PARENTAL ATTITUDES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ELIZABETH MONROE DREWS AND JOHN E. TEAHAN*

Michigan State University Connecticut State Hospital

PROBLEM There are two contradictory viewpoints regarding the type of familial atnios-

phere which is most conducive to achievement motivation, namely the free per- missive type of environment and the more authoritarian or restrictive type of home setting. Proponents of the former view cite such animal studies as Christie’s‘’) and Thompson and Melzack’s ( 9 ) which shotved retardation in various psychological traits as a result of early restriction. Psychoanalysts such as C r e e n a ~ r e ‘ ~ ) have argued that the frustrations engendered by parental restraints may impair intellect- ual efficiency because of an increase in sado-masochism and resulting anxiety in the child. On the other side of the issue stand P e a r ~ o n ‘ ~ ) and Liss(b) nho look upon the acquisition of kno:\ledge and society’s symbols as a process of sublimation. They feel that if a child is allowed too much freedom he ]Till remain a t the mercy of the pleasure principle.

Perhaps one source of confusion in this issue has been the tendency to use such words as “democratic” to stand !or the “good” parent, and “authoritarian” to stand for the “bad” parent, while the actual operational definitions of these nords vary from investigator to investigator. It is questionable ~3 hether any parent can com- pletely escape the role of an authoritarian during the formative years of a child’s life. In this respect Lewin(4) has identified t m o different kinds of restrictive parental attitudes, one of which sets certain limits upon the child’s behavior .vlhile a t the same time encouraging him t o engage in acceptable activities. The other, houever, issues “blanket warnings” leaving the child insecure and afraid to engage in any new behavior. The importance of parental intervention is also contained in the book of McClelland ( 6 ) and Winterbottom (I1) who have emphasized the importance of parental demands upon achievement motivation. Such demands for certain stand- ards of excellence in the child would seem to imply something different than mere passive permissiveness. It is therefore the thesis of this paper that the parents of high academic achievers \till actually be less permissive and accepting in the treat- ment of their children than the parents of low academic achievers.

SUBJECTS Parents of Gifted Students. One group consisted of the mothers of forty junior high school students of gifted intelligence (I& of 130 or more on the Stanford-Binet). Twenty of these students (ten girls and ten boys) had maintained a uniform grade point average of “A” o ~ e r a, previous two-year period and they were identified as high achievers. A group of low achievers (ten girls and ten boys) were matched to these students to within five I& points on the Stanford-Binet, and to aithin six months in age. These low achieving students had maintained only a “€3 minus” or lower grade point average throughout the previous two-year 9eriod of their school history. An attempt VI as also made to equate the groups for socio-economic status by matching high and low achievers on the basis of their fathers’ occupations using the classification developed by Warner, Meeker and Eels(10) (Table 1). No signi- ficant differences were found in the educational levels of the parents of highs and lows although there was a tendency for both the fathers and mothers of high achiev- ers to have had more years of formal schooling. Parents of Average Students. Another group was composed of the mothers of twenty- eight students of average or high average intelligence (IQ’s from 93 to 120 on the Stanford-Binet). Fourteen of these students (seven girls and seven boys) had main- tained an “A” grade point average for the previous tv, o years, and they viere identi- fied as high achievers. The low achieving group was composed of seven girls and seven boys who were matched to the high achievers to within five I& points on the Stanford-Binet and to within six months in age (Table 1). These low achievers had

*This study was conducted while the author was at Michigan State University.

PARENTAL ATTITUDES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 329

TABLI: 1. COMPARISON OF THE PARENTS OF GIFTED AND AVERAGE RICH AND Low ACHIEVERS ON I& OF CHILDREN, OCCUPATION OF FATHER AND PARENTS’ EDUCATION

Gifted Intelligence Average Intelligence

Achiever Achiever Ratios* Achiever Achiever Ratios* High Low t High Low t

Factors Means Means Means Means

Binet IQ of Children 137.60 138.20 .37 110.71 110.07 .32

Education of Father 13.65 11.75 1.76 11.91 10.83 1.03 Education of Mother 13.70 12.25 1.51 12.76 11.31 1.61

Occupation of Father 3.25 3 .55 .36 3.72 4 .55 1.02

*All t ratios reported here fail to reach a level of statistical significance.

maintained only a “C minus or D” grade point average throughout the previous two-year period of their school history. The two groups were also equated mith respect to their father’s occupational status in order to control for socio-economic level.

MATERIALS A Parental Attitude Scale was constructed consisting of 30 items taken from the

Parent Attitude Survey (PAS) devised by Shoben@). The original scale contained 85 items, 75 of which were arranged into three subscales, the Dominating (D) Scale, the Possessive (P) Scale and the Ignoring (I) Scale. A parent scoring high on the “D” Scale would agree with such items as “It is wicked for a child t o disobey his parents” or “A child should always believe what his parents tell him”; a possessive parent would agree with an item like “Babies are more fun for their parents than older children”, while a sample “ignoring” item is “Children should not interrupt adult conversation”.

The 30 items of the abridged scale used in this study contained an equal number of each of these types of statements (ten of each). The mother was asked to rate each item on a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Care was also taken to insure that the dominating, possessive and ignoring statements taken from the Shoben scale were worded in sud -a way that an individual 5CeTThg a high score on any subtest would have to agree with half of the items and disagree with the other half. This was to protect against the possibility of obtaining persons vith high scores who had simply agreed, or disagreed, with all statements. A copy of the abridged attitude scale is presented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1. PARENT-4L ATTITUDE SCALE

Please read each of the statementii below. Rate each statement 8s to whether you strongly agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree, or strongly disagree. If you cannot decide whether you agree or dis- agree with the statement, then rate i t as uncertain. There are no right or wrong answers, so answer according to your own convictions. Draw a circle around the pair of letters that best expresses your feeling.

Strongly Agree -SA Mildly Agree -MA Mildly Disagree -MD

Uncertain -UN

Strongly Disagree -SD

Scores** 5 4 3 1 2

Independent and mature children are less lovable than those SA MA UN SD M D children who obviously want and need their parents.

5 2 1 3 4 Parents should sacrifice everything for their children. SA MD SD UN MA

3 1 2 5 4 A child should have strict discipline in order to develop a fine, UN SD MA strong character .

5 3 2 4 1 Children should not be punished for doing anything they SD UN MA MD SA have seen their parents do.

2 5 4 3 1 A child should be seen and not heard, MD SA MA UN SD

5 3 2 1 4 The most important consideration in planning the activities SD UN MA SA M D of the home should be the needs and interests of the child.

MD SA

330

Code*

(P) 7 .

(PI 8-

(D) 9.

(D) 10.

(P) 11.

(I) 12.

(I) 13.

(I) 14.

(P) 15.

(P) 16.

(D) 17.

(D) 18.

(I) 19.

0) 20.

(I) 21.

(I) 22.

(D) 23.

(D) 24.

e> 25.

(PI 26.

(D) 27.

(I) 28.

(I) 29.

(P) 30.

ELIZABETH MONROE DREWS AND JOHN E. TEAHdN

Scores** 3 2 5 4 1

The weaning of the child from its emotional ties to the par- UN MA SA MD SA ents begins a t birth.

2 5 4 3 1 Babies are more fun for parents than are older children.

Children should be allowed to make only minor decisions for themselves.

Strict discipline weakens a child’s personality.

Children should be allowed to play with any youngsters they like.

Parents are generally too busy to answer all of a child’s questions.

When they can’t have their own way, children usually try to bargain or reason with their parents.

Quiet children are much nicer than little chatterboxes.

A child should be allowed t o enter any occupation he or she wishes.

In the long run i t is better, after all, for a child to be kept fairly close to his mother’s apron strings.

A child should always believe what his parents tell him.

It is sometimes necessary for the parent to break the child’s will.

MD SA MA UN SD 1 3 4 5 2

SD UN MA SA MD

3 1 2 4 5 UN SA MA MD SD

4 5 3 2 1 MD SD UPJ MA SA

4 3 1 2 5 MA UN SD MD 5.4

5 3 2 1 4 SD UN hlA SA MD

5 4 3 1 2 SA MA UN SD MD

3 4 1 2 5 UN MD SA MA SD

1 3 4 5 2 SD UN MA SA MD

5 4 3 1 2 SA MA UN SD MD

2 5 4 3 1 MD SA MA UN SD

3 1 2 5 4 Children should not annoy their parents with their unim- UN SD MD SA MA portant problems.

1 3 4 2 5 It is wicked for a child to disobey its parents. SD UN MA MD SA

2 5 4 1 3 Children should not interrupt adult conversation. MD SA MA SD UN

1 2 5 3 4 Children should have as much freedom as their parents SA MA SD UN M D themselves.

3 4 1 2 5 Children should not be required to take orders from their UN MD SA MA SD parents.

2 5 4 1 3 Children should be allowed to choose their own religious MA SD MD SA UN beliefs.

5 3 2 4 1 Parents are not entitled to the love of their children unless SD UN MA MD SD they earn it.

2 5 1 4 3 The best child is the one who shows lots of affection for his MD SA SD MA UN mother.

5 2 4 3 1 Children should be allowed to choose their own friends SD hlA MD UN SA without restrictions.

3 4 1 2 5 Children should be allowed to manage their affairs with UN MD SA MA SD little supervision from adults.

1 2 3 5 4 Children should have the opportunity t o express their SA MA UN SD MD opinions to their parents.

5 3 2 4 1 A child should stand on his own two feet as soon as possible. SD UN MA MD SA

*Code P = possessive D = dominating I = ignoring

**Score The scores given to the various responses on each item, and the code letters designating the category of the item were not included in the test adminis- tered to the subjects. They are shown here only for the benefit of the reader.

PARENTAL ATTITUDES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 331

RESULTS The results in Table 2 reveal that the mothers of high achieving students had

higher scores on both the Dominating (D) Scale and the Ignoring (I) Scale of the TABLE 2. COMPARISON O F GIFTED AND AVERAGE MOTHERS ON THE PARENTAL ATTITUDE SC4LE

Gifted Mothers (N = 40) Average Mothers (N = 38) Scales Highs Lows t Ratios Highs Lows t Ratios

D Scale I Scale P Scale

31.45 26.45 2.87** 35.07 33.21 .93 26.80 22.35 3.71** 27.72 24.93 2.15* 21.65 21.35 .19 25.07 25.14 . 08

**significant a t the one per cent level. *significant a t the five per cent level.

test. In the former case this was significant a t the one percent level of confidence only among mothers of the gifted sample, while in the latter case (I Scale) the re- sults were statistically significant a t the one percent level among the gifted and a t the five percent level among the mothers of students of average intelligence. No differences were noted between high and low achievers on the Possessive (P) Scale.

DISCUSSION Mothers of high achievers of both gifted and average intelligence were found to

receive significantly higher scores on the Ignoring (I) Scale of the test. An examina- tion of the items which make up this subtest seems to indicate that it refers to the limits which have been set up for the child within the home. Examples of a few “I” Scale items are, “Children should not interrupt adult conversation”, “Children should not annoy their parents with their unimportant problems”, and “A child should be seen and not heard”.( Thus it would appear that the high achiever is a child who has a rigidly qefined place within the home which he is expected to keep with docile acceptance. 8 This was especially true of the gifted sample where the mothers of high achievers also received significantly greater scores on the “D” Scale. Items in this subtest seem to refer to punitive att.itudes towards disobedience which would appear to indicate that these mothers are quite authoritarian in their treat- ment of their children.

If these results reflect the typical attitudes which characterize the parents of high achievers then it is not surprising that Gough(2) discovered his successful high school students to be conforming, orderly, docile and conventional. High achievers appear to come from a family atmosphere in which the adult knows what is best for the child, and where these adult standards are not often questioned. These findings are also in agreement with Pearson(’) and Liss(6)who emphasize that parental inter- vention is necessary for the development of proper ego controls within the child so that he can adjust to the reality demands of the schoolroom. Certainly it is not difficult t,o see that a student who readily accepts adult dictums might be perceived as a more ideal student in the eyes of his teachers.

SUMMARY An attempt was made to determine the attitudes of the mothers of high and

low academic achievers of both gifted and average intelligence in terms of per- missiveness, protectiveness and domination. It was found that the mothers of high achievers were more authoritarian and restrictive in the treatment of their children than the mothers of low achievers. The parents of high achievers of gifted intelli- gence also seemed to have more punitive attitudes with respect to child-rearing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.

2.

CHRISTIE, J. R. The Effects of Frustration on Rigidity in Problem Solution. UnpubIished

GOUGH. H. G. What Determines the Academic Achievement of High School Studenta. J . Ed*. ’doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, 1949.

Res;, 19531 46, 321-331. -

332 ELIZABETH MONROE DREWS AND JOHN E. TEAHAN

3. GREENACRE, Phyllis. Infant Reactions to Restraint: Problems in the Fate of Infantile Regrea- sion. In C. Kluchhohn and H. A. Murray (eds.) Personality, in Nature, Society and Culture. h’ew Pork: Knopf, 1949, Sect. VII, 390-406.

4. LETTIN, K. Time Perspective and Morale. In G. Watson (ed.) Civilian Morale. New York: IIoughton-Mifflin, 1952.

5. LIW, E. T earning Difficulties-Unresolved Anxiety and Resultant Learning Patterns. Amet. J . Orthopsychint., 1941, 11, 520-523.

6 MLCLELLAND, D. C., ATKINCON, J., CLARK, R., and LOWELL, E. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1953.

7. PEARLON, G. H. A Survey of Learning Difficultiee in Children. In Anna Freud (ed.) The Psy- choanalytir Study of the Child. New York: International IJniv., 1952, 7, 322-386.

8. SHOBEN, E. J. JR. The Assessment of Parental Attitudes in Relation to Child Adjustment. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1949, 39, 103-148

9. THOMPG ON, W. R. and ~ ~ E L Z A C K , R. Earlv Environment. Sci. Amer., 1956, 194, 1, 3s-42. 10. WARNER, W. L., MEEKEIZ, MARCIA, and EELS, K. Social Class in America. Chicago: Sci. Res.

Assor., 1949. 11. WINTERDOTTOM, MARIAN R The Relation of Childhood Training in Independence to Achieve-

ment Motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Univ. of Michigan, 1953.

AUTHORITARIAN PATTERNS IN THE MOTHERS OF SCHIZOPHRENICS JACK D W O R I N ~ AND OAKLEY WYANT

State Hospital Tormnce, Pennsylvania

Veterans Administration Hospital Northport, New York

PROBLEM In the present research an attempt was made to study the relationship between

adult male schizophrenics and their mothers. Although the relationship between disturbed children and their parents has been studied for more than twenty-five years, little is really known about this problem, especially as it relates to the etiology of schizophrenia. There is evidence‘l. 6 * 11- 14* 16, 17, that the mother-child relation- ship plays an important role in the development of emotional disturbance. In fact, many therapis t~‘~ , 4 , 12, feel that some therapeutic work must be done with the parents to alleviate some of the pressure on the children, and most of the large child welfare and social agencies insist upon seeing the parents as well as the disturbed child.

The parent-child relationship, and primarily the attitudes of the mother have been commented upon with increasing frequency in the case of adult schizophrenic patients. Fromm-Reichman(6s 6 , has related some of the causal factors of schizo- phrenia to the attitudes, needs and behavior of the mother of the schizophrenic patient. Hill@) describes the mother of the schizophrenic as being demanding, dominating and fostering dependency in the child. Abrahams and Varon (l) have also indicated the domineering and dependency-fostering behavior of the mothers of schizophrenics. Limentani(13) describes the “symbiotic” nature of the relationship between the adult schizophrenic and his mother. He is impressed by the dependence of the patient upon his mother, and feels that frequently this is due to the mother’s need to have the patient dependent upon her. Similar observations have been re- ported by Hajdu-Gimes (s) , Reichard and Tillman (16), and Tietze (la).

*This work was done a t the Veterans Administration Hospital, Northport, N. Y., while the senior author was a staff psychologist there. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not neccssarily reflect the views or policies of the Veterans Administration.