Early Manifestations of The Impact of Poverty on Education: The Expectant Parents' Hopes and Fears
Toni G. Cross
George F. Lewis
Centre for Child Development
Institute of Early Childhood
Macquarie University
Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference,
University of Adelaide, November 29-December 3, 1998
ABSTRACT
Toni G. Cross and George F. Lewis
Macquarie University Institute of Early Childhood
Children born into socioeconomically disadvantaged families often have poor educational outcomes, exhibit more externalising behaviours, and more depressive symptoms. Moreover, there are suggestions that the effects of poverty on children may be cumulative over development and may, in part, be attributable initially to parents' expectations of their infants, knowledge of child development and understandings of child rearing principles, as well as their relationships with their children, and the quality of their interactions from birth. Consequently, there is a need to investigate whether an association is detectable in early childhood between child development and poverty and to examine the role of parenting variables in contributing to those developmental outcomes.
The paper describes a longitudinal study investigating whether family socioeconomic disadvantage is impacting on the mental health and development of Australian children and the family predictors of their early development and educational performance. A secondary aim assesses the assumption that children of affluent parents are protected from influences that impair their development. Specifically, the study seeks to examine the relationship between parental cognitions about infancy, parent interaction styles, and infant development in families with developmentally normal and delayed or disabled infants in socioeconomically advantaged and socioeconomically disadvantaged families.
The participants are 120 socioeconomically advantaged and socioeconomically disadvantaged families who were expecting infants in mid-to-late 1998. The findings from the first antenatal interviews with parents about their plans and expectations for the care, education, and development of their infants are presented in terms of the role of parenting variables measured before birth.
Early Manifestations of The Impact of Poverty on Education: The Expectant Parents' Hopes and Fears
Toni G. Cross and George F. Lewis
Centre for Child Development, Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University
It is widely accepted by the community and many students of early childhood that children's development will benefit from 'good' parenting and, conversely, that 'poor' parenting can lead to unsatisfactory developmental outcomes (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996). Statements are often made that poor, stressed or otherwise inadequate parenting attitudes and practices mediate the observed impact of parental poverty, social and educational disadvantage, or other stressful family conditions on children's development. However, precisely what constitutes 'good' or 'poor' parenting is still the subject of debate and is strongly influenced by demographic aspects of family background (Goodnow, 1988; Hess, Kasigawa, Azuma, Price & Dickson, 1980; Ninio, 1979). The Longitudinal Infancy Study being conducted at the Centre for Child Development at Macquarie University's Institute of Early Childhood is investigating the relationship between, on the one hand, parent characteristics, parenting cognitions, and parent interactive behaviour, and on the other hand, infant characteristics and infant developmental outcomes.
There is a growing body of recent research investigating the role that parental cognitions about children and childhood play in influencing their parenting behaviours and the kinds of environments, social and physical, that they create for their children. These in turn impact on the way their children develop (Miller, 1988; Sigel, 1986). Such research is directed to answering questions about the effects on child development of variations in parenting behaviours, such as: What effect do parents' beliefs, ideas, and knowledge of children have on their actual behaviours with their children? What effects do these cognitions have on their children's developmental outcomes?
However, the research up until now has had some serious shortcomings. Most studies have concentrated only on mothers, and/or only on exploring the direct relationship between their concepts and beliefs and their children's behaviours or development. Almost all have done so only at one particular point in time (eg., Johnson & Martin, 1983; McGillicuddy-DeLisi, 1985; Seifer & Sameroff, 1987) and have not followed up their impact on subsequent development. Relatively few studies have attempted either to relate maternal cognitions to their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, age and education (maternal characteristics) (but see, Garcia Coll, 1990; Goodnow, 1988, 1984). Nor do they take the further step of relating maternal cognitions to their actual behaviours (but see Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996). Only recently has there been any attempt to explore how parent variables relate to child development outcomes over time (ibid). Such studies are now clearly warranted on the grounds that the links between parenting cognitions, actual parental behaviours, and children's developmental outcomes have rarely been directly researched and, as a consequence, are poorly understood (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996; Holden & Edwards, 1989).
Another problem is that earlier research into parent-child interactions has shown that the relationship between parents' behaviours with their children and the children's' developmental outcomes is not simple and straightforward. It is complicated by the influence that inherent characteristics of the infants, such as temperament, behaviour patterns, developmental status or developmental disability have on the parent's responses, coping strategies and, eventually, parenting style. This complication has been most readily identified in the study of verbal interactions between parent and child (Snow,1994; Richards,1994; Cross 1984, 1981, 1977; Cross, Nienhuys & Kirkham, 1985). Consequently, the Longitudinal Infancy Study includes assessment of infant characteristics such as temperament, developmental stage and behaviour patterns).
A further shortcoming in the research is that most reported parental cognition studies have been conducted cross-sectionally and concurrently (ie, at only one point in time) and does not investigate the two-way cause and effect direction which must apply between child characteristics and parenting behaviours. The Longitudinal Infancy Study is exploiting parenting and infant development data which has been collected from prior to birth and then at 6 and 12 months, and then extend data collection until the child is two years old.
Another problem which the Longitudinal Infancy Study addresses is that most research has been conducted in the United States. While Australian research in this area has investigated parental cognitions with older children, so far it is only a recent overseas study which has examined these relationships at the most vital stage at which they could impact on children's subsequent development from birth onwards (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996). Several of the measures of parental cognitions are adapted from the Benasich & Brooks-Gunn study which claims to be the first to apply the prospective longitudinal methodology. It should be noted, however, that Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, who followed their infants development over three years, investigated only low birth-weight infants and only with their mothers. The Longitudinal Infancy Study investigates infants of normal birth weight and also investigates both fathers' and mothers' parenting cognitions. Nevertheless, Benasich & Brooks-Gunn's study is methodologically sound and is able to conclude that "Further examination of the complex associations among maternal knowledge and beliefs (ie, parental cognitions), maternal behaviour and child outcome is certainly warranted . . . Maternal knowledge and beliefs may indeed provide a mechanism for facilitating long lasting changes in child outcomes" (pp.1201).
Consequently, the Longitudinal Infancy Study has the objectives of:
The way the Longitudinal Infancy Study is conceptualised is presented in Figure 1.
_____________________________________________________________________
Insert Figure 1 about here
_____________________________________________________________________ Methodology
The present paper presents preliminary data on 18 families on whom data have been presently available. It analyses the relationship between the dependent variable socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage measured by family income and the independent variables parent characteristics and parenting cognitions. The measures of parent characteristics were social (ethnicity, type of housing, parent level of education, parental employment, access to transport), family support, and family functioning. The measures of parenting cognitions were expectations about the baby, and planning and preparation for the baby. The data were analysed using the Pearson chi-square where the independent variable was nominal and the t-test for independent samples where the independent variable was continuous or ordinal.
Participants
The Longitudinal Infancy Study is studying 120 families recruited in the third trimester of pregnancy. Sixty have been recruited from the Nepean Hospital Antenatal Clinic, Division of Women's and Children's Health and 60 from patients of private gynaecologists and obstetricians in the north and north western suburbs of Sydney and from families associated with the University.
Of the 18 families on whom data are presently available 38.9% had incomes of $40,000 or less and 61.1% had incomes above that level.
Instrumentation
The ante-natal home visit was conducted with both parents, who were asked to complete the following research instruments:
1. Social Data Questionnaire, completed by either parent, detailing:
Nature of housing; location/transport; people in household (adults and children); and relationship to parents and infant.
2. Family Support Scale (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1994) to measure family support.
2. The Pregnancy Interview (Slade, Huganir, Grunebaum et a 1987) to measure child rearing attitudes and parental feelings.
3. Marital Adjustment Test (Locke & Wallace, 1959) to measure family functioning.
4. Field Maternal Expectations and Concepts of Development and Child Rearing Attitudes (Field, 1980) to measure parental expectations of children's development.
5. Parent Interview Topics consisting of open-ended questions administered to both parents. For example, memories of own childhood; impressions of unborn child; perceptions of mother's and father's parenting roles; perceptions of mother's and father's household roles; perceptions of mother's and father's outside employment when infant is born; plans for non-maternal child care (if any); plans for child's education; intentions regarding use of support network(s) (within family and outside family); current information on, and attitudes to, infants and children.
Subsequent data collection will involve a telephone interview 6 weeks after the birth of the baby and at 6-, 12- 18- and 24- months. The measures will continue to assess parent cognitions and parent interactive behaviour together with infant characteristics and infant developmental outcomes. Parent-infant interaction will be assessed using a 30 min. video- and audio-taped recording of both parents spontaneously interacting with their infant in a) a free play situation and b) a standard daily routine (changing nappy or dressing the infant). The verbal and nonverbal exchanges between parents and infants will be identified and coded for emotional tone, parental directiveness, sensitivity to infant's responses, and responsiveness to infant's initiations, nature of language used by parents, expressiveness of infant's signals, incidences of joint attention, and structure of play routines.
Results
The trend of the preliminary data suggested that there were similarities between different levels of family income and parent characteristics in relation to their social characteristics, family support, and family functioning. There were also similarities in parenting cognitions concerning expectations about the baby and planning and preparation for the baby. Where differences did occur, they provide some insight into the potential for differential developmental and educational outcomes for children.
Family Income and Personal Characteristics
There were similarities between levels of family income for family housing, employment, education level of parent, and whether the parents were employed or not. While the ethnicity of the father did not differentiate between levels of income the ethnicity of the mother did. Mothers from the higher income levels tended to come from British, European, or North American backgrounds. While family income level did not discriminate between families in relation to the number of cars families owned, families from higher income levels tended to have access to the Sydney train network while families from lower income levels tended to be able to access only bus transport (see Table 1a).
There were also similarities between family income level and family support networks, except for personal friends being perceived as being much more helpful in providing support if a families was in the lower income range (see Table 1b). There were also similarities between family income level and family functioning (see Table 1c).
_____________________________________________________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_____________________________________________________________________
Family Income and Parenting Cognitions
There were also similarities between family income levels and maternal expectations about child rearing practices for the baby (see Table 2a). All families agreed that the amount of crying expected from a baby depends on the baby, that the best way to handle a baby that seemed to be crying for no reason was to wait for a few minutes and then go to the baby, that punishment was not appropriate for a baby while giving a baby lots of praise and affection was, as was having a small number of caregivers. They also agreed that putting a baby in front of the TV was neither good nor bad for the baby. Family income level did, however, discriminate between families in the way the mothers preferred to feed their babies. Mothers from the lower income levels tended to prefer to lie the baby on their lap while feeding while mothers from higher income levels tended to prefer to cradle the baby in their arms. Mothers from lower income levels tended to prefer to feed the baby whenever the baby seemed to be hungry while mothers from higher income levels preferred to feed the baby on a stricter schedule.
Similarly family income level did not discriminate between families in the way fathers prepared and planned for the baby (see Table 2b). All fathers were involved in preparing their home for when the baby arrived, and expected that a range of support and assistance would be available when the baby came home. They all expected that their partners would be breast feeding the baby, but would be happy to assist with feeding the baby. No father relied on attending a parenting support or education program as a source of information about babies.
_____________________________________________________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_____________________________________________________________________
Discussion
The results indicated that, while there were substantial similarities between the parent characteristics and parenting cognitions of families from different income levels, there were differences in the parent characteristics of ethnicity of the mothers and of access to the suburban train network. There were also differences in the parenting cognitions of the way mothers anticipated feeding their babies. The results, however, are preliminary and represent the first statistical analysis of a few families. The findings need to be confirmed when ante-natal data from all of the families in the study are obtained. Nevertheless, the impression is that the parent characteristics and the parenting cognitions of the families are very similar across different levels of family income for expectant parents.
Where there are differences, they may indicate some basis for different parenting practices that are perceived as being "good parenting" for different income levels. The differences in the expectations of feeding babies (lap v cradling in the arms and demand v scheduled feeding routines) may affect the nature of parental interaction with the baby. Whether there is an effect on the babies' subsequent cognitive and linguistic development awaits subsequent testing during the post-natal phases of the Longitudinal Infancy Study. It will also be important to analyse the data further to explore the degree to which father and mother characteristics and parenting cognitions are similar or different and to determine any influence on the child's subsequent developmental and educational progress. The analysis of the qualitative data provided by the parents in responding to the parent interview topics may also provide other perspectives on the expectations that families have. It may also be important to obtain qualitative data from the research assistants visiting the home about their impressions of the experience as another means of providing insights into the relationship between parenting practices and children's development.
There are also possible implications for the nature of parenting programs which seek to "teach" the same set of "good parenting practices" to new parents or to parents who are defined either by others or by themselves as needing different parenting skills. It is possible that current parenting program practices are strongly influenced by the values and practices of middle and higher income level parents and give scant consideration to the values and practices of good parenting of lower income groups or indeed different ethnic groups. There needs to be an empirical basis for developing effective parenting programs for different types of families.
If it is possible to show a relationship only between poverty and children's development and education, not much will have been achieved to promote effective parenting. If it is possible to show that there are a range of good parenting practices that are associated with sound developmental and educational outcomes independent of poverty or affluence, then much will have been achieved in our understanding of ways of facilitating children's development and education. As Jay Belsky observed recently while in Australia, would you rather be a baby in a functional poor family or a dysfunctional affluent family?
Selected References
Abidin, R.R. (1990) Parenting Stress Index. Charlottesville: Paediatric Psychology Press.
Achenbach, T.M. & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behaviour Checklist and Revised Child Behaviour Profile. Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.
Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bayley, N. (1969) Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelon, M., Mock, J.E. & Erbaugh, J.K. (1961) An Inventory for Measuring Depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4.
Benasich, A. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Maternal attitudes and knowledge of child-rearing: Associations with family and child outcomes. Child Development (67), (3).
Bromwich, R. (1978). Working with parents and infants: An interactional approach. Austin, Texas: Pro-ed, Inc.
Caldwell, B.M. & Bradley, R.H. (1984). Home observation for the measure of the environment. (Rev. ed.). Little Rock: University of Arkansas, College of Education.
Cross, T.G. (1984). Habilitating the language-impaired child: Ideas from studies of parent-child interaction. Topics in Language Disorders, Vol. 4, No. 4, 1-14.
Cross, T.G. (1981). parental speech as primary linguistic data: some complexities in the study of the input of language acquisition. In P. Dale & D. Ingram (Eds.) Child Language - An International Perspective. 213-228 Baltimore: University Park Press.
Cross, T.G. (1977). Mothers' speech adjustments: The contribution of selected child listener variables. In C.E. Snow and C.A. Ferguson (Eds.). Talking to Children: Language Input and Interaction. 151-178 London: Cambridge University Press.
Dunst, C, Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1994). Supporting and strengthening families. Vol 1: Methods, strategies, and practices. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Kirkman, M. (1985). Parent-child interaction with receptively disabled children: Some determinants of maternal speech style. In K.E. Nelson (Ed.) Children's Language Vol. 5. New York: Gardner Press. 246-289.
Doherty, P. (1989). Submission to the Ministerial Committee for the Development of a strategy to co-ordinate early intervention services in NSW. Sydney, NSW: Early Intervention Coordination Project, Premier's Department.
Dunn, L.M. & Smith, J. (1965) Manual for Peabody Language Development Kits Minnesotta: American Guidance Service, Inc.
Field, T. (1980). Early development of the pre-term offspring of teenage mothers. In K. Scott, T. Field, & E. Robertson (Eds.) Teenage parents and their offspring. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Garcia Coll, C.T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-oriented look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61, 270-289.
Goodnow, J.J. (1988). Parents' ideas, actions, and feelings: Models and methods from developmental and social psychology. Child Development, 59.
Goodnow, J.J. (1984). Parents' ideas about parenting and development: A review of issues and recent work. In M.E. Lamb, A.L. Brown & B. Rogoff (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum. Vol. 3, 193-242.
Harris, S.R. & Daniels, L.E. (1996). Content validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test. Physical Therapy, 76 (7) 727-737.
Hedrick, D., Prather, E. & Tobin, A. (1984). Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Henderson, R.W., Bergan, J.R. & Hunt, M. Jr. (1972). Development and validation of the Henderson Environmental Learning Process Scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 185-196.
Hess, R.D., Kasigawa, K., Azuma, H., Price, G.G. & Dickson, W.P. (1980). Maternal expectations for mastery of developmental tasks in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 15, 259-271.
Holden, G.W. & Edwards, L.E. (1989). Parental attitudes toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 29-58.
Jackson, D.H. (1989) Personality Research Form Manual (3rd.Ed.). New York: Research Psychologists Press.
Johnson, J.E. & Martin, C. (1983). Family environments and kindergarten children's academic knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.
Jouriles, E.N., Murphy, C.M., Farris, A.M., Smith, D.A., Richters, J.E. & Waters, E. (1991). Marital adjustment, parental disagreement about child rearing and behaviour problems in boys: Increasing the specificity of the marital assessment. Child Development, 62, 1424-1433.
Lamb, M.E., Hwang, C.P., Broberg, A.G., Bookstein, F.L., Holt, G., & Frodi, M. (1988). The determinants of paternal involvement in primiparous Swedish families. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 11..433-449.
Locke, H.T. & Wallace, K.M. (1959) Short Marital Adjustment and Prediction Tests: Their Reliability and Validity. Marriage & Family Living, 21. 251-255.
Lowe, M. & Costello, A. (1976) Symbolic Play Test. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
Meyers,C.E., Mink, I.T., & Nihira, K. (1977) Home quality rating scale. Pomona, CA: Neuropsychiatric Institute-Pacific State Hospital Research Group.
McCarthy, D. (1970) McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities New York:The Psychological Corporation.
McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A.V. (1985). The relation-cognitive level. In I.E. Sigel (Ed.) Parental belief systems (pp. 7-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McPhee, D. (1981). Manual: Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina.
Miller, S.A. (1988). Parents' beliefs about children's cognitive development. Child Development, 59. 259-285.
Moos, R.H., Insel, P.M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). Family environmental scale. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Ninio, A. (1979). The naive theory of the infant and other maternal attitudes in two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 50, 976-980.
Oberklaid, F., Prior, M. & Clements, A. (1983). Validation of an infant temperament questionnaire for an Australian population. Australian Paediatric Journal, 19.
Peterson, N.L. (1987) Early intervention for handicapped and at risk children: An introduction to early childhood-special education. Nebraska: Love Publishing Company.
Reynell, J. (1969) Reynell Developmental Language Scales. Slough, Bucks:N.F.E.R.
Richards, B.J. (1994). Child directed speech and influences on language acquisition: Methodology and interpretation. In C. Gallaway & B.J. Richards (Eds.) Input and interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K.S., Pott, M., & Beatty, M. (1995). Early parent-child relationships and later problem behaviour - A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology. 41 (2) 133-151.
Rutter, M., Cox, A., Tripling, C., Berger, M., & Yule, W. (1975) Attainment and adjustment in two geographical areas: The prevalence of psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 126. 493-509.
Sameroff, A.J. & Fiel, L.A. (1985) Parental concepts of development. In I.E. Sigel (Ed.). Parental belief systems (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seifer, R. & Sameroff, A.J. (1987). Multiple determinants of risk and invulnerability. In E.J. Anthony & B.J. Cohler (Eds.), The invulnerable child. New York: Guildford.
Sigel, I.E. (1986). Reflections on the belief-behaviour connection: Lessons learned from a research program on parental belief systems and teaching strategies. In R.D. Ashmore & D.M. Brodzinsky (Eds.), Thinking about the family: Views of parents and children (pp. 35-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slade, A. & Cohen, L.J. (1996). The process of parenting and the remembrance of things past. Infant Mental Health Journal 17 (3) 217-238.
Slade, A., Huganir, L., Grunebaum, L. & Reeves, M. (1987) The Pregnancy Interview. Unpublished Manuscript. The City University of New York.
Snow, C.E., Pan, B.A., Imbensbailey, A. & Herman, J. (1996) Learning how to say what one means - A longitudinal study of children's speech act use. Social Development. 5. (1) 56-84.
Snow, C.E. (1994). Beginning from busy talk: twenty years of research on input and interaction. In Gallaway & Richards (1994) Input and interaction in language acquisition. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Spiker, D., Ferguson, J. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1993). Enchancing maternal interactive behavior and child social competence in low-birth-weight, premature infants. Child Development, 64, 754-768.
Thorndike, R., Hagen, E. & Sattler, J. (1986). Standford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverside.
Table 1
Family Income and Parent Characteristics
(a) Social
| Variable | c2 | df | p (2-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethnicity of mother | 37.50 | 24 | .039* |
| Ethnicity of father | 29.50 | 32 | .594 |
| Type of housing | ;27.23 | 24 | .292 |
| Education of father | 64.95 | 48 | .052 |
| Education of mother | 63.75 | 56 | .223 |
| Employment of father | 15.70 | 16 | .474 |
| Employment of mother | 36.9 | 32 | .253 |
| Number of cars | 22.57 | 24 | .545 |
| Access to train transport | 18.00 | 8 | .021* |
(b) Family Support
| Variable | t | df | p (2-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Own Parents | 1.62 | 16 | 126 |
| Partner's Parents | .50 | 16 | 628 |
| Own relatives | 1.53 | 16 | 145 |
| Partner's Relatives | .64 | 16 | .532 |
| Partner | 1.65 | 16 | .118 |
| Own friends | 2.15 | 16 | .047* |
| Partners Friends | .99 | 3.53 | .385a |
| Neighbours | .13 | 3.34 | .907a |
| Co-workers | .36 | 16 | .720 |
| Birth Preparation Classes | .97 | 16 | .345 |
| Social Groups/Clubs | .41 | 13 | .690 |
| Church | 1.92 | 9 | .087 a |
| Doctor | .76 | 3.49 | .496 a |
| Professional Helpers | .84 | 14 | .418 |
| Professional Agencies | .68 | 9 | .511 |
a
Unequal variances
(c) Family Functioning: Father Perception
| Variable | t | df | p (2-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of Happiness | 1.59 | 2.07 | .249 a |
| Family Finances | .47 | 2.05 | .687 a |
| Recreation | .56 | 2.03 | .632 a |
| Affection | .93 | 2.05 | .449 |
| Friends | .98 | 2.06 | .427 a |
| Sexual Relations | .65 | 2.10 | .581 a |
| Conventionality | .99 | 2.12 | .423 a |
| Philosophy of Life | 1.50 | 2.09 | .270 a |
| In-laws | .67 | 2.08 | .572 a |
| Conflict with Father | .59 | 15 | .563 |
| Attachment to Father | .48 | 15 | .641 |
| Conflict with Mother | 1.57 | 15 | .137 |
| Attachment to Mother | .63 | 15 | .538 |
| Parents' Relationship | .58 | 15 | .571 |
| Childhood Happiness | .67 | 15 | .514 |
| Punishment in Childhood | .35 | 2.09 | .760 a |
a Unequal variances
Table 2
Family Income and Parenting Cognitions
(a) Maternal Expectations about the Baby
| Variable | c 2 | df | p (2-tailed) |
| Expected Cryinga | |||
| Crying for No Reason a | |||
| Stopping Crying | 5.33 | 6 | .502 |
| Feeding Position | 28.27 | 16 | .029* |
| Feeding Schedule | 30.00 | 16 | .018* |
| Baby's Bad Behaviour | 12.19 | 8 | .143 |
| Punishment a | |||
| Praise and Affection a | |||
| Care-giving a | |||
| TV Viewing a | |||
| Breaking Things | 13.56 | 16 | .632 |
| Demands Attention | 15.99 | 16 | .454 |
| Playing with the Baby | 11.25 | 16 | .794 |
a
A constant - no statistic can be computed
(b) Fathers Planning and Preparation for the Baby
| Variable | c 2 | df | p (2-tailed) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partner Return to Work | 17.05 | 16 | .382 |
| Time before Return to Work | 17.40 | 12 | .135 |
| Partner Work Pattern | 8.40 | 6 | .210 |
| Primary Care-giver | 13.67 | 12 | .322 |
| Finding out about Babies | 20.30 | 16 | .207 |
| Reading Baby Books | 20.09 | 16 | .216 |
| Ante-natal Classes | 23.85 | 16 | .093 |
| Parent Support Programa | |||
| Relatives | 17.55 | 16 | .351 |
| Friends | 20.60 | 16 | .194 |
| Others | 2.00 | 1 | .157 |
| Preparing Homea | |||
| Primary Care-giver | 18.05 | 16 | .321 |
| Baby's Sleeping | 20.47 | 16 | .200 |
| Partner Breast Feeding a | |||
| Assisting in Feeding a | |||
| Help for Partner a | |||
| House Cleaning | 16.8 | 16 | .399 |
| Break from Baby | 23.88 | 16 | .092 |
| Variable | c 2 | df | p (2-tailed) |
| Social Interaction | 24.50 | 16 | .079 |
| Parenting Help | 22.80 | 16 | .119 |
| Laundry | 16.60 | 16 | .412 |
| Baby sitting | 15.71 | 16 | .473 |
| Meet People | 18.30 | 16 | .307 |
| Other | 29.55 | 24 | .200 |
| Household Chores | 32.67 | 32 | .434 |
a
A constant - no statistic can be computedFigure Caption
Figure 1. Classes of Variables and Possible Direction of Relationships
PARENTS CHILD
|
Parental Characteristics (measured at an antenatal home visit) |
Parenting Cognitions (measured antenatally, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months) |
|
Infant Characteristics (measured at 6 and 12 months) |
|
Parent Interactive Behaviour (measured at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months |
|
Infant Development Outcomes (measured at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) |