Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOGMATISM IN ADULTS AND CORRELATES OF
EARLY PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS
APPROVED:
Major Professor
Minor Professor
/ . /f - -/•> - c L ^
Chairman of the Department/of Psychology .
Dean'of the Graduate School
Cole, Troy H. Bo5_matj.sm in Adul ts ap.d correlates of
early Parent-Child Re1ationships. MasIcr o£ Science
(Clinical Psychology) ; May. .1 371 , 37 pp.; 2 tables, bibliography,
23 titles.
Fifty-nine college freshman psychology students responded
to the Roe-Siegelman PGR Questionnaire, the short form of
Roteach1 s Dogmatism Sea 1 e (DS) , and the Edwards Personal
Pieierence Schedule (LPPSj in an exploration of the relationship
between dogmatism and perceived early child-rearing practices.
US scores did not correlate wi.fr h perceived re-iecting,
research would indicate
and as hypothesized in this study, but rather correlated with
Perceived Lading parental behavior as other research indicates.
DS scores correlated with the Succorance, Change, and
intraception scales of the EPPS as predicted and s.s research
indicates. The results suggest that children's perceptions
of parental c.hild-rearing behavior are related to their
tendencies to be dogmatic in their beliefs, and apparently
piix.C-C LLi:iias_-Of_._Parent.s as loving has reinforcing properties
tQIUAg child- that may lead to the uncritical acceptance of
DOGMATISM IN ADULTS AND CORRELATES OF
EARLY PARENT - CHILD RELAT IONSHI PS
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Decree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
by
Trey H. Cole, B. S,
Denton, Texas
May, 1971
'ables
Table Pag<
1. Means and standard deviations for the DS, three EPFS's and four PGR subscales for mothers and for fathers of 2 5 nuil.es and 34 females . . . . . . . . . 24
2. Correlations of DS with three EPPS's arid four PGR subscales for fathers and for mothers of 2 5 males and 34 females
. and the total group 25
m
Review of Research and Statement
of the Problem
Basic to a child's repertoire of inlerpersonal
responses is the influence of parental attitudes and family-
experiences . While aclcnowisdging that early learning patterns
of the child with his parents, especially his mother, have
important roles in the development of beliefs and attitudes,
these parent-child interactions never produce one-to-one
changes, due to variations in the child's constitutional
make-up, the immediate environment, and other variables.
Still, the bulk of evidence in the literature (Anderson,
1962; Bolemier, 1966: Frank, 1965; Goldin, 1969; Rebhun,
.1967 ; Sears, Maccoby, $ Levin, 1957; and others) does point
to various links between parental attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors, and corresponding attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors in the child.
Becker (1S64) reported in a review that when parental
behaviors were investigated on the basis of social class
(based on father's occupation) middle-class parents tended
to be described as warm, tended to use reasoning with the
child, and tended to use guilt-arousing methods or show of
disappointment when disciplining the child. Working-class
1
parents, on the other hr.-nd, were more likely to use physical
punishment> shouting,or ridicule in disciplining the child,
and tended to be iiore restrictive. Also, sex of the parent
and sex of the child, as well as the child's age, reflect
differences in parent-child interactions which must be
accounted for in a study of attitudes and beliefs which are
fostered by parental behaviors. These attitudes and
beliefs are incorporated into the individual's personality
"vrait:t structure and become a part of his repertoire of
responses with which he deals with the outside world.
Measurements of segments of these belief systems with
instnisicnts such as those used in this study may contribute
to understanding the complex interaction between parent-
child relations and belief-disbelief systems.
Research Related to Dogmatism
This study used a short form of Ro'keach's (1960)
Dogmatism Scaljj (DS) proposed by Troldahl and Powell (1965) ,
the Roe -Siegeiman (1963) Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire
(PGR) and the Edwards Personal_ Preference Schedule (EPPS) ,
by Edwards (1954). The EPPS has been used in conjunction
with a measure of dogmatism by Vacchiuno, Strauss, and
ScliifAaan (1968). They Cound that dogmatism was positively
related to needs for Succorance (Sue) and negatively related
to needs for Change (Chg) and Intraception (Int). They
concluded:
Subjects exhibiting dogmatism would seem to have a need (EPFS) to receive support, encouragement, and understanding from others; an intolerance for under-standing the feelings and motives of others; and an avoidance in changing their environment or daily routine [p. 84 J .
Dogmatic attitudes, synonymous with a "closed mind,"
have been extensively studied by Rokeach (1960, p. 5),
and dogmatism has been receiving an increasingly larger
amount of attention in the literature,according to a recent
review by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman (1969).
Rokeach's concept of dogmatism was proposed as a
general theory of authoritarianism (Rokeach, 1960), differing
from specific, or right, authoritarianism, as conceived in
the early 1950's (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,- §
Sanfcrd, 1950); and was defined by Rokeach (1954) as
(a) a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn, (c) promotes a framework for patterns of intolerance toward others [p. 195J.
Rokeach (1960) later expanded this definition, giving
both working definitions which described various characteris-
tics of the open and closed mind, and definitions which tied
these characteristics together. Basic characteristics- which
defined the extent to which a person's belief system was
open or closed included
The extent to which. the porscn can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant in Coitus 15 on received from the outside on it's oun j:itrins]c merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the -situation arising from within the person or from the outside jp. 57j.
According to Rokeach (I960), factors from within a.
person include unrelated habits, perceptual cues, and the
need to allay anxiety; irrelevaat factors from the" outside
include
particularly the pressures of reward and punishment arising from external authority, for example., as exerted by parents, peers> other authority figures, reference groups, social and institutional norms, and cultural norms [p. 57],
A key concept was that the more closed a person's
belief system, the more difficult it would be to distinguish
between the information received and the source of the
information (the authority). The incoming information
would be taken as true because the source said it was true,
not because'Of what the information contained. On the
other hand, a more open-minded person should attend to logical
relationships and objectively evaluate incoming information.
Rokeach (I960) did not consider dogmatism as either an
open- or closed-minded system, but rather stated that it
existed as extremes on a continuum, and was an ideal type
which \vras convenient for purposes of analysis.
Real belief-disbelief systems in people exist together,
and are compared to the diaphragm of a camera, closing or
o p e r: nsg a s t h e s i t a a tic n v a r i e s . Further, Rckeach (I960) %
stated that a belief-disbelief system served two functions
at the same time:
the need for a cognitive framework to know and to understand and the need to ward off threatening aspects of reality. To the extent that the cognitive need to know is predominant and the need to ward off threat absent, open systems should result [p. 67].
However, Rckeach (1960) stated, "as the need to ward off
threat becomes stronger, the cognitive need to know should
become weaker, resulting in more closed belief systems [p.
67-68]." The diaphragm of the mind closes as necessary to
ward off threat, but could still function as a cognitive net-
work for satisfying the need to know; and Rokeach proposed (I960):
for most persons in most situations, both sets of needs operate together to one degree or another. A person will be open to information insofar as possible, and will reject it, screen it out, or alter it insofar ?§ necessary [p. 68].
The total belief-disbelief system was viewed by Rokeach
as a network of cognitive defenses against anxiety. He
hypothesized these cognitive defenses were traceable to
childhood experiences.
Taking measures of a person's attitudes toward his mother
and father, anxiety symptoms the person had manifested in
childhood, and the nature of identifications formed in child-
hood, Rokeach (197 0) found that those who scored low on the
Dogmatism Scal_e_, as compared to middle or high scorers,
expressed more ambivalence toward their mothers and fathers',
were more widely influenced by persons (authority) outside
the immediate family, and were less anxious in childhood.
This suggested that those who were not permitted to express
ambivalence toward parents were not only more anxious, but
had a narrowing of possibilities for identifying with other
persons outside the family. Both of these indices seemed to
lead to the "development of closed belief systems [p. 365]."
Rokeach also investigated other areas of the belief-
disbelief system, such as time perspective and religious
dogmatism. And recently, the growing body of research on
dogmatism has been reviewed by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman
(1969), and divided into ten areas: authoritarianism, the
dogmatic scale, personality, adjustment, group behavior, time
perception, cognitive inconsistency, problem solving, learning,
and parent-child relationships, it can be readily seen that
these ten areas are interrelated and that each contributes
to the concept of the open and closed belief system.
Studies reviewed in the area of parent-child relationships
point to a correlation between parental attitudes and the
individual's dogmatism. Vacchiano, Strauss,'and Hochman
(1969) reported that Anderson (1962) used an analysis of
variance of dogmatism scores categox i zed by sex, intelli-
gence, and anxiety level. The results supported the findings
of Rokeach as reported above. Anderson concluded that
intelligent, anxious females were significantly more dogmatic
than intelligent, non-anxious females, and that intelligent,
anxious males were more dogmatic than intelligent, non-
anxious males. Anderson also found a significant negative
relationship in both males and females between anxiety,
dogmatism, and socioeconomic status: specifically, that
lower anxiety and dogmatism scores were related to higher
socioeconomic status measures. Taken together (Anderson,
1962) , these indicators make "plausible the inference that e
child rearing practices are basic determinants of dogmatism
[p. 135]."
Bolmeier (1966) linked dogmatism in parents to
adjustment of high school students using the Minnesota
Counseling Inventory to measure personality adjustment, the
Iowa Tests of Educational Development for scholastic achieve-
ment, and teachers' ratings. His conclusions (1966)
seem to imply that dogmatism in parents is realted to some aspects of their high school age children. In general , parents who were more open in their thinking according to the dogmatism scale had children who were more apt to score favorably on certain measures of adjustment [p. 5572].
8
More support for the relationship between parental
attitudes toward their children and the development of
dogmatism was shown in a study by Rebhun (1967). He used the
Dogmatism Scale and the Parental Attitude Research Instrument,
finding that dogmatism in male undergraduates correlated
positively with the father's form scales of Fostering
Dependency, Seclusiveness, Breaking the Will, Harsh Punishment,
Demanding Activity, Deification of Parent, Ascendency of
Husband, and Suppression of Affection. Rebhun's findings
"suggest that the dogmatic individual tends to hold parental
attitudes which discourage his children from behavior which
intrudes upon the parents' belief-disbelief system [p. 261]."
Thus, by encouraging reliance on parents, prohibiting
objective consideration of competing beliefs, and narrowing
the child's range of contacts, development of a closed-
minded system in the child was fostered. •
Kirtley and Harkless (1969) made use of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Dogmatism
Scale (DS), concluding that dogmatism was associated with
"low ego strength (Es) , dependency (Dy) , and tendencies
toward hypochondria (Hs), withdrawal, fantasy, bizarre
thinking (Sc), anxiety, phobias, obsessions, and compulsions
[p. 853]."
9
Plant, Telford, and Thomas (1965) utilized the DS in
conjunction with the California Psychological Inventory
(CPI) and concluded that "highly dogmatic subjects were
psychologically immature and could be characterized as being
impulsive, defensive, and conventional and stereotyped in
thinking [p. 75]."
Although he directed his study mainly at psychopatho'logy,
Frank (1965) also used descriptions similar to those above
when he summarized research on the effects of being brought
up in an atmosphere in which children were described as
"emotionally immature, who are dependent, fearful, negativistic,
emotionally labile, etc. [p. 191]," and who have had "mothers
described as worriers, overattentive, or punitive [p. 191]."
Research in Parent-Child Relationships
Dealing more; specifically with'parent-child relation-
ships, a. very comprehensive review of perceived parental
behaviors has been compiled by Goldin .(1969). He analyzed
the literature in terms of a model using three factors put
forth by Siegelman (1965), i^hich included Loving, Demanding,
and Punishing. Goldin also compared the results in the
literature with a similar model by Schaefer, (1965), but
concluded that Siegelman's mode] encompassed as much as did
Schaefer's and was simpler and more explicit in accounting
for the results of studies.
. I r , A / I
Siege]man's factors of Loving, Demanding, and Punishing
were defined by Goldin (1969) in include the following
parental behavior:
Loving refers to parental support, participation, praise, and affection for the child . . . . Demanding refers to controlling, demanding, protective parental behavior . . . , Punishing refers to the arbitrary use of physical and non-physical punishment, with little concern for the feelings and needs of the child and for little apparent reason [p. 223].
Searching for these three factors in 64 studies dealing
with children's reports of parental behavior, Goldin found
that over 60 percent of the studies investigated variables
encompassed by the Loving factor. Over half of the studies
showed attention to the Demanding factor, while 40 percent
reported the Punishing factor. Goldin also found an
intersect between Demanding and Loving factors in 18 percent
of the studies, describing these factors as similar to
over-controlling love. He added that there may be more
perceived parent-child variables involved, such as parental
consistency, delay of reward, and parental social sex roles,
which might shed more light on the overall parent-child
relationship picture.
Goldin, evaluated several hypotheses frequently encountered
in these studies, including perceptions children report which
differ between mother and father, and between sex and age
11
groups. Also studied v/eie differences in delinquents,
child guidance patients, and maladjusted normals.
Regarding the factor Loving, he concluded (Goldin,
1969) that children perceived mothers as more loving, but
boys perceived both parents as less loving than did girls.
This factor became confused as the children's age increased.
Social class was found to be positively related "to affection
and love; all deviant groups investigated (delinquents,
child guidance patients, and maladjusted normals) perceived
parents as rejecting [p. 231-235 J.
Goldin summed up the Demanding factor this wav: boys,
as compared to girls, generally reported fathers as more
controlling and demanding, but the results were again
confused by sex and age of the child. Middle- and working-
class parents were seen as more dominant and overly strict;
this same psychological overcontrol was seen by maladjusted
normals and guidance patients, while delinquents viewed
parents as not setting limits for responsible social
behavior £p. 231-235].
The Punishing factor (Goldin, 1969) yielded these
results: fathers were seen as more punishing, especially
by boys, though both parents were seen more as "the boss"
as children grew up. Delinquents, child guidance patients,
and maladjusted normals all saw parents as punitive [p. 231-
235].
12
These dimensions, especially the Loving and Demanding
factor (but the Punishing factor as well), suggest a
conceptual framework of parental behavior for study,
according to Siegelman (1965). The Roe-Siegelman (1963)
Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR), used in this
study, provided measures of these constructs.
Six of these PCR measures of parental behavior (Loving,
Rejecting, Casual, Demanding, Neglecting, and Protecting)
were used by Siegelman (1965) in a study which investigated
Introversion-Extroversion personality factors and anxiety
measures. Siegelman's results support those reported by
Rokeach • (1960) in that extroverted and low-anxious males
reported more loving fathers and mothers. Also, Siegelman
said that extroverted and low-anxious females reported
more loving fathers, while more rejecting fathers were
reported by introverted and high-anxious male and female
students. These male students also reported mothers as
rejecting, but female students did not.
Siegelman (1965) suggested that imitation and direct
reinforcement learning might operate so that
Loving parental behavior, for example, may represent an extroverted model for the child, and it is probable that a loving parent, more than a rejecting parent, would reward the extroverted behavior of his child fp. 563 ].
"I *T
ID
Stav-cmc-iit of the Problem
The research cited above offered several approaches
to the study of parent-child relationships relative to
personality traits and belief-disbelief systems. Dogmatism
has been related to behavioral characteristics such as
anxiety, introversion and extroversion, age, sex, social
c1as s, and int e11ig enc e.
Much of the research (Becker, 1964; Rebhun, 1967;
Sears, Maccoby, cj Levin, 1957; and Vacchiano, Strauss,
q Schlffman, 1968) pointed tiL-JJliLks between strict, demanding
types of parental behavior...ajiA-jjogmallaBU. On the other
hand, sc..;?e research has indicated that dogmatic attitudes ma.y be learned «'by children whose parents display more loving
a ~ i i d — c h i l d - r e a r i n g attitudes fAnderson. 1962 ;
Bolmeier, 1966; and Rokeach, 1960).
Taking the former research results as a starting
point, this study centered around the general question:
Is there a positive correlation between a subject's'dogmatism
scores (measured by the DS) and his perception of his
parents as rejecting and demanding in their behavior toward
him (as measured by the PGR)?
Specifically, the hypotheses in this study were
14
1. A significant positive relationship exists between
observed scores on the DS and perception of parents as
Rejecting and Demanding, as measured by the PGR.
2. A significant negative relationship exists between
observed scores on the DS and perception of parents as
Loving and Casual, as measured by the PCR.
3. DS scores will be positively related to Succorance,
and negatively related to Change and Intraception, as
measured by the EPPS.
4. No statistically significant differences between
males and females scores on measures of the DS or measures
of perceived parental behayiors of Rejecting, Demanding,
Loving and Casual exist.
Method
Sub iects
This study used the scores of 59 students in two
freshman psychology classes at North Texas State University.
Beginning with the fall, 1970, semester, students in the
psychology department were required to participate in
research. Participation in this study fulfilled part of
the students' obligation; therefore, they could not be
considered volunteers.
. IS
Of a total of 91 subjects who originally began to
take part in this study, 32 subjects' scores were discarded
for reasons of not being complete or because they only had
one parent living, leaving 59 subjects from intact families _ .
(25 males and 34 females) ranging in age from seventeen
to tvenry-six years.
Description of Instruments
Three paper-and-pencil tests were administered: a
short form of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (DS) , form E,
the Roe -Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR),
and the Edward_s Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) .
The short-form DS was'derived by Troldahl and Powell *
(1965) for the purpose of shortening administering and
scoring times. They chose twenty items from Rokeach's
I960 form E DS, for which he reported a reliability of
from ".68 to .93 [Rokeach, 1960, p. 90]."
Troldahl and Powell (1965) reported that the split-half
reliability was about .84 for the forty-item scale. This
they designated as the "upper limit ["p. 214j" of the reliability
one would expect to obtain when a short form of the DS was
used. They randomly selected twenty items from the forty-
item scale, and obtained a reliability of .73 for these,
designating this point as the lower limit. They then
16
selected items from the forty-iteni scale which correlated
most highly with the total dogmatism score, calculating
the final reliability to fall between the lower and upper
limits, namely .79, for the short form of twenty items.
The twenty-item scale predicted the forty-item dogmatism
scale well (Troldahl and Powell, 1965), as indicated by •
correlations of ".94 and .95 [p. 212j.M
Rokeach (1960) stated that the purpose of the DS
was to measure individual differences in openness or
closedness of belief systems, as discussed earlier, and
also to obtain a measure of general authoritarianism and
general intolerance. He also pointed out at the onset
that it is not what a person believes that counts so much
as it is how he believes it, meaning that any particular
belief system could be on either the closed or open end of
the dogmatism contimuum, depending on the individual.
The forty items in the DS were chosen deductively,
on the basis of their reliability and theoretical power
to differentiate openness and closedness of belief systems.
The form E items represented the final, or fifth revision
of the DS, from which Troldahl and Powell (1965) chose
their short-form scale.
The subjects followed written instructions on the DS
cover sheet,- responding to each item on a six-point
17
scale, ranging from -3 to +3, as follows (Rokeach,
1960) :
+1: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little +2: I agree on the -2: I disagree on the
whole whole +3: I agree very much -3: I disagree very much p« 73
The total score was the sum of scores obtained on all
items. A constant of four was added to each item to eliminate
negative numbers. For the short form DS, total scores could
range from 20 to 140. For all items, agreement (high
scores) indicated closed-mindedness and disagreement (low
scores) indicated open-belief systems.
The Roe-Seigelman PCR (1963) consists of two similar
forms, one for fathers and one for mothers. The PCR was
devised to obtain a measure of the characteristic behavior of parents toward their young children, as experienced by the child. It has been used in studies of late adolescents and of adults who have filled it out with reference to their own childhood [p. 355].
There are 130 items for each parent;- there are ten
subtests, six of fifteen items each for measuring perceived
parental behavior characterized as Loving, Protecting,
Demanding, Rejecting, Neglecting, and Casual. There are
four subtests of ten items each for measuring Symbolic-Love
Reward, Direct-Object Punishment, Direct-Object Reward, and
Symbolic-Love Punishment.
18
Each ' f these subtests can be c-.ur ./•.; £by factor-
analytic methods) to three factors: Loving-Rejecting,
Casual-Demanding, and Overt Attention; and, :.r. i«icussed
earlier, thes-e factors trf-e- generally found .in most parerit-
child studies. The items were adapted from the literature '
and constructed to fit the ten subtest categories.' Judges
assigned items to categories, and those items which were .
not agreed upon were discarded.
Tryon reliabilities reported by Roe and Siegelman
(1963) for subtests range from a low of .687 (Symbolic-
Love Punishment) to a high of .896 (Loving).
Specific behaviors of.parents, rather than attitudes^
were used to increase the objectivity of results, and
subjects were asked to recall these parental behaviors toward
them when they were 12 years old or less.
Responses range from very untrue (one point) to very
true (five points), as outlined below (Roe § Siegelman,
1963):
Very Tended Tended Tended Very true to be to be to be untrue
true neither untrue true nor untrue
S .4 3 2 1 (score) [p. 358].
Score totals for the fifteen item subtests could range from
15 to 75, and from 10 to 50 on the ten-item subtests.
i y
In the present forms, the PGR contains eleven items
which are different for the two parents; all other items
apply to both mothers and fathers.
The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (1954)
grew out of research aimed at investigating and controlling
what is considered (Edwards, 1953) to be "socially desirable
responses to items in personality inventories [p. 90]."
Measuring a "number of relatively independent normal- person-
ality variables [Edwards, 1954, p. 5]" which were based on
the work of H. A. Murry (1938), Edwards made up a list of
225 statements for the EPPS. Statements were paired in
such a way that social desirability of responses was equally
weighted, and the choice a subject made between the two was
said to be more characteristic of the subject's personality.
Validity data for the EPPS is inconclusive, but its
popularity as a measurement instrument is evidenced by the
fact that over 300 articles citing it were listed in the
Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1965).
The EPPS Manual reported reliability of two types:
split-half and test-retest. Highest reliabilities reported
by Edwards (1954) were on the variables of Heterosexuality
(.87) and Abasement (.88), and lowest on the variables of
Deference (.60) and Achievement and Exhibition (.74).
20
The fifteen manifest needs u.sed as variables in the EPPS
are listed below, followed by definitions of the three
measures with which this study was concerned (Edwards,
1954): Achievement, Deference. Order, Exhibition, Autonomy,
Affiliation, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance,
Heterosexuality, Aggression, and Intraception (Int),
Succorance (Sue), and Change (Chg).
Intraception is to (Edwards, 1954)
analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act tp. iij.
Succorance is to (Edwards, 1954)
have others provide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt [p. 11 J.
Change is to (Edwards, 1954)
do new and different things, to travel, to meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new and different jobs, to.move about the country and live in different places, to participate in new fads and fashions [p. Ill-
According to the scoring system, scores can range up
to 27 on the Intraception scale, up to 21 on the Succorance
21
scale, and up to 25 on the Change scale, each representing
the 99th percentile for college student populations.
Design
The design of this study consisted of computing
correlation coefficients on the subjects' scores from
measures on the Dogmatism Scale, the Roe Siegelman Parent-
Child Relations Questionnaire, and the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule.
Means and correlation coefficients were computed on all
scale scores for ratings of mothers and fathers, and for males'
and fema3es'ratings of mothers and fathers separately.
Expected findings were
Dogmatism scores were expected to be positively
correlated with perceived rejecting, demanding parental
behavior, and need for succorance, and negatively correlated
with perceived loving, casual parental behavior, and need
£or intraception and change. Differences in male a^d female
subjects' perceptions of mothers and fathers were not expected
to be statistically significant.
Procedure
The questionnaires were administered during two regular
class meetings. Subjects were told that their participation
22
would fulfill part of their course requirements, that their
scores were to be used in a master's thesis, and that all
responses on questionnaires would be confidential.
The subjects were also instructed to answer test
items rapidly but honestly, giving the most frank answers
possible. They were told that the instructions were printed
on each test, but to feel free to ask any questions they
might have. Finally, the subjects were instructed to start
on the next questionnaire as soon as they had finished the
first one.
The questionnaires were given in the following order:
First, the whole class completed the DS. Then one half
of the class completed the EPPS while the other half
completed both the fathers' and mothers' forms of the PCR.
It was believed that since none of the subjects knew what
was being measured, there was no need to control the sequence
of test presentation beyond that described above.
The DS, the PCR, and the Intraception, Succorance,
Change, and Consistency scales of the EPPS. were hand-
scored. The EPPS scores were converted to percentages to
make male and female college students scores comparable
with the tests' norms (Edwards, 1954), The scores were
then transferred to key punch cards, from which the data
were analyzed and product .soaent correlations, means, and
standard deviations computed.
Results
Means, standard deviation (SDj, correlations (r), and
tests of differences between means (t) were computed on
ratings of mothers and of fathers for the combined groups
of male and female students and for each group separately.
Means, SD's, and t_ tests for the DS, three EPPS scales, and
four PCR scales are shown in Table 1. Significant differences
(.05) between male and female scores were found, however,
on the PCR subsc.ale Rejecting, in opposition to Hypothesis 4.
Table 2 presents results of correlations of the DS
with the three .EPFS subscales and the four PCR subscales.
Male, female, and total group correlations are shown. The
DS correlation with the EPPS subscale Succorance was significant
at the .01 level, as predicted in Hypothesis 3 for males, but
not for femalr-s. Correlations with the DS and EPPS measures
of Change were not significant, contrary to Hypothesis 3.
24
TABLE 1
Means and standard dev iations for the DS , three EPPS's
and four PCR subscales for mothers and for
fathers of 2 5 males and 34 females
Sex Scales groups Means Sd t
Dogmatism M 71.9 14.5 F 69.3 17.5 .86
Total 70.4 16.2 •
Succorance M 65.4 25.9 ' F 64.4 30.1 Total 64.8 28.2
Change M 53.7 20.2 F 59.4 28.0
Total 57.0 25.0 Intraception M 45.0 26.3
F * 57.4 26.9 Total 52.1 27.1
Rejecting (fathers) M 35.1 14.2 F 29.1 10.5 2.57*
Total 36.1 • 12.4 Rejecting (mothers) M 31.7 8.1
F 28.2 8.6 2.29* Total 29.7 8.5
Loving (fathers) M 54.5 8.1 F 55.6 12.3 1.62
Total 55 - 2 10.7 Loving (mothers) M 57.5 7.9
F 57.2 10.3 .18 Total 57.3 9.3
Demanding (fathers) M 47.9 7.9 F 45.1 8.6 1.86
Total 46.3 8.3 Demanding (mothers) M 44.6 7.6 1.11
F 43.2 6.3 Total 43.8 6.8
Casual (fathers) M 43.4 6.5 F 46.6 9.6 1.27
Total 45.2 8.5 Casual (mothers) M 46.6 7.5
F 47.9 9.4 .46 Total 4 7.4 8.6 .
** "i 71 "i r PI T ~I c c -3 n-ni -Ti -m r* r\ -P m r~\ o t-i „ y AC
25
TABLE 2
Correlations of DS with three EPPS's and four
PCR subscales for fathers and for mothers
of 25 males and 34 females
and the total group
Scales Correlations with DS Males Females Total
Succorance .358** .139 .214
Change .063 - .040 - .018
Intraception -.247 . .334** - .310*
Rejecting (fathers) - .095 -.024 - .033
Rejecting (mothers) .056 - .437** - .231
Loving (fathers) .430** . 204- .261*
Loving (mothers) .289* .508** .439**
Demanding (fathers) .103 .095 .109
Demanding (mothers) .046 - .015 .018
Casual (fathers) .081 .133 .101
Casual (mothers) - .136 .045 - .019
* £<.05. ** E<-01. • •
The EPPS subscale Intraception, however, correlated with the
DS as hypothesized: female scores were significant at the .01
level, and the total group correlation was significant at the
.05 level.
26
Table 2 also shows that, for females' .ratings of
mothers, the PCR subscale Rejecting was significant at the
.0.1 level but in the opposite direction from that hypothesized
(Hypothesis 1) , DS correlations "with the PCR Loving subscale
for males' ratings of fathers, females' ratings of mothers,
and total group ratings of mothers were significant at the
.01 level. A]1 were in the direction opposite that set
forth in Hypothesis 2. In addition, males' and total group
ratings of mothers on the Loving subscale correlated with
DS scores at the .05 level, again in the opposite direction
fro?;< that hypothesized. The PCR subscale Demanding failed
to reach significance, as predicted in Hypothesis 1. The
PGR subscale Casual also showed no significant correlation
with the DS, as was stated in Hypothesis 2.
Discussion
Hypothesis 1, that, there would be a significant positive
relationship between DS scores and perception of parents as
Rejecting and Demanding, was rejected, since the correlation
coefficient not only failed to reach significance but showed
negative correlation tendencies. In fact, females' ratings of
mothers as rejecting correlated significantly in the nagative
direction (Table 2). This negative correlational trend in
\
the Rejecting subscale was accompanied by a very low positive
27
or slightly negative correlation in the Demanding subscale
for both sexes' ratings of parents, as shown in Table 2.
This trend indicated that, subjects who viewed their
parents as rejecting and demanding did not hold dogmatic . •
attitudes,as measured In this study; rather, they seemed
to be more open-minded (or noncommital),
But Rebhtm (1967, p. 261) found significant indications
that dogmatic parents encouraged dependency, tended to make
excessive demands, and. tended to use harsh punishment and
activity control in imposing limits on the child's environment,
which decreased the chances of other ideas competing with
those already held by the ultimate authority, the father.
These findings were comparable with the description
given by Roe and Siegelman (1963) of the subtest Demanding,
in that parents
impose strict regulations and demands unquestioning obedience to them, and they do not make exceptions. They expect the child to be busy at all times at some useful activity. They have high punitiveness. They restrict friendships in accordance with these standards. They do not try to find out what a child is thinking or feeling, they tell him what to think or feel [p. 357J.
In addition, the Rejecting subscale carried these
attitudes and behaviors to a more extreme degree, in that
parents "have no regard for the child's point of view. The
regulations they establish are not for the sake of training
2 9,
the child, but for protecting the parent from his intrusion:.;
Roe Siegelman, 1963, [p. 357]."
However, when Rokeach (1960, p. 57) wrote of the
factors affecting the extent to which a belief-disbelief
system was open or closed, he included ''pressures of reward
and punishment arising from external authority, for example,
as exerted by parents, peers, . . . [p. 57]." The hypotheses
in this study assumed that attitudes in children would be
fostered by parents who controlled them by force, punishment,
and by demanding, rejecting behavior.
But Rokeach (1960) suggested that reward could also be
used to shape attitudes in children. The reward factor
was indicated strongly in this study, as evidenced by the
correlations between the DS and the PCR subscale Loving,
set forth in Hypothesis 2. In fact, it appears that the
Loving subscale, as well as the Symbolic-Love Reward and
the Direct-Object Reward subscales are reliable predictors
of dogmatism in this study (Appendix A).
Roe and Siegelman (1963) described parental character-
istics in the Loving subtest to include the following
behaviors:
These parents give the child warm and loving attention. They try to help him with projects that are important to him, but they are not intrusive. They are more likely to reason with the child than to punish him,
29
but they will punish him . . . . They try specifically to help- him through problems in the best way for .him . . . . They encourage independence and are willing to let him take chances in order to grow towards it [p. 3 5 7].
The Loving subscale, in conjunction with the Casual
subscale, formed the basis of Hypothesis 2 and included
the following description of parents by Roe and Siegelman
(1963):
They do not think about him [the child] or plan for him very much, but take him as a part of the general situation. They don't worry much about him and make little definite effort to train him. They are easy-going, have few rules, and do not make much effort to enforce those they have [p. 357].
The prediction that there woul4 be a significantly negative
correlation between measures on the DS and perception of
parents as Loving and Casual was rejectedsince correlations
did not meet the specified level of significance. And as
mentioned above, there was a significant correlation in the
positive direction, rather than in the negative direction,
between the PCR subscale Loving and the DS scores (Table 2).
The slightly negative correlations on the Casual subscale
failed to meet significance.
Taken together, the' results of Hypothesis 1 and 2 in
this study showed positive correlations between the DS
scores and perceived parental loving behavior, rather than
rejecting behavior. In terms of reward and punishment, as
30
discussed earlier, this study seemed to indicate that Loving
parents fostered dogmatism in their offspring when Rejecting
parents did not. This is plausible within the framework
of learning theory, in that the results of positively rein-
forced behaviors are more easily seen than is behavior in
which attempts have been made to shape or foster attitudes
in the child through punishment.
Hypothesis 3, that DS scores would correlate positively
with the EPPS subtest scores of Succorance, and negatively
with measures of Change and Intraception, could be only
partially accepted, for the following reasons: Succorance
scores correlated positively with males, females, and total
group measures of dogmatism, as hypothesized. The correlation
between the DS scores and measures of Succorance for males
was significant at the .01 level (Table 2). Intraception
subtest scores correlated negatively (£ .05 and £ .01) with
females and total group dogmatism scores (Table 2) , as
predicted. The Change subtest scores were negatively
correlated with DS scores for females, as predicted, but
were not statistically significant. EPPS Change subtest
score correlations with the DS for males were close to zero
(Table 2), with a slight positive trend.
These results are generally comparable to those
reported by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Schiffman (1968). They
31
found correlations between <"he DS and the EPPS subtests
Succorance (r=.25), Change (r~-,25), and Intraception
(r=-.2.1), concluding that
dogmatism was found to be related to need for succorance (dependency on others) and inversly related to needs for change (avoidance of change in behavior and environment) and intraception,(lack . of understanding of the motives of oneself and others) [p. 84J.
One explanation for the failure to obtain significant
results on the Change subtest, might have had to do with
the fact that the subjects in this study were tested at
the beginning of the semester, when they actually were
experiencing changes in their routine at a higher than
average rate.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that no statistically significant
differences would be observed between males' and females'
scores on measures of the DS and the PCR subtests Loving,
Rejecting, Casual, and Demanding. The expectation was that
differences in perceptions of mothers and fathers would
become less distinct as children approached adulthood, as
Goldin (1969) discussed.
This hypothesis can'only be partially accepted. Only
one significant difference in scores between males' and females'
perceptions of parents was observed: that of the Rejecting sub-
test (Table 1), Males rated both mothers and fathers as more
32
rejecting than females, and^they rated fathers as more
rejecting than mothers (£ .05). These findings were generally
in accord with those of Goldin (1969) , and seemed to follow
expectations of parental roles and attitudes toward parents
in our society (Cox, 1970; Roe § Siegelman, 1963; Sears,
Maccoby, § Levin, 1957).
Though not significant at the .05 level, these results
also supported Goldin's findings (1969), in that males, as
compared to females, viewed fathers as less loving and more
demanding than mothers. At the same time, females perceived
both mothers and fathers as slightly more casual than males,
a pattern that Roe and Siegelman (1963) also found.
In order to examine the combined influence of the
three PCR scales which comprise the Roe-Siegelman Loving-
Rejecting factor, a multiple correlation using these three
scales and subjects' sex as independent variables and DS as
a criterion, was computed for fathers and for mothers separately.
An F-test for significance indicated that the sex variable did
not contribute significantly to the proportion of variance
that was predictable in dogmatism. The sex variable was
therefore excluded from the computations. A substantial pro-
portion of the variance in DS can be accounted for by the child's
perception of mothers (21.7%) and by the child's perception
of fathers (15.7%) on the Loving-Rejecting dimension of
33
child-rearing practice-;. The multiple correlations were
,466 for ratings of mothers and .396 for ratings of fathers.
These data suggest that children's perceptions of
parental child-rearing behavior are related to their
tendencies to be dogmatic in their beliefs. Apparently,
perception of parents as warmaffectionate, and rewarding
may lead to the uncritical acceptance of the belief systems
of the parents. Parents who are seen as high in loving
acquire reinforcing properties for the child's beliefs;
in other words, from the child's frame of reference, the
rewarding, loving parents are important authorities, and
the incorporation of their attitudes and values is a rein-
forcing event for the child.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adorno, T. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E.', Levinson, D. , § Sanford, . . R. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
Anderson, C. A developmental study of dogmatism during adolescence i\?ith reference to sex differences. Journal of Abnormal and Social_ Psychology, 1962 , 65, 132-135.
Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman § L.W. Hoffman (Eds.),
c/hijhd development research. Vol I_. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, pp. 169-208.
Bolmeier, G. The relationship of dogmatism in parents to various aspects of adjustment among high school students. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 26, 5571-5572.
Buros, 0. (}• d ) The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1965.
Cox, S.H. Intrafamily comparison of loving-rejecting child-rearing practices. Child Development, 1970, 41, 437-448.
Edwards, A.L. The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37 (2), 90-9-3."
i Edwards. A.L. Personal Preference Schedule: Manual. New
York: The Psychological Corporation, .1954.
Frank, G.H. The role of the family in the development of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 191-205.
Go!din, P. A review of children's reports of parents behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71(3),
34
5 ( K
Kirtley, D., § Harkloss, R. Some personality and attitudinal correlates of dogmatism. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24, 851-854. " "
Murray, ii.A, Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.
Plant, W. , Telford, C. , § Thomas, J. Some personality differences between dogmatic and non-dogmatic groups.5?1
Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 67, 67-75.
Rehhun, M. Parental.attitudes and the closed belief-disbelief system. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 260-262.
Roe. A., § Siegelman, M. A parent-child relations question-naire. Child Development, 1963, 34, 355-369.
Rokeach, M. The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psycho-logical Review, 1954, 61, 194-204.
Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
Schaefer, E. A configurational analysis of childrens reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology," 1965, 29, 552-557'.
Sears, R. , Maccoby, E., 5 Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957.
Siegelman, M. College student personality correlates of early parent-child relationship. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965 , 29, 558-564..
Troldahl, V., § Powell, F. A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 1965, 44, 211-214.
Vacchiano, R. , Strauss, P., § Schiffman, D. Personality correlates of dogmatism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 83-85.
Vacchiano, R. , Strauss, P., § Hochman, L. The open and closed mind: a review cf dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71 (4), 261-273. ' ~
36
APPENDIX A
Correlations of DS with three EPPS's and ten PCR subscales
for fathers and for mothers of 25 males
and 34 females and the total group
Scales Cor r Males
elations with Females
DS Total
Succorance .358** .139 .214
Change .063 -.040 . -.018
Intracept.ion - .247 - .334** -.310*
Protecting (fathers) .166 .164 .141
Protecting (mothers) .019 .164 .075
Punishing, Symbolic Love (fa thers) .055 -. 080 - .006
Punishing, Symbolic Love (mothers) - .143 - .177 - .161
Rejecting (fathers) - .09.5 - .024 - .033
Rejecting (mothers) .066 - .437** -.231
Casual (fathers) .081 .133 .101
Casual (mothers) -.136 .045 -.019
Rewarding Symbolic Love (fathers) .152 .280* .235
Rewarding Symbolic Love (mothers) .201 .405** .332*
Demanding (fathers) .103 . 095 .109
Demanding (mothers) . 045 - . 015 .018
Punishing Direct Object (fathers) -.014 - .019 - .096
Punishing Direct Object (mothers) . 045 - .135 - .024
* E<-05. ** p <.01.
1 7
APPENDIX A Continued
o C cl X c s Correl at ions with DS o C cl X c s Males Females Total
Loving (fathers) . 430** . 204 .261*
Loving (mothers) ,289* .508** .4 39**
Neglecting'(fathers) - . 013 -. 066 - .037
Neglecting (mothers) .062 - .280* - .092
Rewarding Direct Object (fathers) .152 .233 . .183
Rewarding. Direct Object (mothers) .033 . 286* .176
* p <.05. **~£< .01