Produce Outcomes That Were Markedly Differebtoi Outcomes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 DOCUMENT RESUME ED 110'164 PS 007 937' ... AUTHOR. Lippman,. Marcia Z.; Grote, Barbara H. TITLE Social-Emotional EffectS-ef Day Care. Final Project Peport. _ SPONS AGENCY Office of Child Development (DHEW),'Washington," DC. ,(--- PUB DATE Jun 14 _ NOTE 380p. , -- _- EDRS PRICE MF-$0:16 HC- $19 ;67 PLUS, POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Child Care Centers; Child Rearing ;. *Comparative Analysis; Curiosity; *DayCare Servicgs; *Emotional Adjustment; Family Day,Care; Interviews; Motivatiorii,.. Parent Attitudes; Parent Child Relationship; Parent-- Influence; Preschool ,Chieldren;-*Preschool*Education; Self Concept; Sex ROle; *Social 'Adjustment; Women IDENTIFIERS *WashingtOn 1Seaitle) ABSTRACT 1 This study compared the effects of group day care, family day care, and full parental care on such aspects of children's social - emotional adjustment as curiosity, attachment, self-concept, sex rolet-achievementmotivation, impulse control, cooperation, and sharing Initial differences between groups were controll4d by matct..ingcm-race, sex; number of parents in the home, number of siblings,- and.Mother"-s education. Data on the 282 4 -year-olds .pa?ticipating were gathered in three ways: (1) interviews_with the mothers concerning their attitudes toward their child and their child rearing priCtices,(2) observational behavior ratings of the child bf the primary caretaker and (3) games and tasks designed to elicit samples of particular types of behavior in a laboratory setting. Some of the trends observed in the data, were:(1) family day-care may tend to foster curiosity, independence, and delay of gratification; (2) hme---rediing may allow girls more freedom to express interest in _-- opposite sex toys and activities; (3) late entry into acenter may lead to increased parent orientation; and (4)day care-*F-perience may dedrease-the tendency for children to overestimate their abilitie's in -selecting both physical and academic tasks. The-Om.e.i41 resultof .the project, however, suggested that day care experience didnot produce outcomes that were markedly differebtoi outcomes. (JMB) . - 0 **********************f************************************************ :Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished -=-* * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of marginal * ,reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makeS' available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * * responsible for th6 quality of, the original document. Reproductions *, * supplied by EDRS are'the best that can be made from the original. ********************************************************************* 9 U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUSATION & WELFARE : NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO .DUCEP EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN .4P- AlIND IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED I NECESSARILY REPRE S r/ OFF age NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF E OCATION POSITION OR POLICY J !. SOCIAL-:EMOTIONAL EFFECTS OF DAY CARE Final Project'Report: June, 1974 prepared by Marcia Z. Lippman, Ph.,D..and Barbara H. Grote, lq.A. -____:Westein Washington State College 4114' "I - I Thins retearch.was suppoit-ed by the Office _of Child. Development, Grant Number OCD-CB-219 s 0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 /) The authors are deeply indebted to the-children who,served as subjects in this project, to their parents, and to their family day care mothers, _teachers, and center directors. We are also grateful for the assistance of Pat Solberg and Margaret Rush of the King 'County Department of Social and Health Services in reaching family day care mothers in the Seattle area. The aid of preschool teachers at Seattle,.,, Central and Everett Community Colleges is also acknowledged. We are especially indebted to' Gerald King for his invaluable programming assistance and to Holly Hartwell and Maxine Block for, their help in scoring data, tyOng, and handling financial matters. The help of thvecretarial staff of the Psychology Department and the Bureau 'for Faculty Research in:Preparation of the final manuscript is grate- fully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank Barbara Bates, OCD.Project Officer, for her guidance on several project-related financial and procedural matters. /2. f, 03 1 iii 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS t .., , Atknowledgements , ii Chapter 1 IntrOduction 1 PARLI METHOD Chapter 2 Sample, General Procedure, and Design 18 Chapter 3' Characteristics of Day Care Settings 31 PART II RATING DATA 4 Chapter 4 Child Behavior Rating / 49 Chapter 5 Mother Interview Data 67 PART III TASK MEASURES Chapter 6 Curiosity 80 Chapter 7 Attachment 108 Chapter 8 Self Concept I- 139 Chapter 9 Human Figure Drawings: Self Concept, Sex Role, and Adjustment 151 Chapter 10 Sex Role 181 Chapter 11 Achievement Motivation . 208 Chapter '12 Impulse Control 241 Chapter 13 Cooperation and Sharing 266 Chapter 14 Conclusions and Implications .A913 111 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PART IV APPENDICES Appendix A Center Information Form 300 Appendix B Day Care Home Information Interview Form 308 Appendix C Center Rating Form and Summary . 318 Appendix D Child Behavior Rating Form and SUmmary 325 Appendix E List of Task Measure for Correlation Matrix . 336 Appendix F Mother Interview 338 Appendix G Who story Instructions, Stories, and Pictures\. 348 Appendix H Anchors for Face Game Subscales ,357 Appendix I Picture Memory Task Instructions 360 I References 361 4 4it 40, ¶'t 5 v LIST OF FIGURES. 1, Six types of high (right)and low (left) complexity figures (from Berlyne, 1958) 99 2. Sample Face Game page and schematic of the sliding wooden face * 142 3.' Mean DAP articulation score for one- and two-parent chil- dren as a function of care group and drawing 157 - 4. Mean masculinity of toy preference as a function of care group, sex, number of parents, and trial 187 5. Mean number of masculine toy choices as a function of care group,,sex, number of parents, and trial 182 6. Mean number of feminine toy choices as a function of care group, sex, number of parents, and trial 190 7. Care Group X Achievement X Physicalness interaction on -activity preference task . 211 8. Sex X Achievement X Physical:2as interaction on activity preference task. 44 9. Mean distance from target on Bean Bag Game as a function of sex and trials. 10. Care Group X Sex X Trial interaction on the Bean Bag attainment discrepancy measure 225 1* Care Group X Trials interaction (left) and Sex X Trials interactile (right) on the Bean Bag goal discrepancy measure 226 12: Schematic of circle-side of pages presented to subjects on the Picture Memory Task. 230 13. Example of pictures presented to Subjects on the Picture Memory Task. 231 14. Number of boys and girls in each care group delaying grat- ,ification. 245 15. ,Picture.used for Draw -A- Line - Slowly Task 252 16. Marble Game board used forassessment of cooperation. 270 17. Mean reciprocation score as a function of care group and sex combination 278 18. Surprise box (top) and training box (bottom) used for assessment of helping and sharing behavior 280 vi LIST OF TABLES 1 ."Characteristics of the 198 matched subjects- . 23 2. Sources of data for each care group 27 o 3. Day and sequence of ,task administration 30 4. Composition of day care centers 33 5:Composition of family 'day care homes w 34 6., Summary of center and day care home reported degree of structure, role, and special points 37 ,4 7. Percentage of centers and day care homes reporting a group, individual, or a combined approach to lunch, nap4 outdoor play, and instructional activities 39 8. Center and day care home philosophy on seyeral child-rearing practices. , . 42 9. Percentage of day care mothers who.reported'providing each . of eight types of organized activity for children in her._ care 44, 10. Distribution of centers on each of 17 rating scales repre- senting center, teacher, and child characteristics 46 11. Child Behavior Rating Clusters 55 12. Mean and variance for each care group on ,the seven Child Behavior Rating Clusters 56 - 13. Correlations between Approach Cluster and Curiosity task measures, Attachment measures, 'and Self-Concept measures. 59 14. 4torrelations between Cooperation Cluster and several task , measures 60 15. Correlations between Achievement Orientjtion Cluster and several task measures 61 16. Correlations between Self-Sufficiency Cluster and several task measures 62, 17. Correlations between'Imitation Cluster and several task measures 63 18. Correlations between Assertiveness Cluster and several task measures 64 ,,00,07 , vii LIST OF, TABLES (Cont'd.) '19. Correlations between Non-Physical Activity Orientation cluster and sevexal task measures., 65 20nMother Interview Clusters 21. Mean 'and variance on the four Mother Interview Clusters for each care group 72 22. Mothers' marriage,'education, and general goals for their children (percentage of mothers 4,11 each care group respond- ing within each scale ,s9ca'tegory) % 74 23.. Correlations between-Mother Interview Cluster scores and several task measures (2<.01 for all correlations presented) 77 24. Criteridn applied to each curiosity measure to .select sub- jects with a high curiosity (CUR) profile 87 25. Mean score for each care group and sex on five curiosity measures 89. 26. Percentage of children in each care group and sex meeting the criteria for high curiosity on each of five measures. 90 27. Mean number of toys placed with and the mean .number of changes in toys placed with for ,each care group and'sex . 94 28. Mean looking time for each care group on high and low com- plexity items of six types 103 29. Percentage of children in each care group looking longer at high than at low complexity items 106 30. Categories for classification of Who Story choices,// 116 31. Percentage of subjects in each 'care group and sex making one or more first responses to the six Who Stories in each of 16 categories 118 32. Number of children in each care group giving no parent (0) or giving one or, more parent (1 -6) `response as a first choice and when all choices were considered 119 33.