Socialization Practices and Child Competence Dimensions

Socialization Practices Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls
Author(s): Diana Baumrind and Allen E. Black

Source: Child Development, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 291-327
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1127295 .
Accessed: 23/10/2014 11:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Child Development.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIALIZATION
ASSOCIATEDWITH
PRACTICES
IN PRESCHOOL
DIMENSIONSOF COMPETENCE
BOYS AND GIRLS
DIANA BAUMRINDand ALLENE. BLACK
Universityof California,Berkeley
The investigation has as its objective to identify parent attitudes and behaviors associated with dimensions of competent behavior in normal preschool children. A child-behavior model (similar in structure to models
presented by Schaefer and by Becker & Krug) for boys and girls separately was developed and related to behavioral measures obtained in the
home, and to mother-son, mother-daughter, father-son, and fatherdaughter interview dimensions arrived at through cluster-analytic techniques. When sex-related correlates were interpreted, particular attention
was given to the problem of equivalence of dimensions across sex. Specific
parent-childrelationshipsvaried with the sex of parent and child. In general, independence granting and verbal give and take, on the one hand, and
enforced demands and consistent discipline, on the other, were associated
with stable, assertivebehaviorin the child.
This program of research had as its objective the identification of
practices associated with dimensions of competent nursery school behavior
for boys and girls. Two separate studies were conducted. The objective of
one study (Baumrind, 1967) was to determine whether preschool chilThis research was supported by research grant MH-03991 from the National
Institute of Mental Health, U. S. Public Health Service, to Paul Mussen and
Diana Baumrind. The authors are indebted to the field psychologists, Rosamund Gardner, Viola Litt, Marie Mastache, Panthea Perry, Elizabeth Warriner, and Judith Williams. The study could not have proceeded without the
cooperation of the personnel of the H. E. Jones Child Study Center (Dorothy
Eichorn, administrator) and the Institute of Human Development (John Clausen,
director at that time, and Brewster Smith, present director). We wish to acknowledge the invaluable aid of the nursery school directors (Thelma Harms, Yvette
Lehman, Virginia Leonard, Anne Kappel, and Hannah Sanders) who helped to
obtain the interest and cooperationof the parents and children and assisted in the

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
dren who are assertive, self-reliant, self-controlled,buoyant, and affiliative
are reared by their parents in a different fashion, on the one hand, from
children who are discontented, withdrawn, and distrustful, and, on the
other, from children who have little self-controlor self-relianceand tend to
retreat from novel experiences. In the first study, all children (32) who
clearly manifested one of these patterns of behavior were selected for three
study groups from among 110 normal preschool children after 3-5 months
of observationin nursery school and laboratorysettings. Home visits, structured observation,and structuredinterviews were used to assess parent behaviors and attitudes. Findings from the first study can be summarized
briefly as follows: parents of the most assertive, self-reliant, and self-controlled children were controlling, demanding, communicative,and loving;
parents of the unhappy and disaffiliatedgroup were relatively controlling
and detached; and parents of the least self-reliantand self-controlledgroup
of children were noncontrolling,nondemanding, and relatively warm. The
objective of the present study is to examine empirically, in an unselected
group, the relations among parent behaviors, parent attitudes, and child
behaviors. Measuring instruments from the previous study were used to
make these assessments so that the degree of correspondencebetween the
two sets of findingscould be assessed.
METHOD
Subjects
The Ss were all children enrolled in the H. E. Jones Child Study Center, Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley,
during the fall semester of 1960. Of the 107 children enrolled at the beginning of the semester, 103 remainedin school long enough to have their behavior rated. There were 95 families who participated in the study and
were visited in the home. The other eight families, for the most part, were
associated in a professional capacity with the investigators and therefore
could not participate. A few parents (one mother and four fathers) were
absent from the home due to death or divorce. In Table 1 are presented
some sample characteristicsrelevant to the study, including the mean IQ
for the 83 children for whom Stanford-Binetswere available. The parents
reside in an urban universitycommunityand are middle-classand very well
educated; 95 per cent of the fathers and 81 per cent of the mothers are
college graduates.Of the fathers, 75 per cent were classified under one or
two of Hollingshead and Redlich's (1958) modification of the Alba Edformulationof the PreschoolBehaviorQ-sortitems.We are especiallygratefulto
the parentswho not only talkedwith us but accordedus the privilegeof observing
their familiesin the home setting.Authors'address:Instituteof HumanDevelopment, Universityof California,TolmanHall, Berkeley,California94720.
292

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK

TABLE 1
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Variable
Age of child in months..........
IQ of child....................
Birth order of child............
No. of children in family.......
Mother's education............
Father's education.............
Father's occupation............
Mean
SD
103
83
103
103
90
97
101
47.0
125.4
2.1
2.6
2.1
1.5
1.9
6.02
14.53
1.01
.92
.67
.61
.98
Note.-The Education Code (1 = graduate professional training, 7 = less than 7 years of school)
and Occupation Code (1 = major executives and major professionals, 7 = unskilled workers) are
those used by Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), with graduate student coded as Education =2 and
Occupation =3.
wards system of classifying occupations into seven socioeconomic groups.

Twenty mothers were working at the time of the study, 12 in professional
capacities. The results of the study should not be generalized to populations which display dissimilarsocioeconomicand educationallevels.
Child-BehaviorRatings
Over a minimum period of 3 months, four trained psychologists observed and recorded behavior while the children were involved in all aspects of the nursery school program.Each child was assigned to a pair of
psychologists, and each pair observed approximately fifty children (one
half were 3-year-olds,and one half were 4-year-olds). A 95-item Q sort was
devised to provide a means by which the psychologists could describe the
child. The items were sorted into nine piles going from most characteristic
to least characteristicwith the fixed distribution:7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 13, 11,
9, 7. The domains of behavior focused upon included neurotic symptoms,
mood and energy characteristics,and such interpersonalcharacteristicsas
self-control, perseverance, self-reliance, self-assertiveness,friendliness, and
cooperativeness.
Both poles of each Q-sort item were defined explicitly, with one pole
reflectingmental health and the other its absence. An attempt was made to
assess independently the diverse facets of psychological constructs such as
"dominance"and "independence"which frequently have been forced into
polar opposition. The effect of not permitting independent measurementof
these facets is to superimposea structurewhich can restrict the emergence
of several related but not equivalent traits or clusters. Consider, for example, the four Q-sortitems:
1. Submitsto group consensusversustakes independentstand.
2. Suggestibleversushas mind of his own.
3. Provokesversusavoids conflictwith adults.
4. Permits self to be dominated versus will not submit. These four
293

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
items might all be considered aspects of a single trait: Autonomy versus
Compliance. However, in the analyses discussed subsequently, these items
were in fact related to separate although correlated dimensions which, in
part, may account for the differences among the models of child behavior
compared. To save space, the item designations given in this paper have
been shortened from the original wordings to provide succinct definitions
of both poles.'
The chief value of the ipsative or within-personranking approach inherent in the Q sort, for this study, was that it allowed the rater to focus
upon one child until she felt that she had observed the child sufficientlyto
do a valid rating. The high correlation between ipsative ratings treated
normatively and conventionally acquired normative ratings, shown by
Block (1957), justified their further use in item-based factor and cluster
analyses.
The final scores used for further analyses were the composites of the
two psychologists'ratings. The reliabilities for the composited items varied
from a low of .29 to a high of .88, with approximately10 per cent of the
reliabilities below .60 and another 10 per cent above .80. The mean value
was approximately.68. As might be expected, the items with low reliabilities (below .60) did not show a sufficientlyhigh pattern of intercorrelation
with other items to be importantcontributorsto the final cluster structures
discussed subsequently. Items with high reliabilities (above .80) almost
invariablywere included as clusterdefiners.
When the composite item means for boys and girls were compared
(Table 2), a fairly characteristicset of differences emerged. Boys were
seen as more active, outgoing, and exploratory,and girls as more involved
in intellectual, aesthetic, and interpersonalpursuits of a verbal nature. In
addition, girls were described more frequently as indirect, manipulative,
coercively dependent, and withdrawn, while boys were seen as more content, good humored,self-assured,and activelyfriendly.
Child-BehaviorModel
An initial cluster analysis by Tryon's
method2 utilizing the productmoment correlationsamong the 95 items elicited a seven-clustersolution for
1 A list of the 95
items,their reliabilities,the meansand standarddeviations
for boys and girls,and the factorcoefficientsfromthe two factorPrincipalComponents Analysisare on deposit with the AmericanDocumentationInstitute.
Order Document No. 9308 from ADI Auxiliary Publications Project,

Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540. Remit in advance
$1.25 for 35-mm. microfilmor $1.25 for 6 X 8-inch photocopies, and make checks
payableto: Chief Photoduplication

Service,Libraryof Congress.
2 All cluster and factor

analyses performed in connection with this paper
utilizedthe BC TRYsystemof computerprogramsdevelopedunderthe direction

294


TABLE 2
SIGNIFICANT
ITEM
MEAN
FORBOYsX GIRLS
DIFFERENCES
Q-SORT
>
Boys
girls:
High vs. low energy level
Good sense of humor vs. humorless
Content vs. discontent
Doesn't seek vs. seeks overt assurance that he is liked
Explores vs. does not explore environment
Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish
Girls > boys
Acts too mature vs. pleasantly childlike demeanor
Enjoys vs. does not enjoy aesthetic experience
Exploits dependent state vs. seeks help realistically
Interested vs. uninterested in pre-primerskills
Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward
Chatters to obtain attention vs. talks in order to communicate
Note.-All
differences reported have a p < .05 for
both boys and girls. The first two clusters were relatively orthogonal (r =
.10 for boys, and r = .06 for girls) and reproduced89 and 85 per cent of
the mean of the originalsquared correlationsfor boys and girls, respectively.
In general, the remaining clusters were highly correlated with the first
two clusters. This is an analogoussituation to that which Becker and Krug
(1964) found conducive for developing their two-factor circumplex model
for social behavior in children. Certainly, in the present case, a two-factor
model seemed adequate to account for the major portion of the variance.
A procedure similar to that used by Becker and Krug, but more rooted in
the rationale of cluster analysis, was followed in ordering the interrelations
of the Q-sort items in separate analyses for boys and girls.
A principal-componentssolution was chosen to provide the most stable

two-factor solution possible. All Q-sort items were then plotted in this twofactor space with their factor coefficients used as coordinates. The items
were formed into clusters on the basis of (a) position on the circularplot,
(b) pattern of intercorrelationof contiguous items, and, in a few instances, (c) theoretical relevance. The axes were rotated graphically to
bring the boy and girl clustersinto a similarposition. The defining items for
each of the eight clusters obtained from this ordering and the cluster reliabilities appear in Table 3. The cluster scores are the unweighted composite of standardized scores for the defining items. The intercorrelations
among items used as definerswere of a magnitudesuch that the lowest average r that any defining item has with the other defining items in a cluster
is .52, with most average r's above .60. This accounts for the high reliability of the clusters. Because of its theoreticalvalue, a simple hierarchicalor
second-orderanalysis was performed by compositing the defining items of
of R. C. Tryonand made availablefor use by the ComputerCenter,University
of California, Berkeley. For full details, see Tryon and Bailey (1966).
295

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
TABLE 3
DESCRIPTION OF CHILD-BEHAVIOR CLUSTERS
EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS
Cluster I: Unlikeable-Likeable. Reliability = 89, = .45:

Alienates vs. attracts other children...........................
Able vs. not able to form close friendships.....................
Uses vs. does not use persuasionto get what he wants............
Takes initiative in making friends vs. standoffish ................
Cluster II: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .95, P = .48:
........
Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic. .................
Irritable vs. even tempered....................................
Obstructive vs. helpful.......................................
Becomes hostile vs. does not become hostile when hurt or frustrated..
Content vs. discontent........................................
Helps vs. does not help other children adapt ....................
Cluster III: Impetuous-Self-Controlled. Reliability = .86, 2 = .29:
Impulsive vs. self-controlled...................................
..
Impetuous vs. planful....................................
Thoughtless, inconsideratevs. thoughtful, considerate............
Cluster IV: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .91, P = .26:
Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanorwith adults ................
Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults .........................
Responsible vs. irresponsibleabout following rules...............
Affectionate vs. unaffectionatewith nursery school staff...........
Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .89, P = .22:
Submits to group consensus vs. takes independentstand...........
Conformingvs. willing to risk adult disapproval.................
Suggestible vs. has mind of his own............................
Listens vs. actively participates in discussions...................
Cluster VI: Imaginative-Stereotyped. Reliability = .88, = .08:
An interesting, arresting child vs. uninterestingand bland.........
fImaginative vs. unimaginative.................................
Emotionally expressive vs. bland..............................
Produces stereotyped vs. original work........................
Curiousvs. lacks curiousity.................
.................
Cluster VII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .89, fP = .40:
Gives up vs. persevereswhen adversity is encountered............
"Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performancedemands.......
Sets goals which are easy vs. hard to achieve....................
Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks ........................
Withdrawsvs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated.........
Cluster VIII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, f' = .51:
High vs. low self-confidence ..................................
At ease vs. ill at ease at nursery school.........................
Apprehensivevs. nonapprehensive ............................
Self-abasive vs. self-valuing...................................
Conflictedvs. resolute about making decisions ..................
EIGHT-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR GIRLs
Cluster I: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .80, P' = .33:

.............
Affiliative, supportive vs. negativistic............
Helps vs. does not help other children adapt....................
Alienates vs. attracts other children............................
Cluster II: Unsocialized-Well Socialized. Reliability = .88, P = .35:
Thoughtless, inconsideratevs. thoughtful, considerate............
296

AVERAGE
.72
-. 71
-.
. 65
-.61
-.79
.79
78
.77
-.76
-.73
.73
. 66
.62
.78
.76
-. 68
-.63
-.74
-.70
-.69
-.58
.64
.62
.61
-.61
.56
-.69
.67
-.65
.57
-.52
.71
.69
-.68
-.66
-.66
AVERAGE
r
-.58
-.57
.56
.71

Obstructive vs. helpful.......................................
Guileful and manipulative vs. direct and straightforward...........
Does not vs. does regret wrong-doing ..........................
Cluster III: Rebellious-Dependable. Reliability = .89, 2 = .22:
Provokes vs. avoids conflict with adults.........................
Disrespectful vs. courteous demeanorwith adults................
Dependable, trustworthy vs. undependable,untrustworthy........
Cluster IV: Domineering-Tractable. Reliability = .88, 2 = 24:
Bullies vs. avoids forcing will on other children..................
Managerialand bossy vs. tactful and modest....................
Permits self to be dominated vs. will not submit.................
Cluster V: Autonomous-Compliant. Reliability = .91, If = .31:
Submits to group consensus vs. takes independent stand..........
Suggestible vs. has mind of his own ............................
Not easily vs. easily intimidated or bullied......................
Conformingvs. willing to risk adult disapproval.................
Listens vs. actively participates in discussions...................
Cluster VI: At Ease-Ill At Ease. Reliability = .93, fl = .44:
At ease vs. ill at ease at nurseryschool ........................
Seldom vs. often spends time in withdrawn fantasy ...............
Poorly vs. well oriented in his environment......................
Withdraws vs. stands his ground when hurt or frustrated..........
Self-abasive vs. self-valuing ..................................
Cluster VII: Confident-Fearful. Reliability = .91, ?* = .54:
High vs. low self-confidence.................................
Conflicted vs. resolute about making decisions ..................
Gives up vs. persevereswhen adversity is encountered............
Cluster VIII: Adaptive-Regressive. Reliability = .94, i* = .47:
Does not vs. does become pleasurablyinvolved in tasks............
Gives his best vs. expends little effort...................
......
Aimless vs. purposive........................................
"Stretches" to meet vs. retreats from performancedemands.......
..
Enjoys vs. avoids new learning experiences.....................
Hazards failure vs. avoids difficult tasks .......................
.66
.63
.61
.74
.73
- .71
.77
.74
-.64
-.72
-.70
.67
-. 66
-.64
.75
.74
-.73
-.70
-.66
.73
-.71
-.70
-.78
.77
-.76
.76
.73
.56
FOUR-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AND GIRLS
Disaffiliative-Affiliative. Reliability = .95-boys, .91-girls; f = .49-boys,

.35-girls. Composite of Clusters I and II.
Resistive-Cooperative. Reliability = .94-boys, .92-girls; f* = .21-boys,
.29-girls. Composite of Clusters III and IV.
Independent-Dependent. Reliability = .90-boys, .94-girls; i2 = .18-boys,
.42-girls. Composite of Clusters V and VI.
Assertive-Withdrawn. Reliability = .93-boys, .95-girls; f = .52-boys, .56girls. Composite of Clusters VII and VIII.
Two-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AND GIRLS
Set A
= .45-boys,
Irresponsible-Responsible. Reliability = .96-boys, .94-girls;
.30-girls. Composite of Clusters I, II, III, IV.
Active-Passive. Reliability = .93-boys, .96-girls; P = .39-boys, .54-girls.
Composite of Clusters V, VI, VII, VIII.
Set B
Nonconforming-Conforming.Reliability = .92-boys, .94-girls; 7' = .21-boys,
.32-girls. Composite of Clusters III, IV, V, VI.
Stable-Unstable. Reliability = .93-boys, .94-girls; P = .66-boys, .58-girls.
Composite of Clusters VII and VIII with Clusters I and II reflected.
=
r = theaverage
correlation
oftheitemwiththeotherclusterdefiners;
Note.-Average
reliability
of thecomposite
thereliability
of theclusterdefiners
P'= reproducibility
of the
(Spearman-Brown);
meanof the squaredcorrelations
items.
among
297

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
relevant clusters from the eight-clustersolution, giving one four-clusterand
a pair of two-cluster solutions. Figure 1 illustrates the model of child behavior which evolved from the data. The circumscribed points represent
the position of the cluster defining items as plotted in the two-factor space.
The separate boy and girl solutions were similar enough so that for the
four-clusterand two-cluster solutions the individual clusters could be given
the same designations. Although the items which were composited to define the axis designated Active-Passive do not clearly measure this dimension, the items which had the highest oblique factor coefficients for both
boys and girls (participates energetically vs. remains unoccupied, selfstarting vs. needs encouragement,enjoys vs. does not enjoy nursery school,
and high vs. low energy level) clearlymeasureActive-Passivebehavior.
Since none of the previously reported models dealing with relevant
NONCONFORMING
BOYS
BOYS
U k
\pk
m
TTAE
A E
EI
IV_
;0
A-
--J
E
L
T
A
LmI
mS
P:
La
COr
46
Ln
464
Z_
SL
46?
'IT
TGIRLS
UTO?oQu.,DOMNEpk"tG
GIL
\5,
X\COM?UANT
IR
t;-I
IL
COFRMN
CONFORMING
FIG.
1.-Child-behaviormodelfor boys and girls
298


material have considered boys and girls separately, we will overlook for a
moment any apparent differences between the boy and girl solutions in
orderto considerthe generalizabilityof the model without regardto sex.
The model evolved as a parsimoniousand meaningful post hoc solution to the problem of data reduction and not as an attempt to define the
real structure of child behavior. Although the raters were experienced
psychologists with diverse theoretical commitments, the rating procedures
were not ones that would minimize halo effects entering into the obtained
intercorrelationsamong items. Passini and Norman (1966) demonstrated
recently that Ss who are acquainted superficiallycan produce peer-rating
factor structures that are highly similar to those obtained from Ss with
whom raters are well acquainted. Similarly,how much of the factor structure reported here is a function of a universal conceptual bias among
raters remains moot. The conceptual bias would have to be more or less
universal, however, since the results from diverse studies appear strikingly
equivalent. Initially, Schaefer (1961) developed a hypothetical model
based on an integrationof his own work with Guttman'scircumplexmethod
and a review of previous work. Then, Becker and Krug (1964) developed
an empirically derived model from a reworking of Becker's data analyzed
previously from a standard factor-analytic approach. Both authors found
substantial support in the literature for their models. The differences between the Schaefer and the Becker and Krug models result primarilyfrom
the greaterdifferentiationof the later model.
Figure 2 compares the child-behavior models of Becker and Krug
(1964), Schaefer (1961), and the four-cluster solution for the current
study. The four-cluster rather than the eight-cluster solution was chosen
because its cluster designations are identical for boys and girls. Reexaminationof the full model (Figure 1) will show even more markedsimilarities among the three models. With the exception of the area defined in
the four-clustersolution as Independent, and its opposite Dependent, the
models appear equivalent in the sense that for any point the behaviors described to either side of it, at the item level, are very similar for almost all
models reviewed by Schaefer and by Becker and Krug. Within the Independent area, most other studies appear to have items defining an extension
of the Resistive-Rebelliousareas, but most of these studies lack a constellation of items directed at the positive aspects of noncomplianceinvolved in
Autonomous-Independentbehaviors. By Contrast, our model distinguishes
between Rebellious and Autonomousbehavior for both boys and girls. The
distinctionproved to be helpful in interpretationsof parent-childcorrelates,
especiallyfor girls.
The differencesbetween the models are most marked at the poles. As
the psychologist moves up through levels of abstraction from individual
item definitions to labeling composite clusters or factors, more and more
free play is granted to theoretical bias. The differencebetween Becker and
299

IRRESPONSIBLE
%.
HOSTILITY
(S)
/i4-'7A;jq,
00, 0
HOSTILE
F.FIANT"
0%
,.
PE
RT(B)
0
V
E IN
p
R
A
S
S
I (S)
4e
A
C
(S) T I
N
V
E
vE
R
0
0
00,
'/G/
"(B)
COOPERAT/'f<
4.LOVE (S)
RESPONSIBLE
2.--A comparisonof two-factorchild-behaviormodels. Outer ring =

Four-clustersolutionfrom reportedstudy; middle ring = Becker and Krug's
(1964) model;innerring = Schaefer's(1961) model.Beckerand Krug'smajor
axesareindicatedby (B) and Schaefer'sby (S).
FIG.
Krug's polar dimension Emotional Stability and our Stable dimension is

more a function of somewhat differing views of the human condition than
of a differencein the orderingof variables.
Comparabilityof the Boy- and Girl-ClusterSolutions
As can be seen from Figure 1 and Table 3, the boy and girl models
are very similarin both the designationsgiven to the clusters and in a large
number of the defining items within clusters. The only difference that reflects content rather than style is the appearance of boy Cluster VI, Imaginative-Stereotyped,which has no counterpart among the girl clusters.
As is indicated by the position of its center mass close to the origin, this
cluster is probably more closely related to a third orthogonalfactor than it
300

DIANABAUMRIND
AND ALLENE. BLACK
is to the first two factors. In fact, the third cluster from the original cluster
analysis by the Tryon method had as its defining items four of the five
items defining Cluster VI. A similar third cluster emerged for girls, but it
was even more highly dependent on the first two clusters than the boys,
which in both cases were dimensions similar to Active-Passive and Irresponsible-Responsible.The area of child behavior concerned with creativity appears fruitful as a possible third more or less orthogonaldimension
upon which a three-dimensionalmodel of child behavior might be constructed. The domineeringaspects of girl Cluster IV do not emerge clearly
for boys, although for the Resistive-Cooperativecomposite clusters these
items also have relatively high-factor coefficients for boys. This type of
content analysis of the differences between solutions is informative but
limited in that it lacks the necessary rigor of definition to allow for comparisonof correlateswith a set of independentparentvariables.
Recently, Tryon (1964) proposed an index of similarity between
clusters or dimensions as a solution to the problem of matching factors
from different samples when the identical set of variables is used. This
problem and the previous attempts at solution are discussed by Harmon
(1960). Tryon's statistic cos 0 was discovered empirically through the
successful attempt to reproduce the known intercorrelationbetween clusters within a single group solution from the oblique factor coefficients,and,
like r, its limits are
When the cos 0 value between two clusters ap--1.8are equivalent in the sense that the pooled set of
proaches 1, the clusters
item definersfrom the two clusters have very nearly the identical pattern of
factor coefficientsfor both clusters. If the clusters are from the same group
solution, the r between them will also approach 1. But once the value of
cos 0 has been established for within-groupsolution comparisons,no logical restrictionsprohibit its use for across-groupsolution comparisons.The
only restrictionis that each solution must contain the same set of referent
variables.
Table 4 gives the intercorrelationbetween the clusters within the boy
based
a Actually,the intercorrelation
reproducedwas not the raw correlation
on factor scores,but, rather,the correlationbetweenclusterdomains(common
factor r). This is simply an estimateof the correlationof composites,an old
formulationrecentlyreviewedby Ghiselli (1964). Cos 0 is exact only when the
definersfor each clusterare preciselycollinear,i.e., when they all fall on the
same straightline in the space under consideration.
This is rarelythe case, but
for all cluster solutions studied by the present authors, the correspondence has
been strikinglyaccurate.Frequently,it has been found preferableto refer only
to the raw correlation between cluster scores rather than the correlation between
cluster domains or common factors. In the present study for 43 of the 109
possible
within-group cluster intercorrelations from the child-behavior, mother-interview
and father-interview cluster analyses for both boys and girls, the product-moment
r between cos 0 and r was .92.
301

It %0
-~
ll?(
???
U)9
~V
o" 00
4N'
:?t
NC0
cu
00
)Z CUl0C
4-J0
Ou
>
(D
-C4'00
04
zd
z
m
5ii
iii
cu
>
r.
>
t-C)00.t
pq
(n.
No
S-m
C
00
.-
\0 CC*4
mC)
to (7
V44
O
OW~ II
-:(
lr~
-;
-,
NP
eOCQ
-0
4-J
~~C
."
a)
45
cr
dC~C~0
g
-
. ;
0
e- i
-
'W44N
W) M
'01
"
a :0 =-00 N 0
Vt
U0%
<

mo
C~I
~)
00'*N
C00
\0C\C
00C4
Cb
Cb
U)
C)
0
c
C oe
H
z
-z
W)
000
va,
(D
U)Uo
0
00
LoU)
41vF9
mH
0/)
C)
C
m
\0
CC
V)
Cl)
OvC%0CI.
0:
CC)
U)
>1
0
CCC.)
C)
cux
F9
In
0
O'0
.d
c
WCI
w0
m t
*.
Wf
E ...
'
0
C)
C4
43
H
CC
C~
,
19k
~ I..
, N-o
c
'-C
.C0
co
cd
00C.
Vc
C
COCd
c)
CC
0
V04
cuo
>1
C)
'0
-9
. 04
1.C)
0
0
Hk
0C
COIrC
~
00
0
H
0-4
CC
-u,.
cu
0
C)zC
cu~
'0
0.
o..
XII
W
II
Al
CCU
1
00
CC
~Cd
0
1.
00
C.
m
M~C
0CC
'0,0

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
and girl solutions along with cos e for the boy-cluster versus girl-cluster
comparisons. The circular ordering of the correlationsbetween variables
for both boys and girls is quite consistent, and most of the clusters given
the same designation have high cos 0 values. The correlation analog of
approximately.65 common variance for an r or .80 was used to arrive at a
definition of "high"for the purposes of this study. The only marked disparities between the boy and girl solutions occur in the Independent-Nonconformingsectors where the contributionof the Imaginative boy cluster is potent.
Parent-BehaviorMeasures
In previous papers, Baumrind (1964; 1967) described in detail the
procedures associated with the home visit and the Home Visit Sequence
Analysis (HVSA). The home was the setting in which data concerning
parent behavior were obtained. The psychologist who visited the home was
not one of the pair that rated the child's behavior. In order to achieve a
standardizedsituation, the home visit was structured identically for each
family and occurred for all families during a period commencing from
shortly before the dinner hour and lasting until just after the child's bedtime. This period is commonly known to produce instances of parent-child
divergence and was selected for observationin order to elicit a wide range
of criticalinteractionsundermaximumstress.
A system was developed for recording in detail those parent-child interactions where one member attempted overtly to influence the behavior
of another. All protocols were coded after the home visits were concluded.
The major interaction unit coded, called a control sequence, consisted of
two or more causally related acts containing a single message and involving
the same two family members as participantsin an interchangeinitiated by
one of them to alter the behavior of the other and ending with the other's
compliance or noncompliance.Type I sequences are control sequences ininiated by the parent in order to control or alter the behavior of the child or
his future capacity to act. The following is a Type I sequence in which the
parent uses minimal power, and the child complies after the parent persists:
MARKgets up fromthe table.
FATHEa:"What do you say, Mark?"
"Iwannago."
MARK:
FATHER:"Whatdo you say, Mark?"
MARK:
"Excuseme, please."
Type II sequences are child-initiated control sequences where the child
makes a demand of the parent. The following is a Type II sequence with
304

DIANABAUMRIND
AND ALLENE. BLACK
which the parent fails to comply, although the child uses increasingly
greaterpower:
JOHN:"CanI go out?"
"Yes.Oh no, I guess you can't.I didn'trealizehow late it was."

"Butwhy didn'tyou tell me the time?"
JOHN:
MOTHER:
MOTHER:
"Youhaveto takea bathnow."
JOHN:"Please,Mother.(Crying, beseeching,being terriblycute.) I never

get to go down the street."
MOTHER:"Not tonight,
dear."
The coded informationfrom the sequences was used as the basis for defining theoretically relevant variables, nine of which were used in this
study. The nine variableschosen are definedin Table 5.
ParentInterviews
Each parent was interviewed separately and a tape-recorded transcript made. The transcriptionswere typed, and the psychologist who did
the interviewingwas able to review and study her interviews prior to completing her final ratings on 56 rating scales. The individual scales which
have been reported by Baumrind (1967) were designed to cover a broad
domain of parent attitudes and practices related to child rearing. Many of
the questions asked and the scales used to code the transcripts were
adapted from the parent interview used by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin
(1957), although the format and emphasis of the interviews are quite different. The perspective taken, however, was that of self-reportrather than
clinical interpretationsof parents' statements and demeanor. This is, the
parent'sappraisalof his or her own feelings and practices was taken at face
value and the ratingsmade on that basis.
For the individual items, the significant mean differences between
parental attitudes toward child rearing of boys versus girls and mothers
versus fathers are given in Table 6. It is of interest that mothers of girls
compared to mothers of boys say that they are more strict about neatness,
demand obedience, control verbal protest, and use withdrawalof love. The
withdrawal-of-loveitem for mothers of girls correlatesnegatively with the
mother-interview cluster Warmth (-.64) and positively with the item
Negative Sanctions. Frightening the Child (.62) which together with
Withdrawal of Love formed the cluster defining maternal Punitiveness for
girls. If the inference is valid (e.g., Bronson,Livson, & Katten, 1959; Heinstein, 1965) that in California homes, at least, the mother is the more
important socializationagent as well as the more nurturantparent, and if
expressed attitudes provide informationabout actual differential reinforcement for boys and girls of direct expressionsof feeling and self-assertivebehavior, then it is likely that preschool girls more than boys are punished for
direct expression of feelings and in ways which would generate
greater
305

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
conflict and guilt about wrong doing. This might account, in part, for the
significant behavior differences in risk taking, passive dependence, and
covert hostilitybetween boys and girls noted in this study and elsewhere.
TABLE 5
(a)
(c)
HOME-VISITSEQUENCEANALYSISVARIABLEDEFINITIONS
VARIABLE
DEFINITION
Positive Outcome...................
The per cent of parent-initiated
control sequences (Type I) where
the child complies.
The per cent of child-initiated
Accepts Power Conflict with Child....
sequences (Type II) where the
parent does not evade child's

request as a method of compliance.
(f)
IndependenceTraining, Control......

the message concerns cognitive
insight into cause and effect
relations or factual
about the world.
knowledge
(h)
Respects Child's Decision...........
(j)
Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance...

control sequences (Type I) involving noncompliancewhere the

parent retracts directive on the
basis of the child's arguments.
the parent uses reason with the

directive.
(k) EncouragesVerbal Give and Take....
The per cent of control sequences

(Type I and Type II) in which
the parent, in order to handle
a parent-child divergence, uses

power or reason or responds
with power or reason to the
child's demands, where the parent
engages the child in argument,
generally altering his course of
action as a result.
(m) Satisfies Child.....................
The per cent of child-initiated

sequences (Type II) where the
interaction produces satisfaction
for the child.
(q)
Uses Coercive Power Without Reason..

the parent uses coercive power
without giving a reason.
(r)
Takes Initiative in Control Sequences..
The per cent of total control

sequences (Type I and Type II)
which were initiated by the
parent (Type I) rather than

the child (Type II).
306


TABLE 6
SIGNIFICANT PARENT-INTERVIEW ITEM MEAN DIFFERENCES
MOTHER INTERVIEW
Mothers of boys > mothers of girls:

12. Negative sanctions: Deprivation of privileges
44. Tolerance of verbal protest
Mothers of girls > mothers of boys:
2. Strictness: Neatness
10. Demand for obedience
13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love
27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggressiontoward parent
38. Maturity expectation: Does not reward dependency
FATHER INTERVIEW
Fathers of boys > fathers of girls:

11. Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment
18. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Praise
19. Positive sanctions as reinforcer: Tangible reward
28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative
Fathers of girls > fathers of boys:
None
MOTHER INTERVIEW X FATHER INTERVIEW
Mothers of boys > fathers of boys:

14. Negative sanctions: Isolation
36. Maturity expectation: Permissivenessfor exploration
37. Maturity expectation: Rewardingof self-sufficiency
42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication
47. Individual character of child perceived
48. Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship
50. Warmth: Approval
52. Warmth: Empathy
55. Conscientiousness: Sacrificeown needs to those of children
Fathers of boys > mothers of boys:
10. Demand for obedience
20. Parents' feeling of control over child
22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures
23. Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline
26. Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement
27. Control of verbal and/or physical aggressiontoward parent
28. Directiveness: Restrictions on child's initiative
32. Reason for restrictions: An absolutist ethical imperative
Mothers of girls > fathers of girls:
1. Strictness: Care of family property
2. Strictness: Neatness
11. Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment
37. Maturity expectation: Rewardingof self-sufficiency
40. Independence: Encourages contact with other adults
55. Conscientiousness: Sacrificeown needs to those of children
Fathers of girls > mothers of girls:
17. Negative sanctions: Frightening the child
22. Lacks internal conflict about disciplinary procedures
Note.--- < .05 for I test of either correlatedor independentmeansas appropriate.
307

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
Parent-interviewClusters
As was the case with the final procedures used with the child behavior, four principal axes factor analyses were performed on the interview data for mothersof boys, mothers of girls, fathers of boys, and fathers
of girls. These analyses revealed that (a) the raw intercorrelationswere,
in general, much lower than for the child behavior, (b) all four solutions
were similar but not similar enough to allow combining of boys and girls,
and (c) there was no basis for establishinga firm two- or three-dimensional
orthogonalstructurein any of the solutions. Since there seemed to be little
value in pursuing a workable model of parent attitudes, the decisionmaking features of the BC TRY cluster analytic system were utilized to
provide final clusters as similar as possible across solutions. Table 7 gives
the defining items, that is, those items which were composited to obtain
cluster scores for the final clusters and the cluster reliabilities. For clarity
of interpretation,additional items that have a relatively high average correlation with the definers are also listed. The clusters defining Warmth and
Consistent Discipline emerged almost intact as the first two clusters from
all four analyses. The relatively low reliabilities for some of the other
clusters reflect the generally low order of intercorrelationamong items and,
in addition,fewer items clusteredtogether than for the child behavior.
Comparabilityof the Parent-InterviewClusters
Table 8 contains the raw intercorrelationsamong parent-interview
clusters within a group solution, along with cos 0 values for across-group
solution comparisons.In addition, both r and cos 0 values are given for the
mother-fathercomparisonsfor boys and girls separately. For mothers, clusters measuring Warmth, Consistent Discipline, Maturity Demands, and
Punitiveness were found for both boys and girls and were similar for both
sexes (cos 0 > .80). However, the pattern of intercorrelationsof the
clusters differs for boys and girls. MaturityDemands for mothers of boys is
relatively orthogonal to the other clusters, while it correlates highly with
Consistency (.58) and negatively with Punitiveness (-.36) for girls. Two
additional clusters designated Restrictivenessand Encourages Independent
Contacts were found for boys but not for girls, and one cluster designated
Socialization Demands was found for girls but not for boys. Encourages
Independent Contacts showed a significant positive correlationwith both
maternalWarmthand MaturityDemands.
For fathers, four clusters were found and given identical designations
for both boys and girls, although the similarity across sex was high only
for Consistent Discipline (cos 0 = .85). Warmth and Strictness Concerning Orderlinesshad cos 0 values in the .70's, while Punitiveness had a
similarityindex of only .52. For fathers of boys, all four clusters were rela308

DIANABAUMRIND
AND ALLENE. BLACK
TABLE 7
DESCRIPTION OF PARENT-INTERVIEW CLUSTERS
INTERVIEW-BOYS
MOTHER
Warmth. Reliability= .84, * = .45:
48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship..............

53.* Warmth: Sympathy..................................
50.d Warmth: Approval..............................
42.1 Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication....
52. Warmth: Empathy ...................................
ConsistentDiscipline.Reliability= .71,f2 = .20:

practices....................
24.d Consistency:Child-rearing
23.d Consistency:Follow-through
in discipline.................
22.d Lacksinternalconflictaboutdisciplinaryprocedures........
17. Negativesanctions:Frighteningthe child.................
11. Negativesanctions:Corporalpunishment
.................
MaturityDemands.Reliability= .61, f = .16:
34. Maturityexpectation:Householdresponsibilities...........
........
37.d Maturityexpectation:Rewardingof self-sufficiency
3. Strictness:Responsibilities
aboutorderliness
..............
Punitiveness.Reliability= .59,f* = .24:
of love.................
13.d Negativesanctions:Withdrawal
17.1 Negativesanctions:Frighteningthe child.................
42. Communication:
Attentivenessto child'scommunication....
50. Warmth:Approval.....................................
51. Warmth:Absenceof hostility ...........................
Restrictiveness.Reliability= .80, P = .10:
for exploration
.......
36.d Maturityexpectation:Permissiveness
28.d Directiveness:Restrictionson child'sinitiative............
Keepingtrackof the child.............
54.d Conscientiousness:
EncouragesIndependentContacts. Reliability= .70, f = .17:
40.d Independence:Encouragescontactwith otheradults.......
41.d Independence:Introduceschildto newexperiences.
........
51. Warmth:Absenceof hostility..........................
MOTHERINTERVIEW-GIRLS
Warmth.
Reliability = .87, f, = .47:
42.d Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication....

53.d Warmth: Sympathy ...................................
48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship................
50.! Warmth: Approval....................................
13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love.....................
Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .84, f* = .32:
.
24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices ...................
23.4 Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline..................
20.d Parent's feeling of control over child.....................
22." Lacks internal conflict about disciplinaryprocedures........
MaturityDemands.Reliability= .77,P = .23:

34.d Maturityexpectation:Householdresponsibilities..........
aboutorderliness
..............
3.d Strictness:Responsibilities
23. Consistency:Follow-through
in discipline................
47. Individualcharacterof childperceived
....................
37.d Maturityexpectation:Rewardingof self-sufficiency.
A VERAG
r
.59
.57
.56
.54
.53
.53
.42
.41
-.40
-.38
..43
.43
.40
.41
.41
-.41
-.40
-.37
-. 64
.56
.53
.54
.54
.40
AVERAGE
.63
.62
.61
.60
-.56
.60
.60
.55
.51
.56
.55
.55
.50
.46
309

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
Punitiveness. Reliability = .77, r- = .30:
13.d Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love ..................
17.d Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................
23. Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline ..............
42. Communication: Attentiveness to child's communication....
Socialization Demands. Reliability = .65, f2 = .09:
7.d Strictness: Aggression toward other children ..............
39." Maturity expectation: Intellectual achievement expected....
6.d Strictness: Quarrelingwith sisters and brothers............
.62
.62
-.57
-.52
.42
.37
.37
FATHER INTERVIEW-BOYS
AVERAGE
r
Warmth.
Reliability = .87, 2 = .38:
48." Warmth:
49.d Warmth:
52.d Warmth:
53. Warmth:
50. Warmth:
Consistent Discipline.
Reliability = .81, f2 = .15:
24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices......................

23.d Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline ................
20.d Parent's feeling of control over child......................
Strictness ConcerningOrderliness. Reliability = .87, = .08:
.....
........
2.d Strictness: Neatness.. . ...............
3.* Strictness: Responsibilitiesabout orderliness..............
8. Strictness: Television..............
................
Punitiveness.
43.d
17.d
11.d
51.
10.
13.
Reliability = .69, f2 = .12:
Communication: Expression of negative feelings to child....

Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................
Negative sanctions: Corporalpunishment ................
Warmth: Absence of hostility ...........................
Demand for immediate or total obedience. ................
Negative sanctions: Withdrawalof love ..................
FATHER
INTERVIEW---GIRS
Warmth: Reliability = .86, Pf = .18:
48.d Warmth: Presence of a loving relationship ...............

49.d Warmth: Demonstrativeness ...........................
50.d Warmth: Approval.....................................
13. Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love ..................
Consistent Discipline. Reliability = .76, f2 = .39:
23.d Consistency: Follow-throughin discipline. ................
21. Parent's appraisal of his/her general influenceon child ......
20.d Parent's feeling of control over child ......................
56. Conscientiousness: Acceptance of responsibility............
24.d Consistency: Child-rearingpractices......................
Strictness ConcerningOrderliness. Reliability = .83, f2 = .18:
2.d Strictness: Neatness ....................................
1.d Strictness: Care of family property.......................
3.V Strictness: Responsibilitiesabout orderliness..............
Punitiveness.
17.d
13.d
26.d
51.
. 74
.66
.65
.61
.60
Presence of a loving relationship ...............

........
Demonstrativeness....................
Empathy. ...................................
.................
Sympathy ...................
Approval....................................
Reliability = .82, i' = .15:
Negative sanctions: Frightening the child ................

Negative sanctions: Withdrawal of love....................
Consistency of discipline: Parental agreement.............
Warmth: Absence of hostility ..........................
.66
.56
.54
.
.61
.61
.37
.44
.42
.41
-.35
.34
.32
AVERAGE
.71
.68
.61
-.46
.80
.73
.71
.69
.65
.63
. 61
.61
.61
.60
--.59
-.47
Note.-A superscript d indicates the items defining the cluster; reliability = the reliability of the
= reproducibility of the mean of the squared
composite of the cluster definers (Spearman-Brown);
correlationsamong items; averager - the averagecorrelationof the item with the other cluster
definers.
310


000'0
\OaO0"Mhl
~~u00
M0
b0
?'Im
Fel
>
0u
o3 0
mqt0tnOk
0 II',
0
0
r-
02
00'0C4
O?o0-'h
4.o4 23II
0.00u
0)
rn
mo(
n
u
Z
0)
100
00 %
41
000
0 t-o0
t- -m
93
0
0
pq
00?oC
-
cd~
I IN
a?0.
*
0
:02cj
..g)0
:m::.
U2
cVcd~(
'-f
..
aC
so%0 0'0
b~e()0
) C1
V141
z4
acl
a)
.o60
,.'
QUO
V
s.
.444
..4-.1
E4a0
I..?
41 aE:co
:
t-
:cd
Cd
cd
VIP,
Zd
"" eq
(U
w
6-1
0
4
0000
z0
0)
V00
M000
r
0O
0faW
Cd
tn
v-4
L;
.-4
.0
10.6-1
o0
0 C4
S-)
;~~Y)3.
4
>,
0cc~A4
Ix
wCd o
U
>
u
r.
c'd
M
0.4)I
loo
Cd0-~%
00 M
:::I.C
Cn
O
cu~u
be
ED)
mv o
i r
v
0)U
k~
0
0)
3C
31 r~rt)Occ)311
.0
. . 0
cu
V4M
o be
00
C40 00
0-r0
4
,4 m
. . . ...
10a
-r ~
COE
1424Cd
~C4
0).a0
-q4 cd
r.
Vj
o~
c-.
P?
0)000
4 C4 ()Zd
00
k(
cue
00
:..0
All
0..C4
00
00
r , j,
NN~w
te
r.
Cdc
41
H.
~~00~
14 jQ
0inZ
-.04
c b
GcIc3
eq
xa
pq
'in 0k0
04
C4
$4(
02
02.0
0)
(u0)
U C.)

cu
0I
311
..4
CHILDDEVELOPMENT
tively orthogonal;for girls, Warmth was correlated significantlywith Consistent Discipline, and both Warmth and Consistent Discipline were correlatednegatively with maternalPunitiveness.
For the mother x father comparisonsof identically designated clusters, it is generallythe case for both boys and girls that even where cos 0 is
high, r is low, indicating that although the same constellationof attitudes is
salient for both mother and father clusters, there is relatively little predictive value from one parent to the other. A possible exception is Consistent
Discipline which intercorrelated.43 for boys and .32 for girls. Although
maternal and paternal Punitiveness are uncorrelated for boys, paternal
Punitivenessis negatively correlatedwith maternalWarmth and Consistent
Discipline. Paternal Consistent Discipline is correlatedpositively with maternal Maturity Demands for both boys and girls and with maternal Encourages Independent Contacts for boys and maternal Socialization Demands for girls. The fact that the child-behavior correlates of maternal
SocializationDemands for girls, maternal MaturityDemands, and paternal
ConsistentDiscipline for boys are similaris discussedin the Resultssection.
RESULTS
Sex-RelatedEfects of ParentAttitudes
Parent variables given identical or similar designations frequently
correlate with child-behaviorvariables quite differently for boys and girls.
It might appear to follow that different socialization laws are needed to
predict the behavior of boys and girls. However, in the instances examined
(Bayley & Schaefer, 1964; Bronfenbrenner,1961; Sears, Rau, & Alpert,
1965), speculationsto that effect, while reasonable,do not follow unequivocally from the data presented. The ambiguityis frequently with respect to
the equivalence of the entities given the same designations. The variables
are comparableif they correlate highly, but it is of course not possible to
correlatedirectly across sex. Cluster-analytictechniques are helpful here in
two ways: (a) a measurableentity with a higher reliability emerges with a
well-defined set of referents when highly intercorrelateditems are composited, and (b) it is then possible to obtain cos 0 values between clusters
across solutions. When cos 0 values are high, the two dimensions are
comparable. However, the possibility of a large difference in pattern of
intercorrelationof clusters between groups arises to the extent that acrossgroup cluster comparisonsgive cos 0 values less than unity for all identically designated clusters. Where such large differences exist, across-group
comparisonof effects for individual clusters cannot be interpreted clearly.
For example, if Cluster A for Mothers of boys correlates positively with
Hostility, and the identically designated Cluster A for mothers of girls cor-
relatesnegativelywith Hostility,then the meaningof the differencein cor312

DIANABAUMRIND
AND ALLENE. BLACK
relations between Cluster A with boy behaviors and Cluster A with girl
behaviors is altered by the sex-related interaction of Hostility with Cluster
A. Without resorting to partial correlation,the relations between a set of
independent variables and a set of dependent variables for independent
groups can be clearly understoodonly when the within-set patterns of intercorrelationamong variables are similar for each group. Actually, calculating correlationswith long strings of partialed-outvariables is statistically
meaningless with the degrees of freedom available in psychological studies
and seldom attempted except with selected variables chosen on the basis of
observedrelations.
When the criteria for selection for studying the differential relations
between parent attitudes and boy and girl behavior is set to include only
those clusters which have a high cos 0 value and a similar pattern of intercorrelationwith other parent clusters, all paternal clusters are eliminated
and only maternal Warmth, Consistent Discipline, and Punitiveness can
be considered. The correlationsof maternal Warmth and maternal Consistent Discipline with child behaviors are undifferentiatedwith regard to
sex when it is noted that for the size N available, a differencein correlation
between identically measured variables of approximately.40 is significant
at the .05 level. (See Tables 11 and 12.) The positive correlationof maternal Punitiveness with Hostile behavior for boys (.15) and negative correlation with the same behavior for girls (-.31), however, is suggestive of
a sex-relateddifferencein relation. If the above requirementsare relaxed to
include all similarly designated clusters, some interesting sex-related differences can be considered. MaternalWarmth was correlated positively with
Autonomy for boys (.26) and not at all for girls. Paternal Warmth was
correlatedpositively with Autonomyfor boys (.28) and negatively (-.21)
for girls. In this connection, it may be noted that Autonomy has a sexdifferentiatedrelation to paternal Consistent Discipline (.35 for boys, and
-.05 for girls) and to paternal Punitiveness (.03 for boys, and .34 for
girls). Paternal Consistent Discipline and paternal Punitiveness are themselves negatively related clusters. These data, especially the fact that paternal Warmth and paternal Punitiveness each have opposite associations
with independence in boys and girls, support the hypothesis that girls
more than boys require a certain degree of tension in their relation with a
parent, as well as leeway to rebel in order to develop independence and
self-assertiveness.It must be kept in mind, however, that the four Warmth
clusters and the two paternal Punitiveness clusters do not entirely meet the
requirementsset for comparability.
RelationsBetween Parent-Attitudeand Parent-BehaviorMeasures
A comparison of data derived from parent interviews with data derived from parent observation may suggest areas in which parents are
313

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
capable of giving reasonablyveridical accounts of their relations with their
children. However, it should be noted that originally the data collected
from these two sources were intended to be supplementary rather than
overlappingand that the variablesso far defined for the HVSA do not span
the domain of parent behavior. Additionally, the HVSA uses data from
both parents with contributionsfrom the mother predominant.The intercorrelationsof the HVSA variables for parents of boys and girls separately
and their correlationswith the interview clusters appear in Table 9.
The maternal Warmth clusters are both highly reliable and highly
comparable for boys and girls, yet their correlations with the parentbehaviorvariables are somewhat different. Most notable of these differences
was the relatively high correlation of maternal Warmth for boys with
Satisfies Child (.44), itself an aspect of warmth, and the low correlation
with the same variable for girls (.12), while the opposite relations hold
(-.47 for girls, .10 for boys) for Uses Coercive Power Without Reason, a
variable highly correlatedwith the interview cluster Punitiveness for girls
(.52) but not for boys (.05). The correlationswith firm control (Positive
Outcome and Accepts Power Conflict With Child) were positive for both
sexes.
In general, the behavioral correlates of the Warmth variables were
consistent and reasonable. Even when sex related, none were in directions
opposite to commonsense or generallyaccepted theory.
If observed behavior is used as the criterion, mothers' reports concerning Consistent Discipline with sons are less veridical than any other
combination. The only significant correlation between Consistent Discipline for mothers of boys and any parent-behaviorvariable was with Satisfies Child. For the other parent-child combinations, there is more correspondence between attitude and behavior measures. The expected
correlationswith Positive Outcome are all significant.In addition, for samesex pairs, a significant negative correlationwas found with Uses Coercive
Power Without Reason.
It was reportedpreviously that maternalMaturityDemands had a different pattern of correlationwith other maternal interview clusters for boys
and girls. Similarly, that cluster's pattern of correlation with parentbehavior variables was different for boys and girls. For girls, MaturityDemands correlated positively with Positive Outcome, Independence Training, and Respects Child's Decision, indicating a relatively straightforward
relation between reported and observed behavior. For mothers of sons,
Maturity Demands correlatedpositively with Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance, but negatively with Respects Child's Decision, indicating a more
equivocalrelation.
The correlation of the mother-son cluster Encourages Independent
Contacts with Parent Takes Initiative in Control Sequences (-.26) and
Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance (.34) gives evidence of consistency
314

AND ALLENE. BLACK

DIANABAUMRIND
,,- O
,,-
O
0
0....OI
e,,
--.
e,,
O
0
IIII
O
0
Ic !m
cqto ON
0
c-q 0q
OO-
-qooo
I1O 0I0
S
C)~
, ,-
ON
. I N
e'l
cu
t ..
C
C> O
\)
cl
OC
,,-
O
0
c e',
lq
I..00 V-.
-f4meq
I CI
O c% eq O
m 0I
II I
m-0f
IrI
cq I
III I
HImo
c
c e',
lq
?OC1\00 q
-I0I I
O
t-cq
m,,
o 0 0
C
m
1N 0
O
C?
',-
00-0
0 ei ,,19
I I
I-I
,--
II
tto00
.
0000
II
II
I
I I
I
I
,0m
O 'IMOII
000 0
4!14
cq
t-,,1
m,C-4
e-C-4
,-q
IqI0Im
e c
cq
I
~(
O
0
t- CNI
m\O C.
I tn414 00
V-e
-q
c%4m
o --
CI00o
O
0
ld4
m(ln%Nl(
0IM
III
II1~1
z
<0
,,-
O
0
mcc)CN
m 000C>
0Ot
000
0..
Mcq
En
U)
OO
0
0
II
I
ImI0
10
EnL
cC
II
I I
t oo
?a... 0
o00 0
. .t- ..
?c
q
~)I
o o
?0(
o0
0
.
OJ
II
ooio.c
\?lC
?c
..
I
I
t~~> O6000
00 n 00 0
o CNC)
.
...
t.
m
.
..
Al
I I I
~>\)CC
C2..
.
U
::.
oo:
................0
.
,U?
3;n
.
......
................
.......
......
.
...
WCd
.
.
.
......
...
.
:
H
"
444
:-.
:
cz
:: :
l ":?
rnEn
rn
.......
En
:: ::.............
C
C?
.0=.....
(1
. . . . .
?)0
1)
O
4)U)
4-J4-1
E od
>u
En
0rln
> Z'
U.
NL445
1
4-1 A*,
000
4.-d
:?
0 &.0
0
..
.
Pd
edr.
.
04.4 4-):z
0 0A
UO
W
u
Aq
A4
U
(j)
V)
d ? Iro
C
d .L 1
CU ???- C
X4o
W
e:
"
........
(1)
. . ....
: : : :4. :
.
Q~In.
.U. ..
)..........................?
.)...
...
.
o.Q
(1)U
U?
>
,,)
(1):(1).u
CdCd
" E'
(1
'
.2 -C
""
. (1._.
"),-U)
.n
C"
.-
:O
315

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
between attitude and behavior. The negative correlation with Independence Training (-.21) is not as contradictoryas it first appears in that the
latter variable is concerned with cognitive differentiationrather than social
self-reliance.
Punitive attitudes seem to predict parent behavior which is coercive
and inconsistent. Expressions of punitive attitudes were associated with
coercive behavior for all parent-childpairs, but less markedly for mothers
of boys. For same-sex pairs, but especially for mother-daughterpairs, Punitiveness correlatedhighly with Uses Coercive Power Without Reason. For
both parents of girls, Punitiveness correlated negatively with Uses Reason
to Obtain Compliance. For mothers of girls, Punitiveness correlated negatively with firm control (Positive Outcomeand Accepts Power Conflict).
The mother-soncluster Restrictivenesscorrelated positively with Parent Takes Initiative in Control Sequences and with Satisfies Child (.23),
thus supporting a relation between restrictive attitudes and overprotective
(not hostile) behavior.
In general, the pattern of correlationsbetween parent attitudes and
observed behavior frequently differs depending upon sex of parent and sex
of child, and not in a manner which could be predicted. There were few
inconsistenciesbetween measuresof attitude and measuresof behavior, but
the relationswere not strong.
Correlationof Sample CharacteristicsWith Parentand Child Variables
The intercorrelationsamong the sample characteristicsand child's IQ
and their correlationswith the parent-interviewclusters, HVSA variables,
and child-behavior clusters appear in Table 10. It should be noted that
father's occupation, father's education, birth order, and, to a lesser extent,
family size have skewed distributions (Table 1). Of particular interest is
the consistently negative relation of father's education with all behavior in
the Active quadrant. Father's education and occupation were correlated
negatively with Confident, Adaptive behavior in girls, and father's education was correlated negatively with Autonomous, Imaginative behavior in
boys. These same variables were related to parent behavior and interview
clusters measuring rigidity, coerciveness, and lack of involvement on the
part of parents of girls and to a lesser extent on the part of parents of boys.
The results suggest that the generally beneficial effects on the child's development attributed to high socioeconomic status and educational level
may undergoa reversalat the upper levels.
For boys, IQ was associated (strongly) with Self-Controlled,Dependable, Friendly, and Likeable behavior, while the relations of IQ to equivalent clusters for girls are (weak) in the opposite direction. Like Bayley and
Schaefer (1964), we find that girls' IQ compared to boys' IQ is relatively
independent of the maternal and child variables studied. From an early
316

DIANABAUMRIND
AND ALLENE. BLACK
FoO
(nN
uoI~wdnx~g~,ay~
uot~rdn330
s,.iaq~:rcrq~~OO
UOTWvflp'3 s,.JiaT4
(VV(r
Our
-
C40
oC
II
ua-JpjqJDjo *N
P4 O
a~gy1J~s~puTiJ
WU
VSIPtIJY
.
4-)00
*r
0-0-cr
C4IC4IC4
w
II
o"
0 't
cd
o
00
I3
J
"pJg
Uo0
N0 m
tPJUISPtIJY
cOF40~
-u00-00~uq
cd
>
co
I
0?
-c
-
r% to 0 (0?oco M
0r)'0
164
cc o
III
0''N
N
0N(40
ON
0'-r~0'
IIIcu
liii~Y III
IccO
t-400c-
Q)
>
- NOIN
I
I
I I
f
C"?Om
-om
-00-0-0
cd.
VU)
?omN0
II
-4000
O~4-e~
OrOr
0 c-4r4eu
d
uoTwrdnmoo
s,.ia-qtr.i0 c~
4U
II
-Mc0o0
tM
0
-0--000--
~000cu4
WUU
00
N-
0C4
C4
o0rrO~
*wIC4
0 II
N 0
uI
C4
O N t-
0-0
O o*0NN0
NCN0
SI
MC4eW
4c
04
uoTzr~npa9JiaipoW
MOO N
Y(P(
....
r)yc)
O 4
O 0'--
00OV-4
o" 00Into
'tr'0r
ON
-4
?o
000''000
~~4-0--00
-r
cYcrct3Y(
III~3O
ct
SI
4j
so. :=H
W +j
d..-,
". ..W
I as
o r.0
cl.
0
u.
4)
41
?U
'
U..4
04
-Z0
O
ca
0j j
L)
Z A
T,414
?:
U--4CJcdo , -4
0 4) cts
V.
00
0C~i~r
U.cdm.-J-40
.
vw
o
41
>
.41
..>4
0
;,W
bo
u
4
4) cd
-0w
d
wc
00
;iUA044,w
( aar
a 41
j.
)C110
cs0
8 ov
,
Sc:.Ps:Z
317

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
oMCoOMN"V
N
Mv-4000
N
N1
NmN0141
0-440
00N'4
CA0 '40CAN00-
--N
4 -
000
0 mf)
cm-
00 '0
00ON- ON
000000
04-004LO0
0M)M0000
IIT4T4
OO'~~00
Otl)
10N N" C4
eq
q "C4
II
-0 0
t 1
0- I
4000
00
II
IU
V-C
000
0 4t
---00IImN
11
U
40
Coc
j4T-
.... 4
1111
'40LON-e 00
T-4
.. . . .
"'0 CAtt0
1041 Cd
-0'0M
10
04T- -400
coo0
V
eT-4
00
M'40
N-N
00000br000U~
C49-4
114
cdg
0
N
0
C4-4
\
NO
C
aCd
00
CAN - CA0- 00
: ::
V..--r.0 w ...4
c-
0 0N
: O d~r
.
.U
.0
;5
-d
II
1Ic ";
0 14-J
U~ 0.2~0
b
Cc oa)o
M
Ru
I
cd
".a-4--)
w
.-4d
cd
a,
ZOr(UcE
(UZE-0
6-06
Z
060
d:
Im
d\Or3UO0.404
bo-4
41
tu4
0
0.Cd
64(u
q
d~c
Co
M0*0
0
ad
v-CU)
04-
318


age, a boy's place in the world is tied to his cognitive abilities, while a girl's
value to her parents and herself is enhanced by quite a different set of
skills. Indeed, high IQ in a girl may make it more difficult for her to assume her expectedpassive, conformingrole.
Child-BehaviorCorrelatesof Parent-AttitudeClustersand HVSA Variables
The individual relations which appear between parent variables and
child variables (Tables 11 and 12) are not strong. However, many are
significant, and the patterns of significant correlations are internally consistent and some are of striking theoretical interest. In particular, some
quite large differences in correlation between parent behavior and child
behavior appear for boys and girls. These differences are reported as sexrelated correlates, however, rather than as possible sex-related effects because of the notable differencesin patterns of intercorrelationsof the parent
variables across sex. An assessment of the generality of the findings must
always take into account the nature of the population. The population
studied consisted of very well-educated, moderately affluent parents who
were involved with their children's welfare even when they were not
notably warm and sympathetic. The statistically significant relations are
discussed below as though parental behavior anteceded and, in fact, generated the child behavior with which it was associated. Such a position,
while theoreticallymeaningful and with few exceptions intuitively convincing, is not demonstrablefrom these data.
1. Warmth was not an important predictor of child behavior in this
study.-The associationsof Warmth with child-behaviorclusters were low.
It is of interest to note, however, that the Warmth variables (interview
clusters and HVSA variable Satisfies Child) were related positively to Autonomous behavior for parents of boys and related negatively for parents
of girls. There are two conditions which may account for the unimportance of parental warmth as a predictor of child behavior in this study by
contrast to most studies. The first considerationis the restricted range of
parents studied. The second considerationis that the Warmth variables as
measured in this study are homogenous since they consist only of such
closely related attitudes as approval, empathy, sympathy, and demonstrativeness.Punitiveness and coerciveness were measured separately from
these variables. In most correlationalstudies (e.g., Becker & Krug, 1964),
the warmth factor tends to be a rather global construct including such diverse variables as use of reasoning, success of enforcement policy, and
nonpunitive attitudes. When the dimension measured is more restricted,
warmth may act as a precondition for the effectiveness of enforcement
policy or of maturity demands and as a component of such related predictive constructs as "uses reason"or "grantsindependence." But the predictive importance of parental warmth in accounting for variance in child
319

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
*4 00Cq4Vft
m Mo
O
000404
oqrlsu"4
H
'5
J
U0
~Ctu~aroJuo
cI)
'"40
'"4h
to1(
4-
'.0
'n
I"
4w
-40N0"
4'
"0 "M
C0
04
I"
44'
04
eq
.?
0
'N
eq
4'
o4
-1
eq0
'
0%
"v
4
..jqisuodsa.u
S o
'"40'0ecur)
-%2UTtuJo1JUoCuoN
o>4
'n
40
00
'"QSUd'.4t
'"
'"04"-0
-u
'"e
0z
"
-4uapuadapuI
H
Ao
00eq
Fr5~.0
Fr5
t-o,
tdNO
lu4uaplgu
0u.e
.1
oogmmo
0u~.
VrC
N'
;AT~sa12T!JV
P oqaeo--o m
-aA WUOU
(n
cll~i~
-p
AqTdtuo
Sl~sa~a
I II
-(
Oe'~r
0V
ce0
WN
--
m 0 inin
V0
ii
I
I.............I
CO
V
'm00 %0
No
- 0
eqco
'.4
V)
OO N"
>A0S1
tj1?tfd(
OO
II
N O Co
II
P3-~aVI13UT~ff13UI
eq~O C
ooeqe'.e'44'
ONI
IiSJ
9-
%0e 0.0In.
I"
00%
eq
t-"4
-4
4'
~-
b0
4'
'.3
'.5
m0"
eq
ek-'"4
oeql
'.
noi-aaaqa-a
-snouovuolnV
Z
-ovC
p;DOJWOuJdaa
H
III
"'JA
LSnO
-snonoaad
oNg 00 e0~400t
mq-ooo
O0
II
000
kU~kI
,V4
-V.
00
C4
.
:w 0 4v 05
0 d VO
0 Go
0 U'Q
W.0.-
*.O o.0 - .000q.o"W0
Unn04 cd~O
4-
>
Eb
.2;!
(U
(U
00
'
tr.?:
-)
320

0
CV
MW
H 0
AND ALLENE. BLACK

DIANABAUMRIND
olqrisun
P10 "M
cc
'n000
00
-aA1 QNf
O"
NY
I I
-OVP l*u~ro~o
C40
to
00
00
O~b)O
ii3dvc~O
0"""0OJO9N m
0oeoN
V)
-aUT~-'Of03UO
II
II
W4Jq 0Nmuosom
0N
0"
14
"b bN
CON"O
-1AqJSv
U)
4
0Z
Nin
co g N to
t-in 00
c~4
I-
oCCS
0o)
0UaT41Sa-dM~
-~
OA~?J
O'
09rOO0000
N N
"M
0f)
O.
N
N-
m00
14
!DAlSSaLJ
u
0
.-
1%
N
V44
i.
"
o
C" %O4
*.
-a.vdpp
0 k%.09
CM4
-z
%o
c4
r.
of N0 o%
V.m
o0
o t-
%o
II
00
00
-w4puapajuoI
C4
0N0
1%
00C
-a!staI2I WI
F-n 0u
04
z
rwu
-sn-09
in)
0000
0V
I
i a
"
-snofl
q
!JA1
PIk191u3
Z%0in
m*ol 00f00
V
No)
~~
-Y
0'.0)
0U)0%'4)
000
09P3
0 ON
Ham
paZTUT:iZOS
:')-~!aa~~o:: U)
cc
tl~ud
a~
1.4
If)
W
4
V
0
00
0Ve
N
0
0'.
-
0V09
1 0 %
0
in
0
.=.o-
c\
l1
.............................
-al
mIn
in
0o)0
-.2Uriaau1tuo0
rr~co)
00
'of4
CV
*0),
*~
~4-A
3a4
if)
00
rfr L
0 (u
0V
u cd
IL)
, : g:?
v0.0 4U..
>tr .,-'
~ 4v
~-,=
4 ?
0CO.
aw>,w
)0.u. u W
ucu..
S.ur
v0
tJ4 )C2 9)
zar a :!4_1405?
a0c Cdj
..
.54
ri
Cu :>
.Al
.,~
Ou
a . cu
00)
0
00
..~00)1Q
> cu0Q
>
W
41
oMEO
Cd?WECU
E:3.hc
o~Cm~
44:~I~
>
04e
Cu.0
(n
d0
ue. =1
bOU&r. O
>e
E
321

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
behavior is low by comparisonwith control variables in this culturally advantaged population.
2. Punitive attitudes were not associated with Fearful or Compliant
behavior.-On the contrary, particularlyfor girls, associations of paternal
Punitiveness were with Independent and Domineering behavior. For boys,
paternal Punitiveness was associated with Unlikeable behavior. These particular results concerning the effects of paternal Punitiveness are similar to
those reported by Becker and Krug (1964). In both studies, paternal Punitiveness was associated with nonconformingand defiant behavior in girls.
It should be noted that Punitivenesswas not correlatedwith antisocialnonconformity (Unsocialized, Rebellious behavior) or with Unstable behavior
in the girls. MaternalPunitiveness was associated with rather different behavior in girls than paternalPunitiveness. In general, maternalPunitiveness
was associated in girls with friendly, outgoing, sociable behavior towards
peers and adultsin the nurseryschool setting.
The positive association shown here between Independent behavior
and paternal Punitive Attitudes for girls supports Bronfenbrenner'sobservation (1961) that among educationally advantaged subgroups too much
warmth and support seem to have a "debilitating"effect on girls. As noted
in a recent report by Baumrind (1966), hostile, self-righteous, and nonempathic practices were associated, in the studies reviewed, with cognitive
and emotional disturbancesin the child. Data reported here give a different impression than the consensus of those results, due primarily to two
factors: the emphasis in this study on adaptive rather than maladaptive
functioning, and the special characteristics of the population studied.
Where the range studied is not restricted, it seems likely that punitive attitudes as well as warmth bear a curvilinear relation to assertiveness.
Whether a child reacts in an assertive or passive manner to parental punitiveness is probably a function of several factors: the child's vigor and
reactivity, the parent's consistency in enforcing high-power directives, the
parent'swarmth,and the child'sintelligence,to name but a few.
The conditions in the population studied were such as to increase the
likelihood that the girls could react assertively. The children were intelligent, and their parents were conscientiously concerned with their welfare.
Punitiveness correlatednegatively with consistency and positively with uncertainty about effectiveness, suggesting that the punitive father was weak
rather than strong. Because of the parents' inconsistency and doubts and
the fact that they were involved rather than detached, the girls whose
parents were punitive did in fact have leverage and could resist effectively
punitive demands.
According to Wolpe (1958), anxiety or avoidance and self-assertion
are reciprocally inhibiting responses to threatening or frustrating experiences. What aspect of the fundamental fight-flightreaction to such experiences will predominate for a given individual will be a function of prior
322


experience as well as genotype. The ways in which girls are reared traditionally (see Table 6, for example) probably serve to perpetuate in girls
preferencesfor the avoidant or anxiety response to aggressive threats. When
parents of girls periodically expose them to frightening experiences within
the home setting (a defining item of the Punitiveness clusters), daughters
have the opportunity, which boys routinely have, to become resistant to
the stress associated with such aggressive threats and to learn that offensive reactions to aggression are frequently rewarding. The more punitive
fathers in this study would provoke anger by their attacks, but then withdraw when their daughters responded assertively, thus differentially rewardingassertiveratherthan avoidantresponses.
Any kind of vigorous, abrasive interactionin which assertive responses
are stimulated and either not punished or rewarded should increase the
likelihood that the individual so stimulatedwill react assertivelyrather than
avoidantly to threatening or frustratingstimuli. Maternal SocializationDemands (relatively uncorrelated with Punitive Attitudes) were also associated with Independent behavior in girls, and additionallywith Adaptive,
Confident behavior. Our results do not suggest, therefore, that parental
punitiveness is the only way or the best way of encouraging self-assertive
behavior in girls. They do seem to suggest that mildly tension-producing
interactions encourage rather than suppress self-assertive responses in the
young child and, conversely, that tension-reducinginteractionsif too predominantcan have the opposite effect.
3. Paternal Consistent Discipline was associated with Independence
and Assertiveness in boys and with Afiliativeness in girls.--Paternal consistency was associated for boys with Likeable, Autonomous,Imaginative,
and Confident behavior. Thus, obedience in the home was associated for
boys with constructive nonconformity in the nursery school setting. For
girls, the highest associations were with Well-Socialized, Friendly, and
Dependable behavior. For both boys and girls, paternal Consistent Discipline was related negatively to father's and mother's educational level.
The more highly educated fathers in this highly educated group were the
least consistent. Perhaps the more highly educated fathers in this academic community were too involved with their work to accept
significant
responsibilityfor disciplining their children, so that much of their potential
usefulness as models was lost. Unlike paternal punitiveness, paternal consistency was unrelated to Independence in daughters. Maternal Consistent
Discipline was not related significantlyto any of the child-behaviormeasures, but for both boys and girls the highest correlationwas with Adaptive behavior. The associationsof Accepts Power Conflict With Child with
child-behaviorclusters were similar in direction to covariates of paternal
Consistent Discipline. However, the discrepancy in associated behavior
for boys and girls was more marked. For boys, the highest correlates
were with Autonomy and Confidence. For girls, the highest correlate was
323

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
also with Autonomy, but here the relation was negative. Girls whose parents Accept Power Conflict were Responsible and Conforming,while boys
were Autonomousand Confident. For both sexes, paternal Consistent Discipline was associated with Stable behavior. Parent's success in obtaining
compliance with directives (HVSA variable, Positive Outcome) was associated for girls with similar behavior as Accepts Power Conflict With
Child, but not to the same degree. For boys, highest associations (weak)
were with Likeablebehavior.
4. The cluster maternal Maturity Demands was also correlated with
Independence and Assertiveness for boys.-This cluster consists of items
concerning household responsibilities, orderliness, and rewarding of selfsufficiency. Significantcorrelateswith the eight-cluster solution were Likeable, Rebellious, Autonomous,Adaptive, and Confident. The partial correlations of Maturity Demands with these same child-behaviordimensions,
with age held constant, (Child's age and Maturity Demands correlate
.40) are slightly lower, but in most instances remain significant.Thus, the
child's age affected maternal Maturity Demands, as might be expected,
but the significant positive correlations of Maturity Demands with Independence and Assertivenessor with Stability and Nonconformitycannot be
attributedto the child'sage.
5. For girls, covariates of maternal SocializationDemands were similar to the covariates of maternalMaturityDemands for boys.-The cluster
Socialization Demands consists of items concerning control of aggression
and expectations of intellectual achievement. Like paternal Consistent Discipline, maternal Socialization Demands covaried negatively with parent's
education and positively with indexes of competence in the child. For girls,
Confident and Adaptive behavior were associated positively with maternal
SocializationDemands. The HVSA variable Takes Initiative in Control Sequences which correlated significantly with Socialization Demands (.33)
was associated positively with Autonomous behavior in girls. The HVSA
variable Independence Training, Controlwas associated in girls with Adaptive, Assertive behavior, showing a similar pattern of covariates as Socialization Demands.
6. Parents'willingness to offer justificationfor directives and to listen
to the child were associated with Competent Behavior on the part of the
child.-Uses Reason to obtain Compliance (HVSA variable j) was associated in boys with Independence and Nonconformity. Encourages Verbal
Give and Take (HVSA variable k) and Uses Coercive Power Without
Reason (HVSA variable q) (negative) were associated in girls with Stable
behavior. Uses Coercive Power Without Reason was associated for both
sexes, but most strongly for girls, with maladaptive behavior. For parents
of boys, predominate covariates were with Stereotyped, Dependent behavior; and for parents of girls, predominate covariates were with Regressive, Fearful behavior. Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance was associated
324


significantly with Independence and Nonconformity for boys and with
Stable behavior for girls. Clearly in boys and girls from this population
(mean IQ of 125), use of reasoning and willingness to engage in verbal
debate was associatedwith Adaptive, competentbehavior.
It is interesting to note that fathers' education and occupation were
associated with arbitrarybehavior (i.e., these indexes were negatively related to Uses Reason and EncouragesVerbal Give and Take, and positively
related to Uses Coercive Power Without Reason). The positive relation between arbitraryuse of power and fathers'socioeconomicand education level
which, at first glance, contradicts common sense is understandablein the
particularpopulationstudied for reasonsalreadygiven.
7. Restrictivenessand refusal to grant sufficient independence (HVSA
variable Respects Child's Decision, and mother-son interview clusters, Restrictiveness,and Independent Contacts) were associated in boys with Dependent, Passive behavior.-Maternal Restrictiveness was strongly, negatively correlated with Imaginative behavior. Sons whose mothers did not
permit them to explore the environment,who placed restrictionsupon their
initiative, and who expected a high level of conscience development
tended to be Stereotyped in their thinking and Dependent, while sons
whose mothers Encourage Independent Contacts were more likely to be
Independent,Active, and Nonconforming.
DISCUSSION
In summary,these findings suggest that parental practices which are
intellectually stimulating and to some extent tension-producing (socialization and maturity demands, punitiveness, firmness in disciplinarymatters)
are associated in the young child with various aspects of competence.
Techniques which fostered self-reliance,whether by placing demands upon
the child for self-control and high-level performance or by encouraging
independent action and decision-making,facilitated responsible, independent behavior.Firm discipline in the home did not produce conformingor dependent behavior in the nursery school. For boys, the opposite was true.
Independent, assertive behavior in girls was associated positively with
parental demands and negatively with high acceptance. Firm, demanding
behavior on the part of the parent was not associated in the parent with
punitivenessor lack of warmth. The opposite was true.
These conclusions concerning the effects of disciplinary practices are
consistent with the findings of a study reported earlier (Baumrind, 1967).
In that study, a group of children who were both socialized and independent were identified. These children were self-controlled and affiliative on
the one hand and self-reliant, explorative, and self-assertive on the other
hand. They were realistic, competent, and content by comparisonwith the
other two groups of children studied. In the home setting, parents of these
325

CHILDDEVELOPMENT
childrenwere consistent,loving, and demanding. They respected the child's
independent decisions, but were very firm about sustaining a position once
they took a stand. They accompanied a directive with a reason. Despite
vigorous and at times conflictful interactions,their homes were not marked
by discord or dissensions. These parents balanced high nurturance with
high control and high demands with clear communicationabout what was
required of the child. By comparisonwith parents of children who were
immature, parents of these highly mature children had firmer control over
the actions of their children, engaged in more independence training, and
did not reward dependency. Their households were better coordinatedand
the policy of regulations clearer and more effectively enforced. The child
was more satisfied by interactions with his parents. By comparison with
parents of children who were unhappy and disaffiliated,parents of the mature childrenwere less authoritarian,although quite as firm and more loving.
REFERENCES
Baumrind, Diana. Naturalistic observational procedures. Paper delivered at Conference on Research Methodology of Parent-ChildInteraction. Syracuse, New
York, October, 1964. Available from author.
Baumrind,Diana. Effects of authoritativeparental control on child behavior. Child
Development, 1966, 37, No. 4, 887-907.
Baumrind, Diana. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool
behavior. Genetic psychological Monographs, 1967, 75, 43-88.
Bayley, Nancy, & Schaefer, E. S. Correlations of maternal and child behaviors
with the development of mental abilities: data from the Berkeley growth
study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964,
29, 3-79.
Becker, W. C., & Krug, R. S. A circumplex model for social behavior in children.
Child Development, 1964, 35, No. 6, 371-396.
Block, J. A comparison between ipsative and normative ratings of personality.
Journalof abnormaland social Psychology, 1957, 54, 50-54.
Bronfenbrenner,U. Some familial antecedents of responsibility and leadership in
adolescents. In L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal
behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 1961. Pp. 239-271.
Bronson, Wanda C., Livson, N., & Katten, Edith S. Patterns of authority and
affection in two generations.Journalof abnormaland social Psychology, 1959,
58, 143-152.
Ghiselli, E. E. Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1964. Chap. vii.
Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1960. Pp. 256-260.
Heinstein, M. Child rearing in California,a study of mothers with young children.
Berkeley: California State Department of Public Health, 1965.
Hollingshead, A. B., & Redlich, F. C. Social class and mental illness. New York:
Wiley, 1958.
326


Passini, F. T., & Norman, W. T. A universal conception of personaity structure?
Journalof Personalityand social Psychology, 1966, 4, 44-49.
Schaefer, E. S. Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and for child
behavior. In J. C. Glidewell (Ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior.
Charles C Thomas, 1961.
Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston,
Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1957.
Sears, R. R., Rau, Lucy, & Alpert, R. Identification and child rearing. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965.
Tryon, R. C. Theory of the BC TRY system. (Library version available in ditto
from the author), 1964.
Tryon, R. C., & Bailey, D. E. The BC TRY computer system of cluster and factor
analysis. Multivariate behavior Research, 1966, 1, 95-111.
Wolpe, J. Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958.
327


Socialization Practices and Child Competence Dimensions

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Socialization Practices and Child Competence Dimensions

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Socialization Practices Associated with Dimensions of Competence in Preschool Boys and Girls

Author(s): Diana Baumrind and Allen E. Black

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK

wards system of classifying occupations into seven socioeconomic groups.

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

Order Document No. 9308 from ADI Auxiliary Publications Project,

payableto: Chief Photoduplication

2 All cluster and factor

utilizedthe BC TRYsystemof computerprogramsdevelopedunderthe direction

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK

differences reported have a p < .05 for

of the Q-sort items in separate analyses for boys and girls.

A principal-componentssolution was chosen to provide the most stable

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

Cluster I: Unlikeable-Likeable. Reliability = 89, = .45:

Cluster I: Hostile-Friendly. Reliability = .80, P' = .33:

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK

FOUR-CLUSTER SOLUTIONFOR BOYS AND GIRLS

Disaffiliative-Affiliative. Reliability = .95-boys, .91-girls; f = .49-boys,

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

1.-Child-behaviormodelfor boys and girls

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

DIANA BAUMRINDAND ALLENE. BLACK

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

2.--A comparisonof two-factorchild-behaviormodels. Outer ring =

Krug's polar dimension Emotional Stability and our Stable dimension is

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

been strikinglyaccurate.Frequently,it has been found preferableto refer only

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

FATHEa:"What do you say, Mark?"

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

"Yes.Oh no, I guess you can't.I didn'trealizehow late it was."

"Youhaveto takea bathnow."

JOHN:"Please,Mother.(Crying, beseeching,being terriblycute.) I never

This content downloaded from 193.137.216.142 on Thu, 23 Oct 2014 11:05:17 AM

parent does not evade child's

The per cent of parent-initiated

insight into cause and effect

Respects Child's Decision...........

The per cent of parent-initiated

Uses Reason to Obtain Compliance...

The per cent of parent-initiated

control sequences (Type I) involving noncompliancewhere the

basis of the child's arguments.

the parent uses reason with the

(k) EncouragesVerbal Give and Take....

The per cent of control sequences

the parent, in order to handle

a parent-child divergence, uses

(m) Satisfies Child.....................

The per cent of child-initiated

Uses Coercive Power Without Reason..

The per cent of parent-initiated

Takes Initiative in Control Sequences..

The per cent of total control