The Journal of Genetic Psychology Research and Theory on Human Development
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Perceived Sources of Esteem in Early Childhood Elizabeth P. Kirchner & Sarah I. Vondracek To cite this article: Elizabeth P. Kirchner & Sarah I. Vondracek (1975) Perceived Sources of Esteem in Early Childhood, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:2, 169-176, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532330 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532330
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [New York University]
Date: 22 June 2016, At: 12:53
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 169-176.
PERCEIVED SOURCES OF ESTEEM I N EARLY CHILDHOOD*’ The Pennsylvania State University
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAHI. VONDRACEK
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
SUMMARY
This descriptive study is an initial effort toward understanding the sources of esteem perceived by young children. The identity, number, and relative salience of esteem sources were examined via the responses of 282 day care children aged three through five who were asked to identify persons who liked them. A mean of 4.3 esteem sources were mentioned. Peers and siblings were cited as esteem sources by higher percentages of children than were mothers and fathers. While age comparisons were nonsignificant, sex comparisons indicated that females reported significantly more esteem sources and mentioned mother, father, and siblings signficantly more often than males. Implications for self theory, for traditional views of young children’s social transactions, and for common assumptions regarding peer impact on development in early childhood are discussed. A. INTRODUCTION The investigation of self-concept in preschool children has not been notably successful. Research efforts appear to have met with an undifferentiated, amorphous, and unstable variable as well as with measurement problems (e.g., 5,20,2 2 ) . Self-concept in very young children is not easy to define, and measures purported to assess the young child’s self-concept often reflect his verbal fluency and his tendency to select responses of high social desirability. Perhaps during the preschool period it is more realistic and profitable to investigate the roots of what will later be a stable and differentiated self-concept than to try to measure the self-concept per se which at best seems nascent during these years. I t is noted that, despite the importance ascribed to self-esteem
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November, 13, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 This study was conducted as part of the Day Care Study supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. The authors wish to express their gratitude to day care staff members and administrators who facilitated data gathering and to Robert Heckard of The Pennsyivania State University. Statistical Consulting Service who provided data analysis consultation and management. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 169
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
170
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
as a determinant of psychological health and effective functioning, studies of factors associated with its genesis and growth are the exception (eg., 7 ) . One root of esteem for oneself would appear to be esteem perceived from others. While this is not to say that perceived esteem from others is equivalent to self-esteem, the regard of significant others is a key factor in most theoretical formulations of the development of self-esteem [ see reviews provided by M’ylie (24) and Coopersmith ( 7 ) I : and self-regard has been observed empirically to change as a function of others’ reactions (9, 17, 18). T o date, no studies have explored the significant others whom young children actually perceive as sources of esteem. Moreover, no investigations have assessed the relative salience of various esteem sources from the vantage point of the child’s phenomenal field. Theorists, however, have assumed that parents are of prime importance in self-esteem development during the early childhood period (24). This study represents an initial descriptive effort toward understanding young children’s perceived sources of esteem. I t describes the identity, number, and relative salience of sources of esteem and examines age and sex differences in esteem source perception during the early childhood period.
B. 1.
METHOD
Sub jccts and Experimenters
Subjects were 282 children between the ages of 3-0 and 5-11 drawn from 51 Pennsylvania day care centers. Centers were located in five geographic regions chosen to represent variations in state population density. LVithin centers, selection methods were directed toward achieving a random sample stratified on the dimensions of age, sex, and race. There were 143 males and 139 females of whom 184 were Caucasian and 98 black. There were 66 threeyear-olds, 142 four-year-olds, and 74 five-year-olds. The numerical disparity in the age groups selected for study is assumed to reflect the pattern of day care enrollment in Pennsylvania. Experimenters were seven experienced psychometrists, four female and three male, five white and two black. A racial mix existed in 22yo of the subject experimenter dyads. 2.
Instrument and Procedure
Perceived sources of esteem were assessed by the Who Likes You? question, a component of a battery of individually administered measures developed for a multifaceted study of day care children (13, 14). Subjects were asked, “Tell me who likes you. Tell me as many people as you can who really like you.” Experimenters were trained to convey very warm, positive connotations
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
171
to the word “like” as they queried the children and to conduct an inquiry subsequent to S’s response to permit maximum identification of the sources cited.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
3 . Scoring and Analysis of Data
Subjects’ responses to the Who Likes You? question were scored for ( a ) response quality (i.e., whether or not a scorable response was produced), ( b ) category of esteem source, and ( c ) number of esteem sources mentioned. In tabulations involving mean number of sources perceived, replies reflecting an indeterminant number of esteem sources (e.g., “everybody”) were excluded. Esteem sources were classified according to 16 categories derived from a prior judgment and inspection of the data. These categories were as follows: mother, father, sibling, grandmother, grandfather, other extended family, child friend, day care staff, public servant, experimenter, other adult, TV or fantasy character, self, nobody, everybody, and pet. The child friend category had two subcategories, day care child friend and other child friend. Omitted from analyses were responses referring to perceived dislike ( n = 7) and to esteem sources for which specific identification could not be made ( n = 52). In tabulations involving esteem source categories, multiple responses within a single category (e.g., sibling) were scored as one response. Multiple responses falling into different source categories were tallied once in each of the appropriate categories. Interscorer reliability, assessed by percent of agreement between two independent scorers on 40 randomly selected response records, was 100% for response quality, 99% for category placement, and 98% for number of sources mentioned. After initial analyses of the production of scorable replies by the entire sample (N = 282), further analyses were performed utilizing those 260 Ss who gave one or more scorable responses, except in the case of analyses concerning siblings as esteem source. The sample for these latter analyses was restricted to those 196 Ss who were known to have siblings. Yates’ correction was used in x2 analyses where df = 1.
c.
RE%ULTS
1. Response Production, Number of Esteem Sources, and Categories of Esteem Sources Ninety-two percent of Ss gave one or more scorable responses. The mean number of sources mentioned was 4.3 (SD = 2 . 5 ) . Correlating the total number of sources mentioned with family size yielded a coefficient of -.14 (df = 2 2 7 , p < .05). Although the coefficient obtained
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
172
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
is statistically significant, the magnitude of the relation between the two variables is clearly insignificant from a practical standpoint. The esteem sources are presented in descending order of the percentage of Ss mentioning one or more sources in the category: child friends, 52%; sibling(s), 49%; mother, 46%; father, 33%; other extended family, 17%; grandmother, 13%; day care staff, 12%; grandfather, 9 % ; pet, 77%; and other adults, 6%. Less than 5% of the children mentioned sources *in the remaining categories of experimenter, self, nobody, everybody, TV, or fantasy characters, and public servants. Percentage total exceeds 100 because of multiple responses. Of the child friend subcategories, day care child friends were mentioned by 12% of Ss and other child friends by 46%, of Ss. Data concerning mother and father as esteem sources were analyzed to determine whether a relationship existed between mention of one parent and mention of the other. Results indicated that the mention of neither or both parents occurred significantly more often than mention of one parent independent of the other (x2 = 114.8, df I1, p < .0001). This significant relation held up regardless of family type: ( a ) two parent families = 87.93, df = 1, p < .001), ( b ) mother only families ( x 2 = 25.16, df = 1, p < .001), and ( c ) father only families (Fisher’s Exact Test, p < .05). Because about 40% of Ss resided in one-parent homes, additional analyses were performed to determine if the frequency of mention of mother and father was associated with whether both parents or either parent was present in the home. Results showed that mention of father was significantly related to whether both parents, only mother, or only father was present ( x 2 = 11.83, df = 2, p < .001). Father was mentioned by 64% of the children in father only families, by 37’3 in two parent families, and by 23% in mother only families. The mention of mother, however, was not significantly related to whether or not she was present in the homeA(x2 = .66, df I2, p > .05). Mother was mentioned by 43% of the children in father only families, by 44% in two parent families, and by 50% in mother only families.
(x’
2.
A g e and Sex Effects3
Regarding S’s ability to respond to the Who Likes You? question, neither age 4.47, df = 2, p > .05) nor sex .023, df = 1, p > .05) was a significant factor.
(x’=
(x‘=
Assessment of racial effects based on subsamples of 73 urban whites and 86 urban blacks yielded no significant differences in production of scorable responses, mean number of esteem sources cited, nor mention of child friends, mother, or father. Mention of siblings as an esteem source occurred with significantly greater frequency among urban blacks ( x 2 = 5.6, df = 1, p = .02).
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
173
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
Concerning the number of esteem sources mentioned, a two-way (age, sex) analysis of variance showed a significant main effect for sex (F = 10.96,df = 1/216,p < .001), a nonsignificant main effect for age (F = 1.83,df = 5/216, p > .05), and a nonsignificant age by sex interaction (F = 2.02, dj = 5/216,p > .05). Females mentioned significantly more esteem sources ( M= 4.78, SD = 2.6) than males ( M = 3.84, SD = 2.3) regardless of chronological age. The four esteem sources most frequently mentioned (child friend, sibling, mother, and father) were further analyzed for possible age and sex differences. There were no significant age differences in frequency of mention of these sources, but significant sex differences appeared in the mention of three of these sources. Females more frequently than males cited mother (x2 = 7.18,df = 1, p < .01), father ( x 2 x 7.18,df = 1, p < .Ol),and sibling(s) (x2 = 4.55,df = 1, p < .05) as esteem sources. D. DISCUSSION Problems entailed in measurement of phenomenal fields and in establishing construct validity for instruments used in their study have been reviewed by Wylie (24).This investigation yielded three findings supporting the construct validity of the Who Likes You? measure. First, the finding that no significant relation obtained between age and the number of esteem sources mentioned argues against the question being an index of verbal fluency. Second, the correlation between number of sources cited and family size was sufficiently small to rule out availability of others in the home environment as an important response determinant. Finally, the fact that day care staff, day care children, and the examiners were mentioned by only a small percentage of subjects suggests that situational factors (e.g., testing in day care facilities) did not signficantly influence the results obtained. The prominence of peers and siblings and their precedence over parents as perceived sources of esteem are the most interesting findings of this investigation. These findings are of particular importance to self theory in that they suggest the potency of age-mates as contributors to the development of self-regard and thus challenge the tenet of self-theorists that the growth of self -esteem in early childhood centers around the parent-child relationship. Similarly, that peers and siblings exceeded parents as esteem sources bears importantly on developmental theory generally in that this finding conflicts with the common assumption that peers do not appreciably influence development until later childhood. Our results are congruent, however, with a growing body of literature indicating that peer contact may have considerable impact
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
174
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
on developmental phenomena much earlier than has generally been supposed (cf. 10, 16, 19, 2 1 ) . Our results are likewise consonant with Bronfenbrenner’s ( 4 ) position regarding the relative potency of peer vs. parent influence on child development and behavior in contemporary American society. The finding that peers constituted the prime esteem source for the present sample is also relevant to the recent debate between Borke ( 2 , 3 ) and Chandler and Greenspan ( 6 ) regarding the age of onset of social decentration and the capacity of young children for empathic awareness. The Piagetian position that social egocentrism does not decline until later childhood has fostered the view that children tend to perceive age-mates as “obstacles” or “inanimate objects” (e.g., 23, p. 5 3 4 ) . This view has also been furthered by excessive reliance on observational methods whereby adult observers evaluate the affective quality of peer interactions from the vantage point of adults. The present results suggest that, in fact, young children have strong, positive affective responses to age-mates and are supportive of Borke’s ( 3 ) contention that traditional thinking about young children’s interpersonal perceptions should be reassessed. The fact that mother was mentioned as an esteem source by a substantially higher percentage of subjects than was father is congruent with studies indicating that both male and female children regard fathers as more punitive, more threatening, and less friendly than mothers ( 1 I , 1 2 ) . The significantly more frequent mention of neither or both parents than the mention of one parent only, regardless of family type, may be most parsimoniously explained as an instance of paired-associate learning. The strength of the associative bond between the words mother and father probably overrides differential percepts of parents as esteem sources in many young children in a test-like situation. More provocative, however, is the finding that father was mentioned significantly less often in mother only families than in father only and two parent families and that parallel results did not obtain for mention of mother. A number of factors, none differentially supported by available data, might account for these results, including the child’s perception of the cause of parental absence, the child’s age a t the time of onset of parental absence, and/or frequency of contact with the absent parent. The significant sex differences found in this study, that young females report more esteem sources and mention esteem sources within the immediate family more frequently than males, are congruent with reports of sex differences in social percepts in older age groups (cf. 8 ) . Previous researchers (8, 15) have proposed the following factors to account for observed sex differences in interpersonal percepts: ( a ) more favorable treatment of females than males
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
175
by significant others, ( b ) greater responsivity to social desirability factors in females than males, and (c) sex-linked genetic dissimilarities. The present study, while providing one more instance of these differences, does not contribute to the basic explanatory problems involved. Following Bell ( l ) , it is felt that a potentially useful approach to such explanatory problems lies in assessment of the child’s contribution to interpersonal transactions. This mode of approach to “disentangling the direction of effects” (1, p. 64) might lead to a more basic understanding of the differences in interpersonal perception observed. The absence of age differences in frequency of mention of the four major esteem sources cited may reflect the fact that this study dealt with a single developmental period. It seems probable that comparable studies with older age groups would show age-related changes in frequency of mention of esteem sources. Whether age affects the number of sources cited and how the number of sources cited relates to level of self-esteem are additional matters for future investigation. The need for replication and for comparative data from children from traditional nursery school groups and children with no group care experience is evident. Without such data, it can be argued that the present results may be associated with some as yet unidentified dimension of day care or day care children. Nevertheless, this study is strongly supportive of the view that commonly held assumptions concerning development in early childhood must be reconsidered (3). Specifically, this investigation points to the necessity for re-evaluating the relative impact of peers and parents of the development of self-esteem in young children. This study also provides additional evidence for reconsideration of the impact of peers on development in early childhood. Finally, the present study reemphasizes the necessity noted by other investigators (8, 25) for increased attention to the child’s phenomenal field. REFERENCES 1. BELL,R. Q. Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behavior by offspring. Devel. Psychol., 1971, 4 , 63-72. 2. BORKE,H. Interpersonal perception of young children. Devel. Psychol., 1971, 5, 263-269. 3. Chandler and Greenspan’s (‘Ersatz egocentrism”: A rejoinder. Devel. Psychoi., 1972, 7 , 107-109. 4. BRONFENBRENNER, U. Reactions t o social pressure from adults vs. peers among Soviet day school and boarding school pupiIs in the perspective of an American sample. In S. Chess & A. Thomas (Eds.), Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971. 5 . BROWN,B. The assessment of self-concept among four-year-old Negro and white children: A comparative study using the Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test. Institute for Developmental Studies, New York University, N.Y., 1966. ~
176
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
CHANDLER, M. J., & GREENSPAN, S. Ersatz egocentrism: A reply to H. Borke. Devel. Psychol., 1972, 7, 104-106. 7. COOPERSMITH,S. The antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967. 8. DUBIN, R., & DUBIN, E. R . Children’s social perceptions: A review of research. Child Devel., 1965, 36, 809-838. 9. HAAS,H. I., & MAEHR,M. L. T w o experiments on the concept of self and the reactions of others. 1. Personal. 6 SOC. Psychol., 1965, 1, 100-105. H. F., & HARLOW, M. K. The affectional systems. I n A. M. Schrier, H. F. 10. HARLOW, Harlow, & F. Stellnitz (Eds.), Behavior of Nonhuman Primates (Vol. 2 ) . New York: Academic Press, 1965. J. The child’s perception of the parent. J. Abn. Cr SOC. Psychol., 1956, 53, 11. KAGAN, 6.
257-258. 12. 1.1.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
14.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 2 1. 22.
23. 24. 25.
KAGAN,J., & LEMKIN,J . The child’s differential perception of parental attributes. J . A b n . G SOL.Psychol., 1960, 61, 440-447. KIRCHNER, E. P. An assessment inventory for the day care child (Vol. 2 ) . Field evaluation and preliminary findings. Center for Human Services Development Report No. 25, Institute for the Study of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1973. KIRCHNER, E. P.,& VONDRACER, S. I. An assessment inventory for the day care child (Vol. 1). Background. development and sample. Center for Human Services Development Report No, 14, Institute for the Study of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1972. KOHN,A. R., & FIEDLER, F. E. Age and sex differences in the perception of persons. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 157-164. LANCLOIS,J . H., GOTTFRIED, N. W., & SEAY,B. The influence of sex of peers on the social behavior of preschool children. Devel. Psychol., 1973, 8, 93-98. LUDWIG,D. J., & MAEHR,M. L. Changes in self-concept and stated behavioral preferences. Child Devel., 1967, 38, 453-467. MAEHR,M. L., MENSING,J., & NAFZGER,S. Concept of self and the reaction of others. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 353-357. MURRAY,F. B. Acquisition of conservation through social interaction. Devel. Psychol., 1972, 6, 1-6. OZEHOSKY, R . & CLARK,E . Verbal and non-verbal measures of self-concept among kindergarten boys and girls. Psychol. Rep., 1971, 28(1), 195-199. RARDIN,D. R., & MOAN,E. C. Peer interaction and cognitive development. Child Devel., 1971, 42, 1685-1689. SHIPMAN,V. C., & GILBERT,L. E. Brown IDS Self-Referents Test. I n V. C. Shipman ( E d . ) , Technical Report Series: Disadvantaged children and their First School Experiences, PR-72-27, Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1972. WATSON,R. I. Psychology of the Child. New York: Wiley, 1959. WYLIE,R. C. The Self-concept: A Critical Survey of Pertinent Research Literature. Lincoln: Univ. Nebraska Press, 1961. YARROW,M. R. The measurement of children’s attitudes and values. In P. H. Mussen ( E d . ) , Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York: Wiley, 1960.
Institute for the Study of Human Development The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20
Perceived Sources of Esteem in Early Childhood Elizabeth P. Kirchner & Sarah I. Vondracek To cite this article: Elizabeth P. Kirchner & Sarah I. Vondracek (1975) Perceived Sources of Esteem in Early Childhood, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 126:2, 169-176, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1975.10532330 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1975.10532330
Published online: 04 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20 Download by: [New York University]
Date: 22 June 2016, At: 12:53
The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 169-176.
PERCEIVED SOURCES OF ESTEEM I N EARLY CHILDHOOD*’ The Pennsylvania State University
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAHI. VONDRACEK
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
SUMMARY
This descriptive study is an initial effort toward understanding the sources of esteem perceived by young children. The identity, number, and relative salience of esteem sources were examined via the responses of 282 day care children aged three through five who were asked to identify persons who liked them. A mean of 4.3 esteem sources were mentioned. Peers and siblings were cited as esteem sources by higher percentages of children than were mothers and fathers. While age comparisons were nonsignificant, sex comparisons indicated that females reported significantly more esteem sources and mentioned mother, father, and siblings signficantly more often than males. Implications for self theory, for traditional views of young children’s social transactions, and for common assumptions regarding peer impact on development in early childhood are discussed. A. INTRODUCTION The investigation of self-concept in preschool children has not been notably successful. Research efforts appear to have met with an undifferentiated, amorphous, and unstable variable as well as with measurement problems (e.g., 5,20,2 2 ) . Self-concept in very young children is not easy to define, and measures purported to assess the young child’s self-concept often reflect his verbal fluency and his tendency to select responses of high social desirability. Perhaps during the preschool period it is more realistic and profitable to investigate the roots of what will later be a stable and differentiated self-concept than to try to measure the self-concept per se which at best seems nascent during these years. I t is noted that, despite the importance ascribed to self-esteem
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November, 13, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 This study was conducted as part of the Day Care Study supported by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. The authors wish to express their gratitude to day care staff members and administrators who facilitated data gathering and to Robert Heckard of The Pennsyivania State University. Statistical Consulting Service who provided data analysis consultation and management. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author at the address shown at the end of this article. 169
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
170
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
as a determinant of psychological health and effective functioning, studies of factors associated with its genesis and growth are the exception (eg., 7 ) . One root of esteem for oneself would appear to be esteem perceived from others. While this is not to say that perceived esteem from others is equivalent to self-esteem, the regard of significant others is a key factor in most theoretical formulations of the development of self-esteem [ see reviews provided by M’ylie (24) and Coopersmith ( 7 ) I : and self-regard has been observed empirically to change as a function of others’ reactions (9, 17, 18). T o date, no studies have explored the significant others whom young children actually perceive as sources of esteem. Moreover, no investigations have assessed the relative salience of various esteem sources from the vantage point of the child’s phenomenal field. Theorists, however, have assumed that parents are of prime importance in self-esteem development during the early childhood period (24). This study represents an initial descriptive effort toward understanding young children’s perceived sources of esteem. I t describes the identity, number, and relative salience of sources of esteem and examines age and sex differences in esteem source perception during the early childhood period.
B. 1.
METHOD
Sub jccts and Experimenters
Subjects were 282 children between the ages of 3-0 and 5-11 drawn from 51 Pennsylvania day care centers. Centers were located in five geographic regions chosen to represent variations in state population density. LVithin centers, selection methods were directed toward achieving a random sample stratified on the dimensions of age, sex, and race. There were 143 males and 139 females of whom 184 were Caucasian and 98 black. There were 66 threeyear-olds, 142 four-year-olds, and 74 five-year-olds. The numerical disparity in the age groups selected for study is assumed to reflect the pattern of day care enrollment in Pennsylvania. Experimenters were seven experienced psychometrists, four female and three male, five white and two black. A racial mix existed in 22yo of the subject experimenter dyads. 2.
Instrument and Procedure
Perceived sources of esteem were assessed by the Who Likes You? question, a component of a battery of individually administered measures developed for a multifaceted study of day care children (13, 14). Subjects were asked, “Tell me who likes you. Tell me as many people as you can who really like you.” Experimenters were trained to convey very warm, positive connotations
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
171
to the word “like” as they queried the children and to conduct an inquiry subsequent to S’s response to permit maximum identification of the sources cited.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
3 . Scoring and Analysis of Data
Subjects’ responses to the Who Likes You? question were scored for ( a ) response quality (i.e., whether or not a scorable response was produced), ( b ) category of esteem source, and ( c ) number of esteem sources mentioned. In tabulations involving mean number of sources perceived, replies reflecting an indeterminant number of esteem sources (e.g., “everybody”) were excluded. Esteem sources were classified according to 16 categories derived from a prior judgment and inspection of the data. These categories were as follows: mother, father, sibling, grandmother, grandfather, other extended family, child friend, day care staff, public servant, experimenter, other adult, TV or fantasy character, self, nobody, everybody, and pet. The child friend category had two subcategories, day care child friend and other child friend. Omitted from analyses were responses referring to perceived dislike ( n = 7) and to esteem sources for which specific identification could not be made ( n = 52). In tabulations involving esteem source categories, multiple responses within a single category (e.g., sibling) were scored as one response. Multiple responses falling into different source categories were tallied once in each of the appropriate categories. Interscorer reliability, assessed by percent of agreement between two independent scorers on 40 randomly selected response records, was 100% for response quality, 99% for category placement, and 98% for number of sources mentioned. After initial analyses of the production of scorable replies by the entire sample (N = 282), further analyses were performed utilizing those 260 Ss who gave one or more scorable responses, except in the case of analyses concerning siblings as esteem source. The sample for these latter analyses was restricted to those 196 Ss who were known to have siblings. Yates’ correction was used in x2 analyses where df = 1.
c.
RE%ULTS
1. Response Production, Number of Esteem Sources, and Categories of Esteem Sources Ninety-two percent of Ss gave one or more scorable responses. The mean number of sources mentioned was 4.3 (SD = 2 . 5 ) . Correlating the total number of sources mentioned with family size yielded a coefficient of -.14 (df = 2 2 7 , p < .05). Although the coefficient obtained
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
172
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
is statistically significant, the magnitude of the relation between the two variables is clearly insignificant from a practical standpoint. The esteem sources are presented in descending order of the percentage of Ss mentioning one or more sources in the category: child friends, 52%; sibling(s), 49%; mother, 46%; father, 33%; other extended family, 17%; grandmother, 13%; day care staff, 12%; grandfather, 9 % ; pet, 77%; and other adults, 6%. Less than 5% of the children mentioned sources *in the remaining categories of experimenter, self, nobody, everybody, TV, or fantasy characters, and public servants. Percentage total exceeds 100 because of multiple responses. Of the child friend subcategories, day care child friends were mentioned by 12% of Ss and other child friends by 46%, of Ss. Data concerning mother and father as esteem sources were analyzed to determine whether a relationship existed between mention of one parent and mention of the other. Results indicated that the mention of neither or both parents occurred significantly more often than mention of one parent independent of the other (x2 = 114.8, df I1, p < .0001). This significant relation held up regardless of family type: ( a ) two parent families = 87.93, df = 1, p < .001), ( b ) mother only families ( x 2 = 25.16, df = 1, p < .001), and ( c ) father only families (Fisher’s Exact Test, p < .05). Because about 40% of Ss resided in one-parent homes, additional analyses were performed to determine if the frequency of mention of mother and father was associated with whether both parents or either parent was present in the home. Results showed that mention of father was significantly related to whether both parents, only mother, or only father was present ( x 2 = 11.83, df = 2, p < .001). Father was mentioned by 64% of the children in father only families, by 37’3 in two parent families, and by 23% in mother only families. The mention of mother, however, was not significantly related to whether or not she was present in the homeA(x2 = .66, df I2, p > .05). Mother was mentioned by 43% of the children in father only families, by 44% in two parent families, and by 50% in mother only families.
(x’
2.
A g e and Sex Effects3
Regarding S’s ability to respond to the Who Likes You? question, neither age 4.47, df = 2, p > .05) nor sex .023, df = 1, p > .05) was a significant factor.
(x’=
(x‘=
Assessment of racial effects based on subsamples of 73 urban whites and 86 urban blacks yielded no significant differences in production of scorable responses, mean number of esteem sources cited, nor mention of child friends, mother, or father. Mention of siblings as an esteem source occurred with significantly greater frequency among urban blacks ( x 2 = 5.6, df = 1, p = .02).
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
173
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
Concerning the number of esteem sources mentioned, a two-way (age, sex) analysis of variance showed a significant main effect for sex (F = 10.96,df = 1/216,p < .001), a nonsignificant main effect for age (F = 1.83,df = 5/216, p > .05), and a nonsignificant age by sex interaction (F = 2.02, dj = 5/216,p > .05). Females mentioned significantly more esteem sources ( M= 4.78, SD = 2.6) than males ( M = 3.84, SD = 2.3) regardless of chronological age. The four esteem sources most frequently mentioned (child friend, sibling, mother, and father) were further analyzed for possible age and sex differences. There were no significant age differences in frequency of mention of these sources, but significant sex differences appeared in the mention of three of these sources. Females more frequently than males cited mother (x2 = 7.18,df = 1, p < .01), father ( x 2 x 7.18,df = 1, p < .Ol),and sibling(s) (x2 = 4.55,df = 1, p < .05) as esteem sources. D. DISCUSSION Problems entailed in measurement of phenomenal fields and in establishing construct validity for instruments used in their study have been reviewed by Wylie (24).This investigation yielded three findings supporting the construct validity of the Who Likes You? measure. First, the finding that no significant relation obtained between age and the number of esteem sources mentioned argues against the question being an index of verbal fluency. Second, the correlation between number of sources cited and family size was sufficiently small to rule out availability of others in the home environment as an important response determinant. Finally, the fact that day care staff, day care children, and the examiners were mentioned by only a small percentage of subjects suggests that situational factors (e.g., testing in day care facilities) did not signficantly influence the results obtained. The prominence of peers and siblings and their precedence over parents as perceived sources of esteem are the most interesting findings of this investigation. These findings are of particular importance to self theory in that they suggest the potency of age-mates as contributors to the development of self-regard and thus challenge the tenet of self-theorists that the growth of self -esteem in early childhood centers around the parent-child relationship. Similarly, that peers and siblings exceeded parents as esteem sources bears importantly on developmental theory generally in that this finding conflicts with the common assumption that peers do not appreciably influence development until later childhood. Our results are congruent, however, with a growing body of literature indicating that peer contact may have considerable impact
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
174
JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
on developmental phenomena much earlier than has generally been supposed (cf. 10, 16, 19, 2 1 ) . Our results are likewise consonant with Bronfenbrenner’s ( 4 ) position regarding the relative potency of peer vs. parent influence on child development and behavior in contemporary American society. The finding that peers constituted the prime esteem source for the present sample is also relevant to the recent debate between Borke ( 2 , 3 ) and Chandler and Greenspan ( 6 ) regarding the age of onset of social decentration and the capacity of young children for empathic awareness. The Piagetian position that social egocentrism does not decline until later childhood has fostered the view that children tend to perceive age-mates as “obstacles” or “inanimate objects” (e.g., 23, p. 5 3 4 ) . This view has also been furthered by excessive reliance on observational methods whereby adult observers evaluate the affective quality of peer interactions from the vantage point of adults. The present results suggest that, in fact, young children have strong, positive affective responses to age-mates and are supportive of Borke’s ( 3 ) contention that traditional thinking about young children’s interpersonal perceptions should be reassessed. The fact that mother was mentioned as an esteem source by a substantially higher percentage of subjects than was father is congruent with studies indicating that both male and female children regard fathers as more punitive, more threatening, and less friendly than mothers ( 1 I , 1 2 ) . The significantly more frequent mention of neither or both parents than the mention of one parent only, regardless of family type, may be most parsimoniously explained as an instance of paired-associate learning. The strength of the associative bond between the words mother and father probably overrides differential percepts of parents as esteem sources in many young children in a test-like situation. More provocative, however, is the finding that father was mentioned significantly less often in mother only families than in father only and two parent families and that parallel results did not obtain for mention of mother. A number of factors, none differentially supported by available data, might account for these results, including the child’s perception of the cause of parental absence, the child’s age a t the time of onset of parental absence, and/or frequency of contact with the absent parent. The significant sex differences found in this study, that young females report more esteem sources and mention esteem sources within the immediate family more frequently than males, are congruent with reports of sex differences in social percepts in older age groups (cf. 8 ) . Previous researchers (8, 15) have proposed the following factors to account for observed sex differences in interpersonal percepts: ( a ) more favorable treatment of females than males
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
ELIZABETH P. KIRCHNER AND SARAH I. VONDRACEK
175
by significant others, ( b ) greater responsivity to social desirability factors in females than males, and (c) sex-linked genetic dissimilarities. The present study, while providing one more instance of these differences, does not contribute to the basic explanatory problems involved. Following Bell ( l ) , it is felt that a potentially useful approach to such explanatory problems lies in assessment of the child’s contribution to interpersonal transactions. This mode of approach to “disentangling the direction of effects” (1, p. 64) might lead to a more basic understanding of the differences in interpersonal perception observed. The absence of age differences in frequency of mention of the four major esteem sources cited may reflect the fact that this study dealt with a single developmental period. It seems probable that comparable studies with older age groups would show age-related changes in frequency of mention of esteem sources. Whether age affects the number of sources cited and how the number of sources cited relates to level of self-esteem are additional matters for future investigation. The need for replication and for comparative data from children from traditional nursery school groups and children with no group care experience is evident. Without such data, it can be argued that the present results may be associated with some as yet unidentified dimension of day care or day care children. Nevertheless, this study is strongly supportive of the view that commonly held assumptions concerning development in early childhood must be reconsidered (3). Specifically, this investigation points to the necessity for re-evaluating the relative impact of peers and parents of the development of self-esteem in young children. This study also provides additional evidence for reconsideration of the impact of peers on development in early childhood. Finally, the present study reemphasizes the necessity noted by other investigators (8, 25) for increased attention to the child’s phenomenal field. REFERENCES 1. BELL,R. Q. Stimulus control of parent or caretaker behavior by offspring. Devel. Psychol., 1971, 4 , 63-72. 2. BORKE,H. Interpersonal perception of young children. Devel. Psychol., 1971, 5, 263-269. 3. Chandler and Greenspan’s (‘Ersatz egocentrism”: A rejoinder. Devel. Psychoi., 1972, 7 , 107-109. 4. BRONFENBRENNER, U. Reactions t o social pressure from adults vs. peers among Soviet day school and boarding school pupiIs in the perspective of an American sample. In S. Chess & A. Thomas (Eds.), Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971. 5 . BROWN,B. The assessment of self-concept among four-year-old Negro and white children: A comparative study using the Brown IDS Self-Concept Referents Test. Institute for Developmental Studies, New York University, N.Y., 1966. ~
176
JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY
CHANDLER, M. J., & GREENSPAN, S. Ersatz egocentrism: A reply to H. Borke. Devel. Psychol., 1972, 7, 104-106. 7. COOPERSMITH,S. The antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967. 8. DUBIN, R., & DUBIN, E. R . Children’s social perceptions: A review of research. Child Devel., 1965, 36, 809-838. 9. HAAS,H. I., & MAEHR,M. L. T w o experiments on the concept of self and the reactions of others. 1. Personal. 6 SOC. Psychol., 1965, 1, 100-105. H. F., & HARLOW, M. K. The affectional systems. I n A. M. Schrier, H. F. 10. HARLOW, Harlow, & F. Stellnitz (Eds.), Behavior of Nonhuman Primates (Vol. 2 ) . New York: Academic Press, 1965. J. The child’s perception of the parent. J. Abn. Cr SOC. Psychol., 1956, 53, 11. KAGAN, 6.
257-258. 12. 1.1.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:53 22 June 2016
14.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
20. 2 1. 22.
23. 24. 25.
KAGAN,J., & LEMKIN,J . The child’s differential perception of parental attributes. J . A b n . G SOL.Psychol., 1960, 61, 440-447. KIRCHNER, E. P. An assessment inventory for the day care child (Vol. 2 ) . Field evaluation and preliminary findings. Center for Human Services Development Report No. 25, Institute for the Study of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1973. KIRCHNER, E. P.,& VONDRACER, S. I. An assessment inventory for the day care child (Vol. 1). Background. development and sample. Center for Human Services Development Report No, 14, Institute for the Study of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 1972. KOHN,A. R., & FIEDLER, F. E. Age and sex differences in the perception of persons. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 157-164. LANCLOIS,J . H., GOTTFRIED, N. W., & SEAY,B. The influence of sex of peers on the social behavior of preschool children. Devel. Psychol., 1973, 8, 93-98. LUDWIG,D. J., & MAEHR,M. L. Changes in self-concept and stated behavioral preferences. Child Devel., 1967, 38, 453-467. MAEHR,M. L., MENSING,J., & NAFZGER,S. Concept of self and the reaction of others. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 353-357. MURRAY,F. B. Acquisition of conservation through social interaction. Devel. Psychol., 1972, 6, 1-6. OZEHOSKY, R . & CLARK,E . Verbal and non-verbal measures of self-concept among kindergarten boys and girls. Psychol. Rep., 1971, 28(1), 195-199. RARDIN,D. R., & MOAN,E. C. Peer interaction and cognitive development. Child Devel., 1971, 42, 1685-1689. SHIPMAN,V. C., & GILBERT,L. E. Brown IDS Self-Referents Test. I n V. C. Shipman ( E d . ) , Technical Report Series: Disadvantaged children and their First School Experiences, PR-72-27, Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1972. WATSON,R. I. Psychology of the Child. New York: Wiley, 1959. WYLIE,R. C. The Self-concept: A Critical Survey of Pertinent Research Literature. Lincoln: Univ. Nebraska Press, 1961. YARROW,M. R. The measurement of children’s attitudes and values. In P. H. Mussen ( E d . ) , Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York: Wiley, 1960.
Institute for the Study of Human Development The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
