in this area.
Thus, this study has addressed the question of infant gender as it
relates to parenting styles and infant competence, limited to infants
under one year of age.
Parents' Gender
Prior to 1964, only the mother-infant dyad had been studied (Lamb,
1975). Mothers, because they are usually the primary care-givers of
young children, were believed to have a unique and superior relationship
with their infants (Bowlby, 1951; Ainsworth, 1973). The mother-infant
relationship is also considered to be the foundation of subsequent social
relationships (Kagan, Wimberger & Bobbitt, 1969) and cognitive development.
In Bell's study (1970) of 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half
months to eleven-months-old, infants with stronger attachments to their
mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants
showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers.
Furthermore, babies displaying strong mother attachment developed the
concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of
object permanence, in 23 out of 24 cases.
Recently, the role of the father has been examined more closely.
Although some of the research analyzes the effect of the father's absence
(Radin, 1976) rather than the impact of his presence on the infant, other

10
studies have compared the effects of each parent on the child. In the
first of these studies (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964) babies at nine months
of age protested more to being separated from their mothers than from
their fathers. At eighteen-months-old, however, the same babies protested
just as much when separated from their fathers. In contrast, other studies
report a preference for mother in infants' attachment behavior only in
stressful situations (Lamb, 1976b), while another study found a preference
for either parent over a stranger (Lamb, 1977). In spite of conflicting
details, all of these studies confirm that infants are attached to their
fathers as soon as attachment behaviors begin, although the nature of the
father-infant relationship may differ qualitatively from the mother-
infant relationship.
Possibly the differences in attachment behavior depend on differences
in the amount and kind of interaction the two parents have with their
baby. Gewirtz and Gewirtz (1968) in their study of 24 four- and eight-
month-olds in eleven Israeli Kibbutzim calculated that the infants spent
approximately twice as much time with their mothers as with their fathers.
Most of the additional time spent with the mothers, however, consisted of
caretaking activities. Similarly, Lamb (1977) observed that mothers held
their infants more often to perform caretaking functions while fathers
held their infants more often for purposes of play. This may account for
the infants' more positive reactions to playing with their fathers than
with their mothers in the same study, although the types of play the two
parents engaged in were essentially the same.
Other differences between a mother's and father's involvement with
their infant have been noted. In Rebelsky and Hank's study (1971) of
ten infants from two weeks to three months of age, fathers talked less

11
frequently and for shorter periods of time to their infants before the
age of three months than mothers did. In yet another study (Biller,
1974), fathers encouraged their infants' curiosity, and cognitive and
motoric activity more than mothers did.
In addition, how mothers and fathers react to their infants may vary
according to the age and sex of the children, some research contends. In
particular, fathers of female infants verbalized more before the infants
were a month old (Rebelsky & Hank, 1971) but fathers verbalized more
with their male infants after three months of age (Moss, 1967). Mothers
reacted just the opposite, according to the Moss study (1967); that is,
at age three weeks, mothers verbalized more with their male infants, but
they verbalized more with their female infants at three months of age.
In a comparison of parents in the United States and Guatamala, Kotel-
chuck (1976) reports less of a difference between the mother-infant and
father-infant relationships in the United States than between the two
Guatamalan parents' relationships with their infants, suggesting specific
variations in cultural patterns. He claims that these differences are
"more a function of the nature of the parent-child interaction than a
predisposed biological disposition" (p. 343). A study of preschool girls
and their parents (Osofsky & O'Connell, 1972) supports the same notion
that cultural expectations affect adult behavior, for although the
daughters in the study behaved the same with both parents, fathers
focused more on the task at hand while mothers encouraged interpersonal
interaction with their daughters.
Differences between mothers and fathers have been found in the
amount of time spent with their infant, the type of activities they
became involved in, and the amount and kind of verbalizations. Some of

12
these differences varied, too, with the age and sex of the infant.
Comparisons of mothers' and fathers' interactions with their infants in
"teaching" situations, however, are practically nonexistent. Nor is
there much evidence on parental sex differences in relationship to
infant measures of competence. Thus, both of these issues have been
included in this study.
Environmental Factors Affecting Parent-Infant Interactions
Responses of infants, particularly in terms or what and how they
learn, may be affected by factors outside of the parent-child relationship.
Observation of toy preferences (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969), for example,
shows that toys offering "the most varied possibilities for manipulation"
(p. 27) such as blocks, receive the most attention. Differences in
amount of infant task-mastery and exploration, two variables which this
study analyzes, possibly were affected by the toys available to the infant
although the selection of toys was limited.
Likewise, the infant's response to social versus non-social objects
seems to differ. One study (Eckerman & Rheingold, 1974) found that
whereas toys were approached and contacted, the infant was more inclined
to just look and smile at people. In addition, more exploration was
apparent with responsive than non-responsive adults. Another researcher
found that the social consequences emitting from a stranger, including
being smiled at, talked to, and touched, increased the vocalization of
institutionalized infants (Weisberg, 1963).
An extensive analysis of the home environment of 41 black infants
(Yarrow et al., 1972) pointed to numerous important relationships between
infants' competence and both the social and inanimate environment.
Based on six hours of time-sampled observations of normal activity in

13
each home, the research demonstrated that the variety, responsiveness,
and complexity of objects in the infants' surroundings produce different
yet significant correlations with various factors from the Bayley Scales
of Infant Development. Separate correlations of the Bayley factors also
exist with the level and variety of social stimulation as well as mothers
contingent responsiveness to vocalizations and distress. Although the
specific results of the study are too extensive to itemize in this review
the study emphasized the complexity of environmental factors which affect
infants' competence and capacity for learning.
A more specific concern of infant researchers is the effect of the
laboratory setting on research results. Belsky (1977) directly studied
the differences between mother-child interaction at home and in the
laboratory in his observations of 24 middle-class mothers with their
12-month-old infants. Mothers observed in just the laboratory setting
exhibited twice as much responsive and interactive behavior and were four
times more active than mothers observed only at home. Mothers observed
in both situations also doubled their activity, responsiveness, and inter
action with their infants in the laboratory setting. However, the dis
crepancies in behavior may be at least partially explained by the
instructions mothers were given in the experiment. Prior to the home
observations, mothers were instructed to go about their normal home
activities and to ignore the observer, while mothers in the laboratory
were told to pretend they were home with free time on their hands.
While Belsky noted differences, Peterson (1975) found similarities
in the behaviors emitted in home and laboratory settings. However,
behavioral changes of parents and/or infants varied with the situation in
a number of other studies. With caretaking activities, for example,

14
fathers decreased their verbalizations with their infants (Rebelsky &
Hanks, 1971) and the appearance of a stranger changed infants' affilia-
tive behavior towards their parents (Lamb, 1976a). And Clarke-Stewart
(1973) noted significant changes in the entire parent-infant interaction
patterns when comparing free play and structured situations at home.
Three aspects of an infant's world, then, produced differences in
infant and parent behaviors. The type of objects or people in their
environment appeared to alter infants' behavior and the setting of the
interaction affected infant and parent behavior. Furthermore, a rela
tionship was found to exist between infant competence and the complexity
of the environment (Yarrow, et al., 1972). These results emphasized the
need to control extraneous variables as much as possible in order to
minimize error. Thus, in this study, the setting remained constant, the
choice of toys was generally limited, and the activities used were con
sistent at each age.
Parent Attributes and Behaviors Relating to Infant Competence
Generally no significant relationship between social class and
infants' success on mental competence has been noted under two years of
age (Bayley, 1969). However, one study (Beckwith, 1971a) of 24 adopted
infants living in middle-class homes indicates a positive correlation
between the infants' Cattell 10 scores and their natural mothers' social
class. In addition, Beckwith noted a relationship between infant compe
tence and the experiences provided by the adopter mothers. With increased
verbal and physical contact by the mothers, the infants' Cattell test
scores increased. And more opportunities to explore at home and to inter
act with persons outside of the family both related positively to
infant competence.

15
Some more specific mental skills show evidence of relating to
mother-infant relationships. In particular, Bell (1970) studied 33
infants from the age of eight and one-half to eleven-months-old and
found that infants with stronger attachments to their mothers acquired
the concept of people permanence sooner than infants showing negative
or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers. Furthermore, the
babies displaying a strong mother attachment developed the concept of
people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of object
permanence in 23 out of 24 cases.
Physically relating to an infant also has a significant relationship
to the infant's development. In one study (Powell, 1974), stimulation in
the form of handling of low-birth-weight infants correlated with better
scores on the Bayley Scores of Infant Development. Mutual gazing (Schmidt
& Hore, 1970) and maternal attentiveness (Rubenstein, 1967) are two
additional variables which relate positively to a child's development.
Verbal communication with the infant also has particular importance
to his/her development of mental competence. Peterson (1975) notes that
the amount of language and positive feedback are positively correlated to
infant competence while verbal stimulation was a positive factor in
infant development in the Clarke-Stewart study (1973). Beckwith (1971b)
explains that verbal stimulation before age four months and after ten
months on the part of adults prompts vocal imitation by the infant.
Although infants may discontinue their responsive vocalization between
ages four and ten months, they still will benefit from hearing adult
language.

16
Parent-Infant Interactions
Several researchers have looked specifically at the type of verbal
interactions which take place between mother and child. Mothers involved
with their 9 to 13-months-old children, according to Clarke-Stewart (1973),
40 to 45% of the time demonstrated use of labeling, description, and
expansion techniques while communicating verbally with their infants. By
the time the infants were 16 to 17-months-old, these same mothers used
these techniques only 20% of the time, but their directive verbal approaches
increased to better than 40% of their total vocalizations. When mothers
and their toddlers were observed (Reichle, Longhurst, and Stepanich, 1976),
however, the mothers used mostly expatiation and modeled questions in their
verbalizations, while the children communicated mostly with reduction,
imitation, and question utterances. In short, the mothers seemed to add
to the message to be transmitted to their children and the toddlers only
verbalized the most essential words in their communications.
More and more research indicates the significance of the parents'
contingent responsiveness to the infants' cues; that is, infants seem to
"learn" to repeat those behaviors which have resulted in a satisfactory
positive parental response (Bromwich, 1976; Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Gordon,
1974; Kagan, 1971; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969). Thus, in a study of both
low- and middle-class mothers and infants in a focused modeling situation,
Waxier and Yarrow (1975) found that a "sensitive pacing" is the most
significant factor in the mother's modeling behavior. The frequency of
attempts to model the preferred behavior was not as effective as the
pacing of her attempts.

17
Teaching Behaviors
Infant researchers have only recently begun to examine the relation
ship between parents' teaching behaviors and infant measures. As noted
before, for example, Bakeman and Brown found that mothers initiate and
direct more activity with boys than with girls. In spite of that finding,
Gordon (1974) demonstrated that mothers' more neutral teaching behaviors
were better predictors of girls' competence, while personal-social
interactions correlated more the boys' competence. Both of these studies
involved low-income black families, however, and no comparable studies
exist for other samples.
Gordon (1974) provided still other clues into the relationship be
tween mothers' teaching techniques and infant behavior and competence.
Maternal teaching was found to have more impact upon later than earlier
infant competence in the infants' first year of life, and boys' compliance
which may be a forerunner to infants' task-mastery in this study was
influenced more by mothers' maternal behavior than girls' compliance was.
In addition, in one factor numerous maternal teaching behaviors, including
mothers' initiations, elicitations, directions, acceptance, and amplifi
cations occurred along with baby responses.
Among the infant activities associated with "Maternal Push," a factor
described earlier in this chapter, were mastery of a task and exploration
(Gordon, 1974), the two infant behaviors examined in this study. Since
exploration is basically a cognitive activity but essentially off-task
behavior, it is interesting that this item has loaded on the same factor
with task-mastery. Is it possible that both of these activities are
stimulated by maternal "teaching" behavior, or do they occur together in

18
every normal infant's repertoire of behavior whether a mother attempts to
"teach" her infant or not? Would similar results occur for fathers? And
what relationships between parental teaching behaviors and infant measures
of competence exist for white middle-class parents? This study was
designed to answer some of these questions.
Knowledge of other relationships between teaching behaviors and
competence factors is developing from current research on classroom
teachers. Three in-depth, longitudinal studies on the relationship be
tween teachers' interactions in the classroom and student achievement
strongly suggest that directive teaching approaches are more successful
than non-directive approaches. More specifically, children of low socio
economic status profit most from a drill pattern consisting of direct
questions, followed by positive reinforcement of correct responses
(Rosenshine, 1976a).
In addition, the Soars (1978) report that positive affect is negatively
correlated with student gains in basic skills, and studies by Brophy and
Evertson, Soar, and Perham all indicate that teachers of low socioeconomic
status students who are effective at teaching basic skills do less
"amplifying, discussing, or using pupil answers than the ineffective
teacher" (Medley, 1977, p. 17).
Infant researchers must begin to ask if similar relationships exist
between infant competence and the parenting styles of infants' first teachers.
Summary
Infant research has only begun to explore the ways that parents can
and do help their infants learn. Yet, the research conducted thus far has
already suggested that a number of parental attributes and behaviors do or

19
may influence or correlate with measures of infant competence. In
addition, both the age and sex of an infant had a significant relationship
to various infant and parent behaviors. And mothers and fathers differed
in how they related to their infants as well as how the infants related
to them. Finally, the research leads to the tentative conclusion that
particular teaching techniques may be more effective than others for
developing children's competence.
This study endeavored to broaden the field of infant research by:
1. determining if parents have distinct styles of parenting
2. exploring the relationship between parents' styles of
interaction, and infants' task-mastery, exploration,
mental and motor development
3. examining the relationship between parenting styles and
parent gender, infant gender, and the interaction of parent
and infant gender
4. determining if parent and/or infant gender had any bearing
on infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and motor
development.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN
The purpose of this study was to determine whether parents had
distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and, if
so, whether parent's styles of interaction had any relationship to their
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or physical development.
This chapter describes the research design and analysis procedures
employed in this study.
Sample
The sample consisted of 23 male and 16 female normal, first-born
infants and their parents. The families were recruited from the commu
nity via radio, television, newspapers, and local physicians for the
Parent-Infant Transaction Project. Only white, middle-class, two-parent
families who had completed at least six of the seven scheduled video
taping sessions in the Project were included in this sample. Socio
economic status was determined by the Two Factor Index of Social
Position (Hollingshead, 1957). Normal physical condition of the infant
was determined by a physical examination at three months of age.
Procedure
Each family was visited in the home when the infant was approximately
ten-weeks-old. The home visits provided the opportunity to gather
necessary background information, to verify socioeconomic status of the
family and to explain details of the Project to the parents. The visits
also helped to establish a good rapport with the family.
20

21
Each family was scheduled for seven videotaping sessions, spaced
six weeks apart. The first session occurred when the infant was 13 weeks
old, and the final session at 49 weeks of age. The videotapings took
place at the University of Florida in a 12' x 12' enclosure with light
blue walls and carpeting within a larger room, designed for the Project.
The videotape equipment consisted of three black and white cameras and
monitors, two %-inch reel-to-reel recorders, and one camera mixer.
These videotaping procedures were designed by a media specialist and
pilot tested prior to use with these subjects.
A few minutes prior to each videotaping the parents were provided
with a written description of an age-appropriate task adapted from
Baby Learning Through Baby Play (Gordon, 1970) (see Appendix A).
Each set of parents received the same instructions for each age and were
asked to interact with their child involving the described activity.
Three separate three-minute long videotape segments were done on each
occasion in a randomly assigned order. These segments consisted of
mother with infant, father with infant, and both parents with infant.
Only segments of videotape involving each parent alone with the infant
were analyzed for this study. The videotaping segments with both
parents and their infant were not included since the interaction of the
two parents would have complicated the statistical analyses beyond the
scope of this study.
When the infants reached one year of age, the Bayley Scales of
Infant Development were administered.

22
Data Collection
Data for the parent and infant behaviors were based on the total
number of observations for each behavior in all seven videotaping
sessions. Only the taping segments for mothers and infants and for
fathers and infants were analyzed, making a total of 78 cases.
The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) was the method of data
collection used in this study for the parent behaviors (see Appendix B).
Adapted from the coding systems of Gordon and Jester (1972) and Ober,
Wood and Roberts (1968), the RCS was initially an outgrowth of the
Flanders (1965) and Bales (1951) coding devices. Although the RCS codes
both parent and infant behaviors every three seconds, only six parent
variables from the RCS were selected for analysis in this study.
Operational definitions of these six variables are as follows:
Accepts: Accepts the action, behavior, comments, ideas,
and/or contributions of another; positive rein
forcement of these.
Amplifies: Asks for clarification of, builds on, and/or
develops the action, behavior, comments, ideas
and/or contributions of another.
Elicits: Asks a question or requests information about
the content, subject, or procedure being con
sidered with the intent that another should
answer (respond).
Responds: Gives direct answer or response to questions
or requests for information that are initiated
by another; includes answers to one's own question.
Initiates: Presents facts, information, and/or opinion
concerning the content, subject, or procedures
being considered that are self-initiated; expresses
one's own ideas; lectures (includes rhetorical
questionsnot intended to be answered).
Directs: Gives directions, instruction, orders, and/or
assignments to which another is expected to
comply.

23
Parent variables were limited to verbal behaviors, including but
not limited to language, laughing, and imitation of baby sounds. The
RCS also stipulated that a continuous behavior be recorded for each three
second interval that it occurred. In addition, all accepting, responding,
and amplifying behaviors were tallied only when preceded by an infant
behavior, and accepting, eliciting, and directing behaviors were by
definition task-related.
This study also involved the analysis of four infant variables in
relation to the parent variables. The Bayley Scales of Infant Develop
ment provided the measure of the infants' mental and physical development
at the age of one year. Tallies of the amount of task-mastery and
exploration by the infants were collected through the Home Scale For Use
In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C). Like the
original Home Scale, which was developed by Watts and Barnett (1971)
for the observation of mothers and toddlers in the home, this observation
schedule requires a tally for each parent, child, or general activity
listed which occurs during each fifteen second interval.
Mastery of the task was coded for each fifteen second interval
the infant successfully completed the activity presented to him/her. It
was important to note what task was presented to the infant by the parent
rather than what task had been described in the written instruction. In
contrast, exploration was coded each fifteen second interval the child
was observed seeking out objects in the environment not related to the
task. Occasionally, exploration included involvement of the child with
a task-related object in an task-unrelated fashion. For example, the
child who purposefully dropped buttons on the floor rather than into the
slot was exploring.

24
Observer Training
Two observers were trained to code the Reciprocal Category System,
and two additional persons were trained to code the Home Scale. The
training which lasted for approximately one month ended when the two
observers for each observation schedule were within two tallies of each
other on each item. Recognizing the likelihood that the coders would
drift from the initial coding standards, additional comparisons of their
tallies on the individual items were made every two weeks during the year
they were coding the videotapes. Interrater agreement was not computed
for the parent variables, but the average interrater agreement for the
two Home Scale items was 91.7%.
Method of Analysis
The total number of occurrences over all seven sessions was tallied
for each of the six parent behaviors and the infant task-mastery and
exploration items. Hypotheses of this study and the corresponding analy
sis procedures used are stated below:
Hypothesis I: The six parent behaviors are not
independent but will cluster to form distinct systems of
behavior, or parenting styles.
Principal component analysis with a maximum of five factors being
rotated was applied to the six parent variables. The analysis consisted
of an orthogonal solution with varimax rotation, using a SAS program.
Hypothesis II: There will be no relationship between
a parents style of interaction and the infant's task-mastery,
exploration, Mental Development Index (MDI), and/or Physical
Development Index (PDI).
Each of the infant's scores on the task-mastery, exploration, MDI,
and PDI were entered as dependent variables. Thus, four separate
multiple regression analyses, using a step-wise solution, were obtained.

25
Hypothesis III: There will be no difference in a
parent's style of interaction based on infant gender, parent
gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.
Three repeated measures Parent Gender X Baby Gender analyses of
variance using the parenting style factor scores as the dependent
measures were completed to assess the effect of infant and/or parent
gender on the parents' styles of interaction. The possibility that parents
of the same infant might share some common interaction patterns was also
speculated; therefore, this common variance was controlled by nesting
Family ID within baby gender. A SAS GLM program was used.
Hypothesis IV: There will be no difference in
infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, or PDI based on
infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent
and infant gender.
Four analyses of variance with parent gender as repeated measures
and Family ID nested with baby gender were completed, also using a SAS GLM
program. In these analyses, infants' task-mastery, exploration, MDI, and
PDI were the dependent variables.
Reliability
Intra-class correlations for infant and parent behaviors were com
puted on the basis of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula which is
as follows:
ICC = (MSB-MSW)/MSB
where MSB represents the mean square between sessions and the MSW
represents the mean square within sessions. This method of analysis has
been recommended by Bartko because it "assesses the reliability of average
ratings, rather than the reliability of a single rating" (1976, p. 764).

26
A one-way analysis of variance provided the MSB and MSW figures
necessary to compute the intra-class correlations. Tallies for task-
mastery and exploration of each infant for each session were the units
of analysis for these two infant ANOVAs. Since the parenting factors
were composite scores of all seven videotaping sessions, the initial
six parent behaviors used to formulate the factor scores for each parent
became the units of analysis for the parent ANOVAs. If it had been
feasible to compute intra-class correlations of the parenting factors,
most likely they would be even greater than the intra-class correlations
obtained for the individual parenting behaviors.
The portion of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development used for this
study consisted of the 163 Mental Scale items and the 81 items of the
Psychomotor Scale. The items were ordered sequentially according to the
age when 50% of the children successfully accomplished a given item. The
instrument was standardized on a sample of 1,262 children, the sample
being stratified on the basis of sex, color, residence (urban or rural),
and educational level of the head of household. The sample was nearly
representative of the United States infant population, with only the rural
population being underrepresented. The 14 age groupings ranged from
2 to 30 months (Bayley, 1969).
Split-half reliability coefficients for the Mental Scale were from
.81 to .93, with a median of .88; while the Motor Scale range was from
.68 to .93 (median of .84). The Motor Scale reliability was presumably
lower due to the smaller number of items involved. The correlation be
tween Mental and Motor Scales was from .50 to .60 in the first year of life.
The standard error of measurement which estimates the margin of error
associated with a test score was from 4.2 to 6.9 standard score points for

27
the Mental Scale. The Motor Scale produced a standard error of measure
ment of 4.6 to 9.0.
Limitations
1. The participants of this study were observed in a laboratory
setting. Researchers provide conflicting reports of the degree to which
a laboratory setting affects people's behavior (Belsky, 1977; Peterson,
1975). Although efforts were made to make the studio comfortable and
non-threatening, it was apparent that behavior of both parents and infants
was affected somewhat by the foreign environment.
2. The parents were informed that their infant's behavior and
development were being studied. The videotaping made it obvious that
they too were being watched. Most likely this realization altered their
behavior to some degree during the videotapings. Although parents could
not perform beyond a certain limit, they generally displayed what they
considered their best parenting behaviors.
3. Participants in this study were volunteers from the community.
The parents were necessarily committed enough to the Project to partici
pate for nearly a year with little extrinsic reward. This suggests that
this sample was not a representative sample of all families in the area
meeting the given criteria for this study.
4. The parents who agreed to be videotaped while interacting with
their first-born infant probably had a unique relationship with their
infant. In addition, they probably possessed more confidence in their
parenting skills than the average parent. This was particularly true of
fathers who customarily are not expected to be as involved with their
infants as mothers are.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
One purpose of this study was to determine whether parents interact
with their infants in any particular parenting style or styles. And if
parents did have distinct styles of interaction, another purpose of this
study was to determine if these parenting styles had any relationship to
their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
This chapter presents the statistical analysis of the results of this
study for each of the original hypotheses.
Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped in a labora
tory setting on seven occasions during the infants' first year of life.
In each three-minute videotape segment, the parent-infant dyads were
involved in a structured activity, which varied with the age of the child
(see Appendix B), and infant behaviors which were on-task (mastery) and
off-task (exploration) were coded according to the Home Scale (see
Appendix C). Mental and Physical Development Indices were obtained from
the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for each infant at the age of
one year.
Results of the statistical analyses for each hypothesis of this
study are described below.
Statistical Analysis for Hypothesis I
Tallies for the parents' accepting, amplifying, responding, eliciting,
initiating, and directing behavior were computed over all seven videotaping
28

29
sessions for each parent. The mean scores and standard deviations for
the six parent behaviors are presented in Table 1.
Principal component analysis with an orthogonal solution rotated to
varimax criterion was applied to the six parent behaviors. Matrices of
two, three, and four factors were obtained (see Appendix D for a table of
each matrix). When a minimum loading of .40 was applied, the three-
factor matrix produced the most independent factors. These three factors,
found in Table 2, have been used in the remaining analyses.
Consequently, the hypothesis that distinct, independent styles of
parenting would result from the parents' interaction with their infants
was confirmed. In fact, three distinct parenting styles were found to
exist. The first of these parenting styles, labeled "Friendly Persua
sion," included the parents' initiating, eliciting, and amplifying
verbalizations. Providing information, asking questions, and building
on to the infants' activity were all a part of this parenting style.
The second style was the "Responsive Parenting" mode of interaction.
With this approach of relating to the infant, a parent would merely
respond to the infant's activity or request rather than actively pursuing
involvement with his/her child. Thus, this parenting style was more
passive than the other two parenting styles.
"Positive Direction," the third style of interaction, combined
parents' accepting and directing behaviors. That is, parents gave their
child instructions as well as positive reinforcement. For example, the
parent might have said "Pull the string," followed by "Good, you did it!"
when the task was completed. And so the pattern continued.
In summary, then, three parenting styles were found to exist as
parents interacted with their infants. These three styles were labeled

30
MEAN
TABLE 1
SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
Variable
Mean
Standard Deviation
Accepting
13.06
10.04
Amplifying
7.95
6.97
Responding
3.45
2.74
Eliciting
30.03
19.17
Initiating
26.54
19.23
Directing
38.76
22.52

31
TABLE 2
FACTOR
LOADINGS OF THREE
PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
"Friendly
Persuasion"
Factor 2
"Responding"
Factor 3
"Positive
Direction"
V5
Initiating
.87
V4
Eliciting
.69
V2
Amplifying
.46
V3
Responding
.59
VI
Accepting
.66
V6
Directing
.58

32
"Friendly Persuasion," "Responsive Parenting," and "Positive Direction."
Factor scores for each parent were computed based on their individual
tallies of the six behaviors using the factor loading of the three
parenting styles.
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis II
Hypothesis II investigated the relationship of infant behavior and
development with the parents' styles of interaction. Did the on-task
(mastery) or off-task (exploration) behavior of the infants correlate
with any particular style of parenting? Or did parenting styles relate
more to infants' mental or motor development? Results of the four
regression analyses are described below.
The step-wise regression of the parenting factors on infants' task-
mastery produced highly significant results for two factors (Table 3
reports the results). Factor 3, which is the positive directive approach,
entered the equation first and correlated positively with infants'
successful on-task behavior (mastery). The second factor to enter the
equation, "Friendly Persuasion," was negatively correlated with infants'
mastery of a task.
Infant exploration, or active off-task behavior, did not correlate
significantly with any of the parenting styles (see Table 4). Again,
"Positive Direction" (Factor 3) entered the regression equation first,
and approached but did not reach significance.
The two regression analyses involving infants' developmental scores
and parenting styles produced non-significant results, although they both
correlated most highly with parent's responsive behavior (see Tables 5
and 6). Apparently, mental and motor development at one year as measured

33
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF
WITH
VARIANCE
PARENTING
OF INFANTS'
1 FACTORS 3
' TASK-MASTERY
AND 1
DF
SS
MS
F
Regression
2
1056.09
528.04
14.61**
Residual
75
2709.76
36.13
DF
B
Beta
STD Error B
F
Factor 3
1
4.47
00
.93
22.95**
Factor 1
1
-2.72
-.35
.78
12.18**
Residual
75
17.23
**P = .01
*P = .05

34
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS'
WITH PARENTING FACTOR
EXPLORATION
3
DF SS MS F
Factor 3
Residual
1 276.66 276.66
76 6534.83 85.98
3.22 NS

35
TABLE 5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT MENTAL DEVELOPMENT
INDEX WITH PARENTING FACTOR 2
DF
SS
MS
F
Factor 2
1
996.87
996.87
1.93
NS
Residual
76
38786.92
510.35
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE OF INFANT
INDEX WITH PARENTING
PHYSICAL
FACTOR 2
DEVELOPMENT
DF
SS
MS
F
Factor 2 1
.16
.16
1.58
NS
Regression 76
7.57
.10

36
by the Bayley Scales, are not related to parents' styles of interaction
with their infants.
To summarize, only one of the infant variables related to a signi
ficant degree with the parenting styles. A strong positive relationship
occurred between infant task-mastery and the positive direction of
parents. Surprisingly, the task-mastery correlated negatively with
parents' "Friendly Persuasion." That is, infants whose parents were both
directive and accepting were more successful in the mastery of given
tasks than infants whose parents provided information (initiated), asked
questions (elicited), or amplified in the structured activity setting.
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis III
An ANOVA procedure was run on each of the three parenting factors with
Infant gender, Parent gender, and Infant gender X Parent gender as the
independent measures. Parent gender was treated as a repeated measure and
Family ID was nested within Baby gender to eliminate any common variance
of each family from the error term. As predicted, the analysis indicates
that parenting styles were not affected by infant gender and/or parent
gender (see Table 7).
Statistical Analysis of Hypothesis IV
An ANOVA procedure with Parent gender as a repeated measure and
Family ID nested within Baby gender was computed on each of the four
infant variables. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if there
was any relationship between infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or
physical development and infant's gender, parent's gender, or the inter
action of parent and infant gender. As predicted and reported in Table 8,
there were no significant results. Mean scores for the infant variables
grouped according to parent and infant gender are reported on Table 9.

37
TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PARENTING STYLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER
Parenting Factor 1: "Positive Direction"
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
1.25
1.25
.93
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
49.58
1.34
Parent Gender
1
.87
.87
3.00
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.20
.20
.69
NS
Error
37
10.74
.29
Parenting Factor 2: "Responsive Parenting"
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
.31
.31
.43
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
26.52
.72
Parent Gender
1
.43
.43
2.26
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.00
o
o
.00
NS
Error
37
7.13
.19
Parenting Factor 3: "Friendly Persuasion"
DF
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
SS
MS
F
.16
.16
.17
NS
35.49
.96
00
Tl
.18
.86
NS
.03
.03
.14
NS
7.75
.21
Error
37

38
TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANT VARIABLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER
Infant Task-Mastery
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
2.00
2.00
.03
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
2770.85
74.89
Parent Gender
1
.46
.46
.02
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
44.59
44.59
1.74
NS
Error
37
947.95
25.62
Infant Exploration
DF
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
SS
MS
F
442.51
442.51
3.24
NS
5055.98
136.65
22.62
22.62
.68
NS
59.54
59.54
1.79
NS
1230.85
33.27
Error
37

39
Table 8 continued
Infant Mental Development Index
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
43.18
43.18
.13
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
36
12144.82
337.36
Parent Gender
1
.00
.00
o
o
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.00
.00
.00
NS
Error
36
.00
.00
Infant Motor Development Index
DF SS MS F
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 35
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
64.32
64.32
.10
NS
23609.73
674.56
.00
.00
.00
NS
.00
.00
.00
NS
.00
.00
Error
35

40
TABLE 9
MEAN SCORES OF INFANT VARIABLES
BY PARENT AND INFANT GENDER
Males Females
23 15
Task-Mastery
17.17
18.47
Mothers
Exploration
38.83
31.93
Task-Mastery
18.17
16.40
Fathers
Exploration
36.17
33.07
MDI
119.61
118.07
PDI
119.57
118.07

41
In addition to the analyses reported above, a complete report of
the correlations of all parent behaviors and infant variables is listed
in Appendix E.
Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors
Intra-class correlation reliability coefficients for the six parent
measures were computed separately for mothers and fathers and can be
found in Table 10. The range of reliability scores was from .39 to .94,
with the exception of mothers' amplifying behavior. Reliability of
maternal amplification has been recorded as zero, as is conventionally
done with negative coefficients. Apparently this item is highly unstable
from session to session with this sample. Since amplifying behavior
scores were pooled with two other parental behaviors in Factor 1 (Friendly
Persuasion) in the data analysis, the seriousness of a zero .00 coeffi
cient was somewhat reduced although not eliminated.
Reliability coefficients for the two infant behaviors were quite
high, with the score for task-mastery being .98 and the exploration
coefficient being .97.
Summary
Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped as they inter
acted in a structured learning activity every six weeks during the
infant's first year for a total of seven times. Parents' accepting,
amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behaviors
from the videotaped sessions were coded according to the Reciprocal
Category System. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation
demonstrated that three independent parenting styles occurred during the
parent-infant interactions. The first parenting style, called "Friendly

42
TABLE 10
RELIABILITY
OF PARENT BEHAVIOR
VARIABLES
Fathers
Mothers
Accepting
.80**
. 66 *
Amplifying
.46
.00
Responding
.94**
.71**
Eliciting
.82 **
.76**
Initiating
.57*
.39
Directing
.88 **
.84 **
* .05 level of significance
** .01 level of significance

43
Persuasion," included parents' amplifying, eliciting, and initiating
behaviors. Another parenting style was simply responsive, and the third
style, called "Positive Direction," consisted of parents giving directions
and positive reinforcement.
Multiple regression analysis indicated that only task-mastery of
the infant correlated significantly with any of the parenting styles,
relating negatively to parents' "Friendly Persuasion" and relating
positively to parents' "Positive Direction." Infants' exploration,
mental and physical development were not significantly related to the
parents' styles of interaction, and there was no significant relationship
between parenting styles and infant and/or parent gender. In addition,
infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental and physical development were
not significantly affected by infant and/or parent gender.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Results
The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents
had distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and
if so, whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to
their infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
The minor purposes of this study were to determine if infant gender,
parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender had any
relationship to parents' styles of interaction or to infants' task-
mastery, exploration, mental or motor development.
Hypothesis I was supported by the data which indicated that there
were three distinct parenting styles. The first style of interaction,
labelled "Friendly Persuasion," included parents' verbal initiations,
elicitations, and amplifications, as they interacted with their infants.
The second style, "Responsive Parenting," applied to parents who responded
only when the infants requested or demanded a response from them.
"Positive Direction," the third parenting style, described parents who
primarily gave verbal directions, instruction, and positive reinforcement
to their infants.
Hypothesis II, which states that there will be no relationship be
tween a parent's style of interactions and infant's task-mastery, explo
ration, mental or motor development was partially rejected. No significant
44

45
relationship was found between the three parenting styles and infants'
exploration, mental or motor development. In contrast, infants' mastery
of a task was significantly related to two parenting styles. The
"Positive Direction" parental approach correlated positively with
infants' task-mastery, and the "Friendly Persuasion" parenting style
correlated negatively with infants' mastery of a task.
These results are very similar to the research findings on teachers'
classroom interactions. As reported by Rosenshine (1976a), several
studies have reported that the directive teaching approach was most
effective in the classroom. More specifically, for low socioeconomic
children, drill instruction, consisting of direct questions followed by
teachers' acknowledgements of correct responses, correlated most positively
with student achievement gains in basic skills. Direct questions in a
classroom situation could easily be compared to the directive approach
in this study. In both cases, the children are clearly informed of what
is expected of them; then they are given feedback as to the appropriate
ness, and particularly the correctness, of these responses.
In contrast, this study and research on teachers' classroom behaviors
both found indirect interactions with children to be ineffective. The
"Friendly Persuasion" parenting style, including parents' initiating,
eliciting, and amplifying verbalizations, closely resembles the indirect
teaching approach involving discussion, amplification, and use of the
pupil answers in the classroom (Medley, 1977). Just as these indirect
teacher interactions correlated negatively with pupil gains in low level
cognitive skills, "Friendly Persuasion" of parents correlated negatively
with infants' mastery of a task.

46
Hypothesis III which states that there will be no difference in
parents' styles of interaction based on infant gender, parent gender, or
the interaction of parent and infant gender was supported. This finding
differs from several other research findings, yet these other studies
are limited to infants' attachment to mothers and fathers, and the
amount and kind of activity and conversation they exhibit with their
infants rather than structured learning situations. Only one study
reported that fathers encouraged infants' curiosity and cognitive and
motoric activities more than mothers did (Biller, 1974). Possibly no
differences existed between mothers' and fathers' parenting styles in
this study because the fathers in this sample were more involved with
their infants or exhibited better parenting skills than the average
father, and thus their parenting behaviors more closely resembled
mothers' parenting styles.
Sex of the infant also had no significant relationship to parents'
interaction styles. Although a few studies have reported differences in
mothers' interactions with their children based on the children's gender,
the nature of these differences have not been consistent. One study,
for example, reported that mothers verbalized more with female than
with male toddlers (Fagot, 1974) while another study stated that mothers
initiated and directed more activity with male infants than with female
infants (Bakeman & Brown, 1977) Possibly the relationship between
children's gender and parents' interaction styles varies with the situa
tion and age of the child. The fact that this study combined the results
of seven videotaping sessions, and thus seven different situations and
ages, may explain why no differences in parenting styles based on infant

47
gender were evident. Other analyses from the Parent-Infant Transaction
Project, which treated the seven videotaping sessions separately, in
fact support this contention (Huitt, 1978).
The fourth and final hypothesis of this study stated that there
will be no difference in infants' task-mastery, exploration, mental or
motor development relative to parent gender, infant gender, or the
interaction between parent and infant gender. This hypothesis was also
supported and corresponds with most other findings in the infant litera
ture. The only notable exception was the Goldberg & Lewis study (1969)
which demonstrated that boys were significantly more active and exploratory
than girls were. Although there was a similar tendency for boys to be
more exploratory in this study, the difference between boys' and girls'
exploration did not reach a significant level. If the infants had been
given more opportunity to explore, however, possibly the infant sex
differences would have been more obvious.
Conclusions and Implications
The results of this study have led to the following conclusions:
1. Parents exhibit three distinct parenting styles while
interacting with their infants in structured learning activities. Some
parents are more directive and accepting with their infants while some
parents are merely responsive. Finally, "Friendly Persuasion" describes
the parents who initiate activities, ask questions, and provide infor
mation as they interact with their infants.
2. Infants of parents who are directive and accepting in
their interactions are most apt to master the tasks the parents attempt
to teach them.

48
3. The infants of parents who are indirect in their
interaction with their infants by initiating activities, asking questions,
and providing information will not master the tasks being taught as
frequently as the infants of parents who do not use this indirect
parenting style called "Friendly Persuasion."
Recommendations for Parent Education
Parent educators need to inform parents of the three types of
parenting styles demonstrated in this study and the implications of
these modes of interaction on infants' behavior. Although no direct
cause-and-effect relationships may be assumed, the research does suggest
that parents who are directive and accepting with their infants are more
likely to have infants who are successful at completing age-appropriate
tasks than parents who use more indirect interactional behaviors with
their infants. Other parental styles of interaction may be more
appropriate in other situations, but the more directive, positive
approach seems to be most effective when a parent wants a child to
complete a task. Parent educators should explore ways of instructing
parents to interact directly and positively with their infants as well
as to recognize the appropriate situation(s) in which to use this
parenting style.
Limitations
1. The sample used in this study consisted of white,
middle-class parents where both mother and father were actively involved
with their infant. The infants were normal, first-born children under
the age of one year. Conclusions or implications drawn from this study
must be limited to populations similar to this sample.

49
2. Since no experimental treatments were implemented,
no direct cause-and-effeet relationships may be made on the basis of
this study.
3. Infant development measures were limited to total
scores, due to the design of this Project. If item by item scores of
the Bayley scores had been available, possibly more specific conclusions
could have been drawn from the mental and motor development scores, in
relationship to the parenting styles.
4. Since exploration was not a major focus of this study,
exploratory behavior was limited to the active, off-task behaviors of the
infants. Thus, the potential effect of infants' exploration on the other
variables being examined in this study was substantially limited.
Recommendations for Further Research
1. The three parenting styles demonstrated by the partici
pants in this study need to be explored further by researchers. Do these
same styles exist for other populations? Will fathers and mothers of
other populations behave similarly or differently? Do parents continue to
interact in the same ways as their children grow older? Additional
parenting styles could be investigated by examining parental behaviors as
parents and infants interact in a variety of situations.
2. Infants' successful completion of a task correlated
positively with parents' "Positive Direction" and negatively with parents'
"Friendly Persuasion." Do similar relationships exist for other popula
tions? Will similar relationships occur when a different set of tasks are
involved? Careful analysis of the effect of varying tasks and situations
on these relationships are also needed.

50
3. Task-mastery was the only infant variable which
related to parenting styles in this study. A more in-depth study of
various aspects and kinds of exploration is needed, to see how these
components related to other aspects of infant competence as well as to
parenting styles. Parents not only may affect infants' exploration by
the way they interact, but also by the type of environments they permit
or create for their infants to explore. It may be wise to investigate
how to encourage creative exploration by our children in addition to
successful task-mastery if they are to be better able to cope with a
quickly changing world around them.
4. Parenting styles in a more natural setting may very
well differ from parents' interactional styles in a laboratory. And
parents' ways of relating to infants from day to day may have a more
significant effect on infants' competence than the styles parents exhibit
in a structured activity. These issues all need to be explored.
5. Measures of infant competence, such as the Bayley
Scales of Infant Development, may have more meaning if analyzed item by
item (Yarrow, 1972) Research on the relationship between competency
items or composites and parenting styles may be relevant for the future.
Summary
The major purposes of this study were to determine whether parents had
distinct parenting styles when interacting with their infants, and if so,
whether parents' styles of interaction had any relationship to infants'
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development. The minor purposes
of this study were to determine if parenting styles or infants' task-mastery,

51
exploration, mental or motor development had any relationship to infant
gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent and infant gender.
The results demonstrated that the parents exhibited three distinct
styles of interaction. Parents who initiated, elicited, and amplified
verbally with their infants exhibited the parenting style labelled
"Friendly Persuasion." The second parenting style was "Responsive
Parenting," and the third interactional style, "Positive Direction"
included the directive and positive reinforcement parents verbalized to
their infants. None of the parenting styles or infant variables related
significantly to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of
parent and infant gender.
Parenting styles did not relate significantly to infants' explo
ration, mental or motor development; nor were parenting styles or infants'
task-mastery, exploration, mental or motor development significantly
related to infant gender, parent gender, or the interaction of parent
and infant gender.
Two parenting styles were found to have a significant relationship
to infants' successful completion of a task. "Positive Direction"
correlated positively to infants' task-mastery, and "Friendly Persuasion"
correlated negatively to the task-mastery measure. These results
resemble research findings on classroom teacher behaviors which indicate
that directive teaching approaches are more effective than nondirective
teaching methods in producing student achievement gains in basic skills.
Apparently, infants develop competency in completing tasks when they know
what is expected of them and are given positive reinforcement for
their accomplishments.

APPENDIX A
TASK DESCRIPTIONS

13 Weeks
Dialogue
This is probably a familiar activity. The purpose of this activity
is to engage in a conversation with your baby. Try to get your baby to
make a sound. When your baby does make a sound like a coo or gurgle,
respond to him by a combination of stroking his stomach, moving your
head close enough and smiling so you're sure he sees you, and repeating
the sound s/he makes. S/he may then coo some more and you have a
"conversation" in progress.
53

54
19 Weeks
Two-way Stretch
This game's aim is to give your baby practice in controlling things
around him by using his body.
Take the toya small telephone rattle with an elastic strip
attachedand dangle it near the baby. Encourage him to reach and grab
for it. Use such words as "get", "grab" and "catch" while you're
playing together.
When he does grasp it, pull gently away so there's some stretch
between you and him. Get into a push-pull game with him, saying, "Pull.
You'll pull and I'll pull." Then gently release it and repeat. Try it
so that he uses both hands.
Be sure it's fun and not teasing. Keep the toy so he can get it
when he makes an effort. Remember that the underlying principle you
want to convey to your baby is that it's worthwhile trying to do
things, that an effort on his part can have gratifying results.
When he makes sounds of pleasure because he has grabbed it, respond
to these sounds by repeating them. Enjoy his enjoyment.

55
25 Weeks
Mirror and Toy
The aims of this game are to help the baby become aware of his own
appearance and to give him experiences in seeing objects reflected in a
mirror.
Place your baby in your lap so that he is facing the same direction
that you are. Hold a mirror so that he can see himself. Point to his
reflection and say, "I see (your baby's name)." "Where is
?" "Find ." "Look at ."
Pick up the objects on the table, one at a time, move them behind
your baby's head so that he can see them in the mirror along with
himself. Name the objects, telling something about the object, such as,
"This is a ball and it is round." Then say, "Where is the ball?" as
you remove it from the mirror's reflection.

56
31 Weeks
Bait Casting
Children love to pull on strings. You may remember the earlier
game of grabbing and pulling on the elastic. Here we take advantage of
his interest and skill to teach him a new way of getting something he
wants. The best arrangement is to sit at a table with your baby on your
lap and place a piece of twine, shoestring, or cord on the table so he'll
pick it up and pull on it.
Later, tie the toy to one end of the string and put it at the far
end of the table so the baby can get it by pulling the string to him.
When he has enjoyed this for a while, leave that string with the
object tied to it and add two plain strings. Let him see what happens
as he pulls each string. He will discover that only one string brings
an object. Accompany this with words like, "You didn't get anything."
"Oh! that one got the toy."
After this general play, see if you can teach him always to pull
the right string. Place them in different places where he can see the
connection between string and toy and say, "Get the toy."
First he'll be interested only in the string, then in the toy.
Gradually he'll be aware of both, but he won't realize they are
connected. Then he'll "experiment" and finally use the string to bring
the toy to him.

57
37 Weeks
Hide-and-Seek
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.

58
43 Weeks
Blocks
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 striaght 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 newfound skills and for the
parents and child to enjoy playing together.

59
49 Weeks
Dropping Buttons in Jar
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 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 B
RECIPROCAL CATEGORY SYSTEM FOR USE IN
THE PARENT-INFANT TRNASACTION PROJECT

The Reciprocal Category System (RCS) consists of nine behavioral
categories, each of which can be assigned to either parental or infant
behaviors as well as one other category (10) reserved for silence,
confusion and sleeping behaviors. When infant behavior is observed,
this is recorded in one of nine appropriate categories and is marked as
a single digit number (1-9). When mother's verbal behavior is observed,
the appropriate category (11-19) is marked. This is similar for father'
verbal behavior which is marked in categories 21-29. With the intro
duction of the reciprocity factorallowing each of the nine categories
to be assigned either to father, mother or childthe system is actually
expanded to an operational total of 28 categories (three different
persons times the nine common categories plus Category 10 for silence,
confusion and sleeping, for a total of 27 + 1 = 28).
This protocol represents a clarification of the original classroom
RCS (Ober, ^t al., 1968) as it was modified for use in an infant-parent
education project (Gordon and Jester, 1972).
Summary of Categories for the Reciprocal Category System
in the
Parent-Infant
Transaction Project
Infant
Category
Mother
Category
Father
Category
Behavioral Title of Category
1
11
21
Warms (informalizes) the climate
2
12
22
Accepts or gives positive reinforce
ment
3
13
23
Amplifies
4
14
24
Elicits
61

62
Infant
Category
Mother
Category
Father
Category
Behavioral Title of Category
5
15
25
Responds
6
16
26
Initiates
7
17
27
Directs
8
18
28
Corrects
9
19
29
Cools (formalizes the climate)
Category 10 Includes both parental and infant behaviors: Silence:
pauses, periods of no activity; Confusion: yawns, sneezing, coughing,
wetting, "accidents" or unintentional interruptions; period of confusion
in which communication cannot be understood by the observer; Infant
Sleeping: going to sleep.
Ground Rules
Ground Rule I
Any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal in nature. This
would include words, sentences, laughing, imitating baby sounds, as well
as any other verbal noises or sounds that the adult may make, For
example, if the adult holds out a ball for the infant but doesn't say
anything, this would be recorded as adult silence. When the mother
holds out a toy for the child and says, "Do you want the toy?", this
then would be recorded as a 14 (elicits).
Recorded infant behavior need not be verbal and can include physical
motor movements as well as any sounds or utterances that may be made.

63
For example, if the father says, "Do you want the ball?", and the
infant silently takes it, this would then be recorded as 24 followed by 5.
Summarizing, any adult behavior that is recorded must be verbal,
unless a 10 is recorded. However, infant behaviors should be appro
priately recorded even if they are not verbal in nature.
Ground Rule II
A single continuous behavior is to be recorded every three seconds.
For example, a father may try unsuccessfully to elicit behavior from the
child for 15 seconds. This would be recorded as such 24 24 24 24 24 .
There is one mark for each three seconds of the same activity. If there
is one continuous behavior that is ongoing without any other behavior
observed, a record is then made every three seconds.
On the other hand, behaviors that occur before a three second inter
val has ended are also recorded. For example, a mother may alternately
elicit and direct her responding infant within one three second interval.
This would be recorded: 14 5 17 5 Thus, the three second interval
becomes unimportant if more than one behavior is observed in a three
second time period.
In summary, the same behavior is to be recorded a minimum of every
three seconds. If there is any change in behavior by either father,
mother or infant, this should be noted as it occurs. You must record
everything that occurs with a minimum of one recorded behavior every
three seconds. At the end of a three minute session, there will be a
minimum of 60 recorded behaviors; the maximum is dependent upon the
number of transactions that have taken place.

64
Warm-Cool Subdimension
Warms (Informalizes) the Climate Categories 1, 11, 21
Parent or child "warms" deals with feelings and emotions displayed
by the particular person being observed. Warming behavior tends to
reduce or release tension and/or alleviate threat by means of sincere
and genuine warmth on the part of the initiator. If the child is crying,
and a parent verbally coos or laughs while cuddling, fondling, hugging,
or holding the child, this is viewed as warming the climate by the
parent. Clarifying and accepting the feelings and emotions of another
in a warm and friendly manner, even though the feelings or emotions
being clarified are positive or negative is viewed as warming behavior.
If the parent encourages or praises the non-task oriented behavior,
comments, ideas and/or contributions of the child in a sincerely loving
and positive manner, this is warming (11, 21). Generally, this category,
as well as 9, 19 (cools) deals principally with the socioemotional
climate, based mainly on feelings and emotions and not task related behavior.
Baby warming behavior could include smiles, laughs, gurgles, cooing,
etc. Self-reinforcing behavior may also fall into the category of
"warms". An example of this would be if a baby is thumb sucking or
other self-stimulating behaviors.
If there is no ongoing task activity, and the parents tell the child
how "good" he or she is, this is also warming and would come under
this category.
Warming or cooling the environment are task irrelevant, people
oriented behaviors. For example, a parent may say, "Ooh, you're such a
pretty baby,' even though there may be no discernible antecedent or

65
task related motivation for this sort of approval. Warming, in this
example, is purely an expression of love and care, and is not a
reinforcement for some behaviorial task. A general ground rule for the
warm-cool subdimension is to record this dimension only if the warming
or cooling deals with the emotional climate, not the task activity.
This will help you as an observer to differentiate warms from accepts
and cools from corrects. Warms and cools, as mentioned earlier are
emotionally "people" oriented task irrelevant categories, while accepts
and corrects are "task" oriented behavioral categories.
Cools (Formalizes) the Climate Categories 9, 19, 29
As in the warming category, this dimension deals principally with
situations that directly involve feelings and emotions. Some parents
or children may be so logical and dispassionate that warming or cooling
behaviors may not be observed. Conversely, some parents or children may
be predominantly warm and/or cool separately or interchangeably.
Cooling behavior may tend to create tension if statements are
intended to modify behavior of another from an inappropriate toward a
more appropriate pattern. Their tension may occur as a result of such
cooling behaviors as irritation, bawling out someone, rejecting or
criticizing the opinion or judgements or another, or exercising control
in order to gain or maintain authority of a situation.
Cooling behavior tends to produce threat and/or create tension.
Implied in the cooling are usually efforts toward sarcasm, ridicule,
regimentation, or alienation or another. Some examples of infant and/or
adult cooling behaviors are active or passive aggression, crying, hitting,
biting, etc., as well as attempts to leave, crawl away or other uncooperation.

66
Once again, as in the warms category, we are primarily interested
in the task irrelevant, person oriented displays of emotion. For
example, a parent may say, "I don't like you," or "Boy, you are a dumb
kid," or utter other sounds that produce threat, create tension or in
some other way cool and formalize the climate. If these comments are
task irrelevant and mainly cooling emotional expression, then they would
qualify under the category of cools (1, 19, 29).
Accept-Correct Subdimension
In contrast to the person oriented behaviors that are covered in
the warm-cool subdimension, specific task related behaviors and actions,
including ideas, comments, opinions, contributions, acts, etc., are
covered by the accept-correct subdimension.
Accepts Categories 2, 12, 22
By accepting the action, behavior, comments, ideas, opinions, and/or
contributions of another, one is seen as positively reinforcing these.
A spirit of agreement and support is reflected by accepting as well as
reinforcing and strengthening of a particular accepted response. The
use of this category should be limited to situations where it is obvious
that the verbal behavior was intended to be a positive reinforcement.
Some parents may be observed to emit a repeated monotonous "O.K." or
"yes" that has little, if any, significance to the child. These should
be regarded by the observer as nothing more than verbal tics, not
qualifying as positive reinforcement, and should be ignored. There
needs to be a degree of awareness and sincerity on the part of the
acceptor or reinforcer.

67
Accepting and reinforcing another behavior may have a subtle or
indirect effect on the other's feelings or emotions. However, the
principal activity here is that of reinforcing and accepting, not
warming or cooling, and should be coded as such.
The distinction should be made between Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts
and gives positive reinforcement) and Category 1, 11, 21 (warmth
perceived as a positive reinforcer).
While Category 1, 11, 21, as we have described, deals primarily with
emotional climate, Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive
reinforcement) deals with and relates to specific tasks and behaviors.
Reinforcement can only occur where there is a specific task-related
behavior to reinforce. For example, if the child holds the toys as
requested, this specific behavior might be reinforced by the parent
saying, "That's very good!" or "Yes, that's it," or "You're doing it
beautifully!" or a whole other variety of positive verbal reinforcements
that relate to the specific behavior being emitted by the child.
Whereas the warming category emphasizes only purely emotional task
irrelevant feelings, this category of accepts (2, 12, 22) places its
emphasis on the strengthening, reinforcing and accepting of specific
task relevant behavior.
Infants can accept or reinforce parental behavior. For example, a
parent may try to elicit the specific infant response of grabbing a
string. The baby may not grab that string, but may turn toward and
orient itself to the string in a smiling or otherwise positive manner.
Here the infant is not emitting the specific desired response, but does
"accept" the parental behavior. This behavior would be appropriately
recorded as accepts (2) .

68
Parental reinforcement must be verbal in nature and only qualifies
as reinforcement if the verbal acceptance is directed toward some
specific behavior being emitted by the baby. For example, if the parent
were to hold out a string, then the infant takes it and parent follows
with "Ooh, you're such a good baby!", this parental comment would
qualify as a positive reinforcement because the parent is expressing his
acceptance of the infant response of string grabbing. If, on the other
hand, the parent were to suddenly pick up and cuddle the child for no
apparent (task related) reason while saying, "Ooh, you're such a good
baby!", this, then, would be an example of warms (1, 11, 21) because it
is solely directed at emotional, task irrelevant feelings.
Corrects Categories 8, 18, 28
Correcting behavior occurs when one tells another that the answer or
behavior emitted is inappropriate or incorrect. This may be seen in
behaviors of disagreement or giving corrective feedback. The verbal
behavior must be directed towards the behavior of another rather than
towards one's self. Parental examples of corrects (18, 28) include:
"No, I disagree," "That's not correct," or "A better way could be found."
If an explanation is offered as to why a particular behavior or answer
is more appropriate or correct than another, this additional information
should be recorded in Category 6, 16, 26 (initiates). Following a
statement of correction or acceptance with a qualifying explanation and
information is sometimes referred to as "public criteria" since it
discloses publicly why a given behavior is correct or not and is an
explanation (Category 6, 16, 26).
Infants can also emit correcting behavior toward the parents. For
example, the parent may try to elicit (14, 24) our example of string

69
grabbing in the infant, but may find the infant turning away from or
otherwise "disagreeing" with parental behavior. This, then, would be
recorded as an 8. Correcting (8, 18, 28) or accepting (2, 12, 22)
behaviors then, are task related while warming (1, 11, 21) and cooling
(9, 19, 29) behaviors are person related, task irrelevant, emotional
expressions.
Amplify-Direct Subdimension
It should be made clear that amplification and direction are not
suited to absolute dualistic positions on a continuum. In the truest
sense of the word they are not as contrasting, perhaps, as warm-cool,
accept-correct, and elicit-initiate. However, there are some qualities
of the two categories which are contrasting. For example, to amplify
a child's contribution by asking him to extend or clarify a contribution
is certainly different from directing him to do something which is not
his idea to begin with. Consequently, because they serve vital functions
in the RCS, both rationale-wise and operationally, amplification and
direction have been included and are treated as dualistic qualities in
this presentation.
Amplify Categories 3, 13, 23
Amplification is the clarification of, building on, and/or
developing of actions, behaviors, comments, and/or ideas. It is also
the prolonged and continued simple imitation or expansion of another's
behavior. Amplification, however, does not mean the exaggeration of an
activity. It is more the building on to the behavior as in extension
or continuation.

70
An adult may present the infant with a toy, which the infant takes
in hand. Amplification by the child occurs if the child builds on and
develops other behaviors with the toy after the object has been offered.
Ongoing attention to the task beyond adult presentation as well as
extension or elaboration of adult presentation without additional adult
direction is also amplification.
As the term is used here, the primary purpose of amplification is to
prolong, continue, "play up" or build upon one's contributions and
behavior. This occurs when a behaver develops, extends and/or expands
a behavior initiated by another. The infant's behavior may be amplified
to the adult. If the parent says, "Oh, you'd rather crawl," to the
child, this is an elaboration or amplification of that infant's behavior.
Example I: A parent's question, "What did you mean by doing that?"
would be a request for clarification or amplification of a previous
behavior and would be recorded in this category (13, 23). The child's
response to the question, if any, might be recorded as a response (5) or
amplification (3) depending on the nature of the request as well as his
original contribution.
Example II: One parent's comment to the other parent on the child's
behavior may be amplification. The mother may say to the father, "Oh,
you see how strong he is able to grasp the string!". This is an
elaboration and amplification of the child's behavior.
Example III: If a child is given a ball with which to play, ampli
fication (3) would be checked if the behavior is continued or built upon
in different ways. The child may throw, bounce, roll, pull, bite, hold,
etc., the ball above and beyond a simple request to "Take the ball."

71
Directs Categories 7, 17, 27
"Directs" involves giving of directions, instruction, orders and/or
assignments to which another is expected to comply. Grammatically,
directing is inherent in declarative and, more appropriately, imperative
types of statements which describe a task related behavior to which the
directed one is supposed to comply.
For example, an infant may emit behavior which attempts to direct
adult attention, direct adult activity, or convey an expected response.
Conversely, an adult may order, instruct, tell, or direct infant
behavior in a specific task related direction.
As in the category of accepts or gives positive reinforcement (2, 12,
22) and corrects (8, 18, 28), this category of directs (7, 17, 27) is
concerned only with task relevant behavior. If the parent directs the
child in a task related manner, either 17 or 27 would be appropriately
marked. However, if the parent directs the child with comments that are
sharply emotional and task irrelevant, then the category of cools (19 or
29) would be appropriately marked.
Example I: The task is string pulling and the mother says, "Take the
string, take the string!" This would be an example of task related
directs (17).
Example II: The task is holding a ball and the infant, crying, is
told, "Cut that crying out immediately!" Since this comment has a
sharply emotional tone and is unrelated to the specific task, the
category of cools (19 or 29) would be noted.
In Example II the direction or directing comments are either harshly
delivered or given for the purpose of discipline or regimentation and
thus would be recorded not as directs, but as cools (9, 19, 29).

72
Example III: "Sit down immediately!" or "Wipe that smile off your
face!" would be recorded as Category 19 or 29 rather than 17 or 27 if
these comments are unrelated to any specific behavioral task and are
only directed at cooling the emotional climate. The category of directs
(7, 17, 27) is only marked when the behavior of one person is directed
by another towards the relevant task.
Example IV: The infant directs the adult with body movements and
activity that convey an expected response. The infant may hold the
object toward the adultconveying a message to "Take it!"
Teaching Subdimension
The teaching concept is predicated on the assumption that trans
actions occur on a give-and-take basis. In this contest, any participant
in a given familial situationchild and parent alikecan elicit
(Categories 4, 14, 24) or initiate (Categories 6, 16, 26) information.
Should information be requested, it is customary for the other to
appropriately respond (Categories 5, 15, 25). Part of a give-and-take
experience is the directed exposure of a child to a particular form of
behavior and experience as opposed to a general experience with an adult.
Elicits Categories 4, 14, 24
Generally, an eliciting verbal behavior takes the grammatical form of
a question. For example, "Do you want the ball?" or "Can you lift it
up?" are examples of eliciting questions. It is possible to elicit
behavior by asking questions and requesting information about content,
subject, or procedures being considered, with the intent that the other
should answer and respond appropriately (Categories 5, 15, 25). An
infant may be seen as eliciting non verbally (4) by "asking for help" and

73
assistance, while parents will elicit behavior (14, 24) by verbally
asking the child to respond to task related questions.
Example I: Parent elicits: "Do you see it?" "Can you hold it?"
"Do you like it?" "Do you understand?" or other task related questions
for the purpose of eliciting a task related response from the child
would be appropriately marked in either Categories 14 or 24.
Infants elicit behavior in a variety of ways both verbally and non
verbally. The astute observer must note the behavior within the unit of
analysis of the transaction between the infant and the parent.
Example II: Sounds made by the infant for the purpose of getting
his parent(s) to respond may be examples of elicits (4) or directs,
depending on whether the sounds were made in a questioning or directive
manner: "Oooo?" or "Oooo!" Also, non verbal behaviors emitted for the
purpose of eliciting parental responses are examples of elicits (4).
That is, the infant may hold his arm out as he "elicits" attention or
requests toys.
Any behavior which is emitted for the purpose of eliciting or
securing information or other behavior is correctly recorded in
Categories 4, 14, or 24.
Initiates Categories 6, 16, 26
Initiating behaviors are statements of facts, information, and/or
opinions and ideas concerning the content, subject, or procedures being
considered that are self-initiated. Initiating is the expression of
ones own ideas, or lecturing for the purpose of presenting facts and
information.
In many cases, parental initiation will be observed as presentation
f information, opinions or ideas. Infant initiation could be

74
exploratory behavior which has no observable antecedent. Initiatory
behavior reflects to some degree a quality of individual choice in that
the contribution is voluntary, self-initiated and at the discretion of
the initiator. Should the contribution or behavior be offered at the
request of another person, this is not self-initiated behavior, but a
response to another and would be correctly recorded as 5, 15, 25 (responds).
Example I: One parent who may say to the other parent, "This task
seems to be related to intelligence," would be an example of initiates
since it is the expression of one's opinion for the purpose of
presenting unelicited information (16, 26).
Example II: Infant may suddenly start talking and crawling towards
a toy on the carpet would be an example of unelicited, voluntary, self-
initiated behavior (6).
Example III: Parent may say to the child, "This is a good toy and
you'll enjoy playing with it a lot," or "This is a red ball," are
examples of initiating behaviors toward the child since it is a state
ment of opinions and initiated activity for the purpose of presenting
ideas to the infant (16, 26).
Responds Categories 5, 15, 25
Responds means giving of answers or responses to questions or
request for information that are directed, initiated or elicited by
another person. It is also behaving in a specific manner which is the
result of an elicitation or direction of another. Responses are
recorded as 5 for infant, 15 for mother and 25 for father. For example,
the parent's question, "Do you want the ball?" followed by the infant's
taking the ball would be recorded as elicits (14 or 24) followed by 5.

75
A response can be as simple as a smile by the infant or a yes or
no, or as complex as is reasonable within our framework. Be aware of
the behaver when determining whether or not the behavior is a response
to another person's request (Categories 5, 15, 25) or a self-initiated,
voluntarily emitted behavior (Categories 6, 16, 26). To determine
whether or not infant's behavior is Category 5 (response) or 6 (initiates),
the following conditions should be considered and met:
A. To which adult is the baby attending? Which adult is
attending to the infant?
Example I: If the father is eliciting a behavior in the child (24),
and the baby initiates behavior toward the mother (6), in this trans
actional matrix it should be observed that the infant is not responding
to the father, but the mother might be responding to initiations of
the infant.
B. Is the behavior appropriate to the question or request?
Is the behavior a reasonable response in light of the information or
tasks being requested? Each session will include specific tasks for
mother, father and child. When one behaver responds appropriately to
the behavior of another, this would be recorded as 5, 15, 25.
Example II: When a parent asks for attention and the child complies
by looking to the parent, the child's response is recorded as Category 5
even though there may not be any verbal infant behavior.
Example III: If the child takes a toy after the mother says, "Do
you want the toy?", this is Category 14 followed by Category 5.
Any response that is appropriate to requests or eliciting stimuli
completes a logical sequence for the purpose of plotting a transactional
matrix. The behavior of responding usually follows either eliciting or
directing behavior.

APPENDIX C
HOME SCALE FOR USE IN THE PARENT-INFANT TRANSACTION PROJECT

Introduction
This observation schedule requires that the observer watch behavior
for 15 seconds, and then record observed behavior on the coding sheet.
As an observer ask yourself, "What are the specifically designated
behaviors I saw in this 15 second interval?" and then record them on the
coding sheet. The videotaped behaviors you will be observing include
seven different parent-infant tasks such as talking and playing.
This observation record is divided into four major categories:
General Activities, Child Activities, Parent Techniques and Encouragement
Index. General Activities and Child Activities are coded by a single
check or mark if the child is involved in the activity; Parent Techniques
and the Encouragement Index items are marked "M" if the mother is involved,
"F" if the father is involved and "ME" for both. Within each major
category are specific sub-categories listed and described below:
A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES
1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning
2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning
3. Visual Pursuit (Tracking)
4. Object Permanence
5. Means and Ends Differentiation
B. CHILD ACTIVITIES
1. Mastery
2. Exploration
3. Observing by Child
77

78
A. Blank Stares
5. Seeks Emotional Comfort
C. PARENT TECHNIQUES
*1. Labeling, Reading
*2. Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion
3. Actively Engaging Child
A. Observing of Child
5. Refocusing on Task
*6. Suggestion or Command
*Numbers 1, 2, 6 when observed, are always coded additionally as
Encouraging.
D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX
1. Encouragement
2. Discouragement
A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES
1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning
The main focus in this activity is on the infant's acquisition of
verbal skills, such as receptive language and formation of speech. Four
examples illustrate the differing forms of this activity:
a) Child responds to and/or imitates parental elicitation:
parent says, "Oooo," and child says, "Oooo."
b) Child responds to parental requests, directions, etc.,
indicating infant language acquisition. A parent may
say, "Give it to me," followed by a correct infant response.
If the parent gives a verbal message to which the infant
correctly responds, this would be marked as receptive
language development.

79
c) If the parent gives a verbal and motor message, (e.g.,
"Do you see the toy?" as the parent holds the toy two
inches from the infant's eyes), be careful not to mark if
the child is responding to the motor message. This
activity is checked if the child is engaged only in
verbal learning.
d) The infant produces speech sounds without elicitation
indicating verbal acquisition and/or symbolic learning.
Babbling is characteristic of verbal skill acquisition.
This may be incidental sound making, the key words being
speech related sounds. Crying and/or cooing may not be
verbal learning.
The first parent-infant task that has been videotaped is called
Dialogue. The parents attempt verbal elicitation of baby speech or
sound imitation. At earlier ages the infant only learns simple vowel
sounds; the child gradually acquires consonant sounds later.
2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning
The infant differentiates in spatial orientation and visual percep
tion or acquisition of skills for perceptual and fine motor coordination.
The infant gradually acquires understanding of size, distance, angle and
spatial perspective of objects. Examples may be observed in such tasks
as pat-a-cake, two way stretch, dropping buttons in a jar, and bait casting.
3. Visual Pursuit
This involves visual tracking of an object by the infant through his
or her visual field. The mother and/or father may hold an object and
move it across the infant's visual field. If the infant usually fixes
on and follows the object, this sub-category would be marked.

80
A. Object Permanence
The infant is to demonstrate awareness that even though an object
is out of sight, it does not cease to exist. In the activity of hide
and seek, a toy is hidden under a blanket after the baby has seen it.
If the infant attentively and immediately tries to recover the hidden
toy, ignoring the blanket which is covering it, then she/he has success
fully demonstrated Object Permanence and this category would be marked.
If the infant does not immediately go for the toy, or does not realize
that the toy is hidden but instead "discovers" the toy, this would not
be checked.
The infant or parent may drop an object out of the infant's visual
field and parent says, "Where did it go?" If the child then looks and/or
reaches or moves in the direction where the object is, this would be
Object Permanence as well as Verbal and Symbolic Learning.
5. Means-End Differentiation
This involves the extent to which the child is aware that something,
i.e., a blanket or stick, (means) can be pulled or used to get a desired
object (ends). For example, a toy may be placed on the far end of the
blanket. The child pulls the blanket (means), in order to get the toy
(ends). Here, the blanket in and of itself is not what should be inter
esting to the child, but instead the child should view the blanket as a
means to pull the toy closer. If the child simply plays with the blan
ket, this would not be checked.
B. CHILD ACTIVITIES
1. Mastery
This is to be coded when the child successfully completes a
particular task or activity in the correct manner. For example, the

81
child places a button in the can, or finds the toy under the blanket.
2. Exploration
This is coded when the child explores, searches and seeks out ob
jects in the environment. This is not task oriented behavior, but is
something the child does on his own. For example, the child may cease
trying to get buttons in the can and begin to crawl around exploring
other things; or the child may just begin active visual exploration of
the environment. Through such exploration the child is presumed to
gain a certain amount of undefined cognitive input.
The infant may explore toys, gaining presumed cognitive input as
well as enjoyment. In Exploration, the infant manipulates toys, moving
a truck back and forth, or inappropriately uses or abuses toys.
3. Observing by the Child
This occurs when the child looks at people or objects in his sur
roundings but makes no overt behavioral move to follow, respond, etc.
An example is when the child just sits and watches his father try to
engage him in an activity. The infant makes no overt move to respond
or engage in the activity, but instead, just observes and looks.
4. Blank Stares
This is different from Observation in that the child does not seem
to be watching any specific object or individual in the environment, but
instead is focusing on internal processes.
5. Seeking Emotional Support
This will be difficult to observe during the first five to six months
of age due to the infant's lack of person and object permanence. However,

82
seeking of emotional support may be noted during periods of self
stimulation (thumb sucking, holding blankets or other "security objects,"
e.g., a pacifier) which expresses emotional need for comfort, or the
child "reaching out" for mother and/or father is another example of
seeking emotional comfort.
C. PARENT TECHNIQUES
1, Labeling and Reading
The parent either reads to the infant or teaches the infant (i.e.,
how objects may be labeled). In the mirror and toy game, the infant is
introduced to a mirror while the parent works with the infant on label
ing, e.g., "I see (baby's name) in the mirror." Also, the parent
may say, "Find ," "Look at ," or "Where is ?" The
parent teaches and provides feedback to the child. If the infant picks
up a ball and the parent says, "Yes, that's a ball," this is labeling
and would be marked.
Labeling and Reading are always coded additionally as Encouraging.
2. Demonstration, Explanation, and Expansion
Demonstration involves showing the child what to do. Explanation
and Expansion provide description of process to the infant. Imparting
specific verbal knowledge, or relating information and experience to the
child exemplify this activity.
This can also be nonverbal. The mother may show the infant how to
get the toy by pulling the blanket while the child watches.
Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion are additionally scored
as Encouraging.

83
3. Actively Engaging the Child
This technique indicates the focal effort of the parent is to engage
actively in behavior together with the infant. Both parents may actively
engage the infant simultaneously by playing with the infant, dramatizing
for the infant or entertaining by roughhousing or playful teasing. This
technique usually promotes infant enjoyment of life through reciprocal,
playful, non task related behaviors.
Example A: Parent makes funny face for infant (entertains)
Example B: Parent tickles infant (Affectionate game)
Example C: Parent playfully holds a toy just beyond the reach
of the infant (teasing)
4. Observing of the Child
A special ground rule here is that if and only if the parent is not
involved in any other activity, would it be possible to note this behav
ior. The parent attends to the child by observing or looking at him.
This is to be coded only when another technique is not seen throughout
a 15 second interval.
5. Refocusing on the Task
This occurs when the adult tries to concentrate the child's interest
and attention on an ongoing task. The child's attention may drift after
an activity has been initiated and in this activity the parent refocuses
the child back on the task in which the child was engaged.
6. Suggestion or Command
This activity indicates that the effort of the parent is to direct
the infant to initiate a certain task related behavior. The parent may
suggest, command, request, beg, urge, or ask the infant to do something;

84
or the parent may suggest by a physical gesture such as handing the
infant a toy; or the parent(s) may give the infant a choice: "Which do
you want, the ball or the string?" This activity is an encouragement
technique and when observed, the encouragement index would also be marked.
Example A: Parent requests, "Will you hold this?"
Example B: Parent urges, "Please talk to me."
Example C: Parent orders, "No, don't do that!"
Example D: Parent suggests, "Let's try it."
D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX
1, Encouragement
2. Discouragement
The parent may Encourage or Discourage the child with either verbal
or nonverbal messages. Parental Encouraging usually involves a positive
supportive tone while Discouraging involves a negative tone. This does
not have to be specific overt behavior, but only a parental attitude
indicator toward the child's behavior.
Parental techniques of 1) Labeling and Reading, 2) Demonstration,
Explanation and Expansion, and 6) Suggestion or Command, are always
additionally coded as Encouraging. They may also be coded as Discourag
ing, when applicable.

APPENDIX D
MATRICES OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR PARENTING FACTORS

TOO FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Accepting
.42
.58
Amplifying
.53
-.03
Responding
.04
-.43
Eliciting
.73
.01
Initiating
.85
.20
Directing
.56
.23
86

87
THREE
FACTOR MATRIX
OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Accepting
.23
-.33
.61
Amplifying
.47
.10
.23
Responding
.00
.51
-.04
Eliciting
.73
-.03
.19
Initiating
.81
-.19
.32
Directing
.34
.08
.60

88
FOUR FACTOR MATRIX OF PARENTING STYLES
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Accepting
.20
-.34
.60
.14
Amplifying
.40
.09
.21
.35
Responding
-.01
.51
-.03
.03
Eliciting
.73
-.01
.22
.04
Initiating
.78
-.18
.33
.23
Directing
.32
.08
.61
.07

APPENDIX E
CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS AND INFANT VARIABLES

CORRELATIONS OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
Accepting
Amplifying
Responding
Eliciting
Initiating
Directing
Accepting
1.00
.23
- .22
.28
.44
.44
Amplifying
.23
1.00
.06
.35
.45
.28
Responding
- .22
.06
1.00
- .02
- .11
.04
Eliciting
.28
.35
- .02
1.00
. 66
.38
Initiating
.44
.45
- .11
. 66
1.00
.45
Directing
.44
.28
.04
.38
.45
1.00

91
CORRELATION OF PARENT BEHAVIORS
WITH INFANT VARIABLES
Mastery
Exploration
MDQ
PDQ
Accepting
.31
- .15
.01
.13
Amplifying
- .05
.08
- .08
- .27
Responding
.06
- .08
.20
- .14
Eliciting
- .09
.05
.09
.11
Initiating
- .18
.04
- .04
- .01
Directing
.26
- .15
.01
.12

92
CORRELATION OF INFANT VARIABLES
Mastery
Exploration
MDQ
PDQ
Mastery
1.00
- .32
.36
.33
Exploration
- .32
1.00
- .00
.04
MDQ
.36
- .00
1.00
.55
PDQ
.33
.04
.55
1.00

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ainsworth, Mary D. Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the infant in
interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10,
51-58.
Ainsworth, Mary D. The development of infant-mother attachment. Review of
Child Development Research III, B.M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti
(Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Bakeman, Roger, & Brown, Josephine. Behaviorial dialogues: An approach to
the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development,
1977, 48, 195-203.
Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
1951.
Bartko, Jay J. On various intra-class correlation reliability coefficients
Psychological Bulletin, 1976, 83 (5), 762-765.
Bayley, Nancy. Bayley Scales of Infant Development: Manual. New York: The
Psychological Corporation, 1969.
Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between attributes of mothers and their
infants' IQ scores. Child Development, 1971, ^2, 1083-1097. (a)
Beckwith, Leila. Relationships between infants' vocalizations and their
mothers' behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1971, 17, 211-226.
(b)
Beckwith, Leila, Cohen, Sarale E., Kopp, Claire B., Parmelee, Arthur H.,
& Marcy, Toni G. Caregiver-infant interaction and early cogni
tive development in preterm infants, Child Development, 1976,
47, 579-587.
Bell, R.Q., & Harper, L. Effects of the Young on Adults in Man and Other
Animals. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Bell, Silvia M. The development of the concept of object as related to
infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 1970, 41 (2).
291-311.
Belsky, Jay. Mother-infant interaction at home and in the laboratory, the
effect of context. A paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of
the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, La.,
March, 1977.
93

94
Biller, H.B. The father-infant relationship: Some naturalistic observations
Unpublished manuscript, University of Rhode Island, 1974.
Bowlby, J. Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: Who, 1951.
Bowlby, J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1958, _3£, 350-373.
Bromwich, Rose M. Focus of maternal behavior in infant intervention.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 4^, 439-446.
Bromwich, Rose M. Stimulation in the first year of life? A perspective on
infant development. Young Children, 1977, 32^ (2), 71-82.
Caldwell, Bettye, & Hersher, Leonard. Mother-infant interactions during
the first year of life. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1964, 10,
119-128.
Carew, Jean V. Effective home learning environment in the preschool years.
Paper presented at IDHR Conference, Gainesville, Fla., March 1976
Clarke-Stewart, K. Alison. Interactions between mothers and their young
children: Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 1973, 3j3 (6-7), 1-109.
Crawley, S.B., Rogers, P.P., Freidman, S., Iacobbo, M., Criticos, A.,
Richardson, L., & Thompson, M.A. Developmental changes in the
structure of mother-infant play. Developmental Psychology, 1978,
14, 30-36.
Eckerman, Carol,& Rheingold, Harriet. Infants' exploratory responses to
toys and people. Developmental Psychology, 1974, H) (2), 255-259.
Emde, R.N., Gaensbauer, T.J., & Harmon, R.J. Emotional expression in
infancy: Abiobehavioral study. Psychological Issues, Monograph
Series, 1976, 40.
Fagot, Beverly. Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental
reaction. Developmental Psychology, 1974, K) (4), 554-558.
Flanders, N.A. Teacher influence, pupil attitude, and achievement. U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education,
Cooperative Research, Monograph No. 12, Washington, D.C.,
Government Printing Office, 1965.
Gewirtz, H., & Gewirtz, J. Visiting and caretaking patterns for kibbutz
infants: Age and sex trends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
1968, 38, 427-443.
Goldberg, Susan. Social competence in infancy: A model of parentinfant
interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1977, 23, (3), 163-177.

95
Goldberg, Susan, & Lewis, Michael. Play behavior in the year-old infant:
Early sex differences. Child Development, 1969, 40, 21-31.
Gordon, Ira J. Baby Learning Through Baby Play. New York: St. Martin's
Press, Inc., 1970.
Gordon, Ira J. An investigation of the social roots of competence. Gaines
ville, Fla.: University of Florida, IDHR, final report to NIMH
on Project //I ROL MH22724, October, 1974.
Gordon, Ira J. The Infant Experience. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1975.
Gordon, Ira J., & Jester, Emile R. Instructional strategies in infant
stimulation. JSAS Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2^, 122.
Henderson, Bruce, & Moore, Shirley G. Measuring exploratory behavior in
young children: A factor-analytic study. Developmental Psychology,
1979, 15 (2), 113-119.
Hollingshead, A.B. Two-factor index of social position. Unpublished
manuscript, 1957.
Huitt, William G. Analysis of reliability of parent-infant interaction
through the use of generalizability theory. Gainesville, Fla.:
Dissertation, University of Florida, 1978.
Kagan, J. Change and Continuity in Infancy. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1971.
Kagan, K.L., Wimberger, H.C., & Bobbitt, R.A. Analysis of mother-child
interaction in young mental retardates. Child Development, 1969,
40, 799-812.
Kotelchuck, Milton. The infant's relationship to the father: Experimental
evidence. The Role of the Father in Child Development, Michael
Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 329-344.
Lamb, Michael E. Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development.
Human Development, 1975, 18^ (4), 245-266.
Lamb, Michael E. Interactions between 8-month-old children and their
fathers and mothers. The Role of the Father in Child Development,
Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 307-328.
(a)
Lamb, Michael E. Twelve-month-olds and their parents: Interaction in a
laboratory playroom. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12 (3),
237-244. (b)
Michael E. Lamb. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first
year of life. Child Development, 1977, 481, 167-181.

96
Medley, Donald M. Teacher Competence and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review
of Process-Product Research. Washington, D.C.: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1977.
Millar, W. Stuart. Social reinforcement of a manipulative response in
six- and nine-month-old infants. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 1976, 17, 205-212.
Moss, H.A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant inter
action. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 19-36.
Moss, H.A., & Robson, K. Maternal influences in early social-visual
behavior. Child Development, 1968, 401-408.
Ober, R.L., Wood, W.E., & Roberts, A. An instructional manual for the
Reciprocal Category System. Based on a paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, 1968.
Olmstead, Patricia. Observational studies of parental teaching behaviors:
A review of the literature. Unpublished paper, University of
Florida, 1975.
Osofsky, Joy, & Hung, David. Personality correlates of parental teaching
behavior. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1972, 121, 3-10.
Osofsky, Joy, & O'Connell, Edward. Parent-child interaction: Daughters'
effects upon mothers' and fathers' behaviors. Developmental
Psychology, 1972, 1_ (2), 157-168.
Peterson, M.A. The study of a methodology for observing mother-infant
interaction patterns during the second year of life. Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1975, 36^ (12-8), 895.
Powell, Louisa Feldman. The effect of extra stimulation and maternal
involvement on the development of low-birth-weight infants and
on maternal behavior. Child Development, 1974, 4_5, 106-113.
Radin, Norma. The role of the father in cognitive, academic and intellec
tual development. The Role of the Father in Child Development,
Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 237-275.
Ramey, Craig, Finkelstein, Neal, & O'Brien, Carolyn. Toys and infant
behavior in the first year of life. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
1976, 129, 341-342.
Rebelsky, F. & Hanks, C. Fathers' verbal interaction with infants in the
first three months of life. Child Development, 1971, 42, 63-68.
Reichle, Joe, Longhurst, Thomas, & Stepanich, Lyanne. Verbal interaction
in mother-child dyads. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12 (4).
273-277.

97
Rosenshine, Barak. Classroom instruction. National Society for the Study
of Education. 1976, Yearbook, 335-371. (a)
Rosenshine, Barak. Recent research on teaching behaviors and student
achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 2_7, 61-64. (b)
Rubenstein, Judith. Maternal attentiveness and subsequent exploratory
behavior in the infant. Child Development, 1967, 1089-1100.
Schaffer, H.,& Emerson, P. The development of social attachments in
infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 1964, 2_9 (Serial No. 94).
Schmidt, Wilfred, & Hore, Terence. Some nonverbal aspects of communication
between mother and preschool child. Child Development, 1970, 41,
889-896.
Soar, Robert S.,& Soar, Ruth M. Setting variables, classroom interaction,
and multiple pupil outcomes. U. S. Department of Health, Educa
tion and Welfare, National Institute of Education, Basic Skills,
Gainesville, Fla., June, 1978.
Stayton, Donelda, Hogan, Robert, & Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter. Infant
obedience and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization
reconsidered. Child Development, 1971, 41057-1069.
Walters, James, & Stinnett, Nick. Parent-child relationships: A decade
review of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971,
33, 70-103.
Watts, J.C., & Barnett, I.C. Environments compared. Mimeographed manuscript
of Chapter 9, 1971.
Waxier, Carolyn, & Yarrow, Marian. An observational study of maternal
models. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 1^ (4), 485-494.
Weisberg, Paul. Social and nonsocial conditioning of infant vocalizations.
Child Development, 1963, ^34_, 377-388.
Weisler, Ann, & McCall, Robert B. Exploration and play: Resume and
redirection. American Psychologist, 1976, 31^, 492-508.
White, Burton, Watts, Jean Carew, Barnett, Ttty Chan, Kaban, Barbara,
Marmor, Janice, & Shapiro, Bernice. Experience and Environment:
Major Influences on the Development of the Young Child, Vol. 1.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.
Yarrow, Leon J., Rubenstein, Judith L., Pedersen, Frank A., & Jankowski,
Joseph J. Dimensions of early stimulation and their differential
effects on infant development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972,
18, 205-218.

98
Yarrow, Marian R. Research on child-rearing as a basis for practice.
Child Welfare, 1973, 52, 209-219.
Zegiob, Leslie E., & Forehand, Rex. Maternal interactive behavior as a
function of race, socioeconomic status, and sex of the child.
Child Development, 1975, 564-568.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Karen Jane Long was born in Long Branch, New Jersey, in 1945. She
attended public schools in New Jersey, graduating from Millville High
School in 1963. She received her B.A. degree from Drew University,
Madison, New Jersey, in 1967, majoring in sociology, and was granted
a M.A.T. degree from George Washington University, Washington, D.C.,
in 1968, with a major in primary education.
For four years, Karen worked for the New Jersey Bureau of
Children's Services, first as a social worker, and later as a supervisor
of day care activities in Camden, New Jersey. She also was director of
the Camden Day Nursery for three years.
In January, 1976, Karen began work towards her Ph.D. in early
childhood education at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida.
While studying at Florida, she was a research assistant on the Parent-
Infant Transaction Project with Dr. Ira Gordon, and taught courses in
Early Childhood Education and the Social Foundations of Education.
Karen is presently Assistant Professor of Education and Director
of the Child Development School at the University of South Carolina,
Salkehatchie Campus at Allendale, South Carolina.
99

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.
Linda L. Lamme, Chairperson
Assistant Professor of General Teacher
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.
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.
Athol B. Packer
Associate Professor of General Teacher
Education
1 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.
. {Ut.c
Patricia T. Ashton
Assistant 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.
Gordon D.
Associate Professor of Instructional
Leadership and Support
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Division of
Curriculum and Instruction 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.
June 1979
Dean, Graduate School



55
25 Weeks
Mirror and Toy
The aims of this game are to help the baby become aware of his own
appearance and to give him experiences in seeing objects reflected in a
mirror.
Place your baby in your lap so that he is facing the same direction
that you are. Hold a mirror so that he can see himself. Point to his
reflection and say, "I see (your baby's name)." "Where is
?" "Find ." "Look at ."
Pick up the objects on the table, one at a time, move them behind
your baby's head so that he can see them in the mirror along with
himself. Name the objects, telling something about the object, such as,
"This is a ball and it is round." Then say, "Where is the ball?" as
you remove it from the mirror's reflection.


34
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF INFANTS'
WITH PARENTING FACTOR
EXPLORATION
3
DF SS MS F
Factor 3
Residual
1 276.66 276.66
76 6534.83 85.98
3.22 NS


66
Once again, as in the warms category, we are primarily interested
in the task irrelevant, person oriented displays of emotion. For
example, a parent may say, "I don't like you," or "Boy, you are a dumb
kid," or utter other sounds that produce threat, create tension or in
some other way cool and formalize the climate. If these comments are
task irrelevant and mainly cooling emotional expression, then they would
qualify under the category of cools (1, 19, 29).
Accept-Correct Subdimension
In contrast to the person oriented behaviors that are covered in
the warm-cool subdimension, specific task related behaviors and actions,
including ideas, comments, opinions, contributions, acts, etc., are
covered by the accept-correct subdimension.
Accepts Categories 2, 12, 22
By accepting the action, behavior, comments, ideas, opinions, and/or
contributions of another, one is seen as positively reinforcing these.
A spirit of agreement and support is reflected by accepting as well as
reinforcing and strengthening of a particular accepted response. The
use of this category should be limited to situations where it is obvious
that the verbal behavior was intended to be a positive reinforcement.
Some parents may be observed to emit a repeated monotonous "O.K." or
"yes" that has little, if any, significance to the child. These should
be regarded by the observer as nothing more than verbal tics, not
qualifying as positive reinforcement, and should be ignored. There
needs to be a degree of awareness and sincerity on the part of the
acceptor or reinforcer.


78
A. Blank Stares
5. Seeks Emotional Comfort
C. PARENT TECHNIQUES
*1. Labeling, Reading
*2. Demonstration, Explanation and Expansion
3. Actively Engaging Child
A. Observing of Child
5. Refocusing on Task
*6. Suggestion or Command
*Numbers 1, 2, 6 when observed, are always coded additionally as
Encouraging.
D. ENCOURAGEMENT INDEX
1. Encouragement
2. Discouragement
A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES
1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning
The main focus in this activity is on the infant's acquisition of
verbal skills, such as receptive language and formation of speech. Four
examples illustrate the differing forms of this activity:
a) Child responds to and/or imitates parental elicitation:
parent says, "Oooo," and child says, "Oooo."
b) Child responds to parental requests, directions, etc.,
indicating infant language acquisition. A parent may
say, "Give it to me," followed by a correct infant response.
If the parent gives a verbal message to which the infant
correctly responds, this would be marked as receptive
language development.


92
CORRELATION OF INFANT VARIABLES
Mastery
Exploration
MDQ
PDQ
Mastery
1.00
- .32
.36
.33
Exploration
- .32
1.00
- .00
.04
MDQ
.36
- .00
1.00
.55
PDQ
.33
.04
.55
1.00


67
Accepting and reinforcing another behavior may have a subtle or
indirect effect on the other's feelings or emotions. However, the
principal activity here is that of reinforcing and accepting, not
warming or cooling, and should be coded as such.
The distinction should be made between Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts
and gives positive reinforcement) and Category 1, 11, 21 (warmth
perceived as a positive reinforcer).
While Category 1, 11, 21, as we have described, deals primarily with
emotional climate, Category 2, 12, 22 (accepts and gives positive
reinforcement) deals with and relates to specific tasks and behaviors.
Reinforcement can only occur where there is a specific task-related
behavior to reinforce. For example, if the child holds the toys as
requested, this specific behavior might be reinforced by the parent
saying, "That's very good!" or "Yes, that's it," or "You're doing it
beautifully!" or a whole other variety of positive verbal reinforcements
that relate to the specific behavior being emitted by the child.
Whereas the warming category emphasizes only purely emotional task
irrelevant feelings, this category of accepts (2, 12, 22) places its
emphasis on the strengthening, reinforcing and accepting of specific
task relevant behavior.
Infants can accept or reinforce parental behavior. For example, a
parent may try to elicit the specific infant response of grabbing a
string. The baby may not grab that string, but may turn toward and
orient itself to the string in a smiling or otherwise positive manner.
Here the infant is not emitting the specific desired response, but does
"accept" the parental behavior. This behavior would be appropriately
recorded as accepts (2) .


37
TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PARENTING STYLES
WITH BABY GENDER AND/OR PARENT GENDER
Parenting Factor 1: "Positive Direction"
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
1.25
1.25
.93
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
49.58
1.34
Parent Gender
1
.87
.87
3.00
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.20
.20
.69
NS
Error
37
10.74
.29
Parenting Factor 2: "Responsive Parenting"
DF
SS
MS
F
Baby Gender
1
.31
.31
.43
NS
Family ID (Baby Gender)
37
26.52
.72
Parent Gender
1
.43
.43
2.26
NS
Baby Gender Parent Gender
1
.00
o
o
.00
NS
Error
37
7.13
.19
Parenting Factor 3: "Friendly Persuasion"
DF
Baby Gender 1
Family ID (Baby Gender) 37
Parent Gender 1
Baby Gender Parent Gender 1
SS
MS
F
.16
.16
.17
NS
35.49
.96
00
Tl
.18
.86
NS
.03
.03
.14
NS
7.75
.21
Error
37


97
Rosenshine, Barak. Classroom instruction. National Society for the Study
of Education. 1976, Yearbook, 335-371. (a)
Rosenshine, Barak. Recent research on teaching behaviors and student
achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 2_7, 61-64. (b)
Rubenstein, Judith. Maternal attentiveness and subsequent exploratory
behavior in the infant. Child Development, 1967, 1089-1100.
Schaffer, H.,& Emerson, P. The development of social attachments in
infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 1964, 2_9 (Serial No. 94).
Schmidt, Wilfred, & Hore, Terence. Some nonverbal aspects of communication
between mother and preschool child. Child Development, 1970, 41,
889-896.
Soar, Robert S.,& Soar, Ruth M. Setting variables, classroom interaction,
and multiple pupil outcomes. U. S. Department of Health, Educa
tion and Welfare, National Institute of Education, Basic Skills,
Gainesville, Fla., June, 1978.
Stayton, Donelda, Hogan, Robert, & Ainsworth, Mary D. Salter. Infant
obedience and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization
reconsidered. Child Development, 1971, 41057-1069.
Walters, James, & Stinnett, Nick. Parent-child relationships: A decade
review of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971,
33, 70-103.
Watts, J.C., & Barnett, I.C. Environments compared. Mimeographed manuscript
of Chapter 9, 1971.
Waxier, Carolyn, & Yarrow, Marian. An observational study of maternal
models. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 1^ (4), 485-494.
Weisberg, Paul. Social and nonsocial conditioning of infant vocalizations.
Child Development, 1963, ^34_, 377-388.
Weisler, Ann, & McCall, Robert B. Exploration and play: Resume and
redirection. American Psychologist, 1976, 31^, 492-508.
White, Burton, Watts, Jean Carew, Barnett, Ttty Chan, Kaban, Barbara,
Marmor, Janice, & Shapiro, Bernice. Experience and Environment:
Major Influences on the Development of the Young Child, Vol. 1.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.
Yarrow, Leon J., Rubenstein, Judith L., Pedersen, Frank A., & Jankowski,
Joseph J. Dimensions of early stimulation and their differential
effects on infant development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972,
18, 205-218.


95
Goldberg, Susan, & Lewis, Michael. Play behavior in the year-old infant:
Early sex differences. Child Development, 1969, 40, 21-31.
Gordon, Ira J. Baby Learning Through Baby Play. New York: St. Martin's
Press, Inc., 1970.
Gordon, Ira J. An investigation of the social roots of competence. Gaines
ville, Fla.: University of Florida, IDHR, final report to NIMH
on Project //I ROL MH22724, October, 1974.
Gordon, Ira J. The Infant Experience. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1975.
Gordon, Ira J., & Jester, Emile R. Instructional strategies in infant
stimulation. JSAS Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2^, 122.
Henderson, Bruce, & Moore, Shirley G. Measuring exploratory behavior in
young children: A factor-analytic study. Developmental Psychology,
1979, 15 (2), 113-119.
Hollingshead, A.B. Two-factor index of social position. Unpublished
manuscript, 1957.
Huitt, William G. Analysis of reliability of parent-infant interaction
through the use of generalizability theory. Gainesville, Fla.:
Dissertation, University of Florida, 1978.
Kagan, J. Change and Continuity in Infancy. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1971.
Kagan, K.L., Wimberger, H.C., & Bobbitt, R.A. Analysis of mother-child
interaction in young mental retardates. Child Development, 1969,
40, 799-812.
Kotelchuck, Milton. The infant's relationship to the father: Experimental
evidence. The Role of the Father in Child Development, Michael
Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 329-344.
Lamb, Michael E. Fathers: Forgotten contributors to child development.
Human Development, 1975, 18^ (4), 245-266.
Lamb, Michael E. Interactions between 8-month-old children and their
fathers and mothers. The Role of the Father in Child Development,
Michael Lamb (Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976, 307-328.
(a)
Lamb, Michael E. Twelve-month-olds and their parents: Interaction in a
laboratory playroom. Developmental Psychology, 1976, 12 (3),
237-244. (b)
Michael E. Lamb. Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first
year of life. Child Development, 1977, 481, 167-181.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EEDJLAYX0_829IYM INGEST_TIME 2014-12-03T19:17:00Z PACKAGE AA00026459_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


17
Teaching Behaviors
Infant researchers have only recently begun to examine the relation
ship between parents' teaching behaviors and infant measures. As noted
before, for example, Bakeman and Brown found that mothers initiate and
direct more activity with boys than with girls. In spite of that finding,
Gordon (1974) demonstrated that mothers' more neutral teaching behaviors
were better predictors of girls' competence, while personal-social
interactions correlated more the boys' competence. Both of these studies
involved low-income black families, however, and no comparable studies
exist for other samples.
Gordon (1974) provided still other clues into the relationship be
tween mothers' teaching techniques and infant behavior and competence.
Maternal teaching was found to have more impact upon later than earlier
infant competence in the infants' first year of life, and boys' compliance
which may be a forerunner to infants' task-mastery in this study was
influenced more by mothers' maternal behavior than girls' compliance was.
In addition, in one factor numerous maternal teaching behaviors, including
mothers' initiations, elicitations, directions, acceptance, and amplifi
cations occurred along with baby responses.
Among the infant activities associated with "Maternal Push," a factor
described earlier in this chapter, were mastery of a task and exploration
(Gordon, 1974), the two infant behaviors examined in this study. Since
exploration is basically a cognitive activity but essentially off-task
behavior, it is interesting that this item has loaded on the same factor
with task-mastery. Is it possible that both of these activities are
stimulated by maternal "teaching" behavior, or do they occur together in


41
In addition to the analyses reported above, a complete report of
the correlations of all parent behaviors and infant variables is listed
in Appendix E.
Reliability of Parent and Infant Behaviors
Intra-class correlation reliability coefficients for the six parent
measures were computed separately for mothers and fathers and can be
found in Table 10. The range of reliability scores was from .39 to .94,
with the exception of mothers' amplifying behavior. Reliability of
maternal amplification has been recorded as zero, as is conventionally
done with negative coefficients. Apparently this item is highly unstable
from session to session with this sample. Since amplifying behavior
scores were pooled with two other parental behaviors in Factor 1 (Friendly
Persuasion) in the data analysis, the seriousness of a zero .00 coeffi
cient was somewhat reduced although not eliminated.
Reliability coefficients for the two infant behaviors were quite
high, with the score for task-mastery being .98 and the exploration
coefficient being .97.
Summary
Thirty-nine infants and their parents were videotaped as they inter
acted in a structured learning activity every six weeks during the
infant's first year for a total of seven times. Parents' accepting,
amplifying, responding, eliciting, initiating, and directing behaviors
from the videotaped sessions were coded according to the Reciprocal
Category System. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation
demonstrated that three independent parenting styles occurred during the
parent-infant interactions. The first parenting style, called "Friendly


7
Infants' Gender and Age
A number of studies (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Goldberg & Lewis, 1969;
Gordon & Jester, 1972; Gordon, 1974; Moss & Robson, 1968) demonstrate
that the sex of the infant has a significant correlation with his/her
behavior in parent-infant interactions. Clarke-Stewart (1973) conducted
a longitudinal study of 36 low-income mothers and their first-born infants
from the age of nine to eighteen months. She found that boys in the
study were generally more object-oriented while girls were more socially-
oriented. Sex differences were also apparent in the Goldberg & Lewis
study (1969) of 64 thirteen-month-old infants. In particular, boys were
significantly more independent and were involved in more active and
exploratory behavior than the girls. The girls, on the other hand, were
more dependent and more verbal than their male counterparts.
In a related study of toddlers and their parents, Fagot (1974) found
that parents who made strong claims that they did not treat their children
differently because of the sex of their children did exhibit extreme
differences in behavior when actually observed with their children. The
researcher suggests that inherent differences in the children's behavior
due to his/her sex may in fact "exert . pressure for certain types of
parental reactions" (p. 558). Examples she cites include parents of girls
who respond to the females' greater sensitivity to sound by verbalizing
more with them. Similarly, boys respond less to soothing by touch or
talk, so parents tend to leave boys alone more, possibly accounting for
their greater independence.
The transactions between mothers and their new-born infants produced
rather different results in another study (Bakeman & Brown, 1977) The
mothers in this study tended to initiate and direct more activity with


42
TABLE 10
RELIABILITY
OF PARENT BEHAVIOR
VARIABLES
Fathers
Mothers
Accepting
.80**
. 66 *
Amplifying
.46
.00
Responding
.94**
.71**
Eliciting
.82 **
.76**
Initiating
.57*
.39
Directing
.88 **
.84 **
* .05 level of significance
** .01 level of significance


TO
MY FAMILY
Who nurtured my sense
of competence from infancy


23
Parent variables were limited to verbal behaviors, including but
not limited to language, laughing, and imitation of baby sounds. The
RCS also stipulated that a continuous behavior be recorded for each three
second interval that it occurred. In addition, all accepting, responding,
and amplifying behaviors were tallied only when preceded by an infant
behavior, and accepting, eliciting, and directing behaviors were by
definition task-related.
This study also involved the analysis of four infant variables in
relation to the parent variables. The Bayley Scales of Infant Develop
ment provided the measure of the infants' mental and physical development
at the age of one year. Tallies of the amount of task-mastery and
exploration by the infants were collected through the Home Scale For Use
In The Parent-Infant Transaction Project (see Appendix C). Like the
original Home Scale, which was developed by Watts and Barnett (1971)
for the observation of mothers and toddlers in the home, this observation
schedule requires a tally for each parent, child, or general activity
listed which occurs during each fifteen second interval.
Mastery of the task was coded for each fifteen second interval
the infant successfully completed the activity presented to him/her. It
was important to note what task was presented to the infant by the parent
rather than what task had been described in the written instruction. In
contrast, exploration was coded each fifteen second interval the child
was observed seeking out objects in the environment not related to the
task. Occasionally, exploration included involvement of the child with
a task-related object in an task-unrelated fashion. For example, the
child who purposefully dropped buttons on the floor rather than into the
slot was exploring.


Introduction
This observation schedule requires that the observer watch behavior
for 15 seconds, and then record observed behavior on the coding sheet.
As an observer ask yourself, "What are the specifically designated
behaviors I saw in this 15 second interval?" and then record them on the
coding sheet. The videotaped behaviors you will be observing include
seven different parent-infant tasks such as talking and playing.
This observation record is divided into four major categories:
General Activities, Child Activities, Parent Techniques and Encouragement
Index. General Activities and Child Activities are coded by a single
check or mark if the child is involved in the activity; Parent Techniques
and the Encouragement Index items are marked "M" if the mother is involved,
"F" if the father is involved and "ME" for both. Within each major
category are specific sub-categories listed and described below:
A. GENERAL ACTIVITIES
1. Verbal and Symbolic Learning
2. Perceptual, Spatial, and Fine Motor Learning
3. Visual Pursuit (Tracking)
4. Object Permanence
5. Means and Ends Differentiation
B. CHILD ACTIVITIES
1. Mastery
2. Exploration
3. Observing by Child
77


98
Yarrow, Marian R. Research on child-rearing as a basis for practice.
Child Welfare, 1973, 52, 209-219.
Zegiob, Leslie E., & Forehand, Rex. Maternal interactive behavior as a
function of race, socioeconomic status, and sex of the child.
Child Development, 1975, 564-568.


40
TABLE 9
MEAN SCORES OF INFANT VARIABLES
BY PARENT AND INFANT GENDER
Males Females
23 15
Task-Mastery
17.17
18.47
Mothers
Exploration
38.83
31.93
Task-Mastery
18.17
16.40
Fathers
Exploration
36.17
33.07
MDI
119.61
118.07
PDI
119.57
118.07


9
ability to react to environmental stimulation (Bell & Harper, 1977),
and advancing motor skills (Crawley et al., 1978) may account for the
infants' behavioral changes over time.
Existing research, then, suggests that infants' age and gender had
a bearing on their behavior and competence. In addition, mothers'
interactions differed with male and female infants. The findings are
inconsistent, however, so more research needs to be done in this area.
Thus, this study has addressed the question of infant gender as it
relates to parenting styles and infant competence, limited to infants
under one year of age.
Parents' Gender
Prior to 1964, only the mother-infant dyad had been studied (Lamb,
1975). Mothers, because they are usually the primary care-givers of
young children, were believed to have a unique and superior relationship
with their infants (Bowlby, 1951; Ainsworth, 1973). The mother-infant
relationship is also considered to be the foundation of subsequent social
relationships (Kagan, Wimberger & Bobbitt, 1969) and cognitive development.
In Bell's study (1970) of 33 infants from the age of eight and one-half
months to eleven-months-old, infants with stronger attachments to their
mothers acquired the concept of people permanence sooner than infants
showing negative or neutral attachment behaviors with their mothers.
Furthermore, babies displaying strong mother attachment developed the
concept of people permanence prior to their apparent conceptualization of
object permanence, in 23 out of 24 cases.
Recently, the role of the father has been examined more closely.
Although some of the research analyzes the effect of the father's absence
(Radin, 1976) rather than the impact of his presence on the infant, other