Prq

8/13/2019 Prq

1/126

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMI*

8/13/2019 Prq

2/126

8/13/2019 Prq

3/126

Identifying M others ' and Child ren's U se and Perceptions of Power in their Relationship

Sandra Delia Porta

Thesisin

The DepartmentOf

Education

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Master of Arts (Child Study) atConcordia UniversityMontreal, Quebec, Canada

August 2009

Sandra Delia Porta, 2009

8/13/2019 Prq

4/126

1*1 Library and A rchivesCanadaPublished HeritageBranch395 Wellington StreetOttawaONK1A0N4Canada

Bibliotheque etArchives CanadaDirection duPatrimoine de I edition395, rue WellingtonOttawa ON K1A 0N4Canada

Your file Votre referenceISBN: 978-0-494-63085-3Our file Notre referenceISBN: 978-0-494-63085-3

NOTICE:The author has granted anonexclusive license allowing Library an dArchives C anada to reproduce,publish, archive, preserve, conserve,communicate to the public bytelecomm unication or on the Internet,loan,distribute and sell thesesworldwide, for comm ercial ornoncommercial purposes, in microform,paper, electronic and/or any otherformats.

AVIS:L auteura accorde une licence non exclusivepermettant a la Bibliotheque et ArchivesCanada de reprodu ire, publier, archiver,sauvegarder, conse rver, transmettre au publicpar telecommunication ou parI lnternet, preter,distribuer et vendre de s theses partout dans lemond e, a des fins com merciales ou autres, sursupport m icroforme, papier, electronique et/ouautres formats.

The author retains copyrightown ership and m oral rights in thisthesis. Neither the thesis norsubstan tial extracts from it may beprinted or otherwise reproduce dwithout the author's permission.

L auteurconserve la prop riete du droit d'auteuret des droits m oraux qu i protege cette these. Nila these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-cine doivent etre imprimes ou autrementreproduits sans son au torisation.

In compliance with the CanadianPrivacy Act some support ing form smay have been removed from thisthesis.

Conformem ent a la loi canadienne sur laprotection de la vie privee, q uelquesformulaires secondaires ont ete enleves decette these.

Wh ile these forms m ay be includedin the docum ent page coun t, theirrem oval does not represent any lossof content from the thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dansla pagination, il n'y aura aucu n contenumanquant.

+ Canada

8/13/2019 Prq

5/126

iiiABSTRACT

Identifying M others' and Ch ildren's U se and Perceptions of Power in their RelationshipSandra Delia Porta

This study investigated attributes of pow er in the parent-child relationship. T hisconcept was examined in three dom ains of conflict: personal, conventional, andprudential. Forty-one children (20 boy s,21girls) ranging from seven to 12 years(M=10.12,SD= 1.42) and their mothers from a middle-class background participated in thisstudy. This research assessed parents and childr en's perceptions of the types and level ofpow er (French & Raven, 1959) through an interview consisting of 12 conflict-provokingsituations. The dyad com pleted the Parent-Child R elationship Questionnaire (PC RQ ;Furman & Giberson, 1995) and mothers com pleted the Parental Authority Q uestionnaire-Revised (PAQ-R; Reitman et. al., 2002), Behavior Assessment System for Children(BAS C-2; Reynolds & Kam phaus, 2004 ), and the Marlowe-Crowne Social D esirabilityScale (MC-SD; Strahan & G erbasi, 1972). Results show that in the personal d oma in,children were rated as having more power, and in both the conventional and prudentialdom ains, mothers were rated as having m ore power. Children of mothers w ith anauthoritarian parenting style rated the m other as having mo re power in the p ersonal,conventional, and prudential dom ains, while mothers rated themselves as having morepow er in the prudential dom ain. Permissive parenting w as related to children ratingthemselves as having more power in the prudential domain. For types of power, mo thersused mo re coercive and information power than their children, whereas children usedmore legitimate and sneaky power. Th is research m ay aid in parents' und erstanding thatuse of power could differ across domains.

8/13/2019 Prq

6/126

ivAcknowledgements

My deepest thanks go to my supervisor, Dr. Nina Ho we, for allowing m e toexplore my ideas and helping m e succeed to the best of my ability. Her guidance,encouragement, and prompt feedback hav e made this process enjoyable. I would also liketo extend m y gratitude to Dr. Holly Recchia for always being available to answer m yquestions, giving great sugg estions, and for teaching me m any statistical skills, wh ichhave m ade my struggles through each step of this thesis preparation a little less painful.Furthermore, many thanks go to the families who participated in this project.

Many thanks also go to my sidekicks, Sara Charbonneau, Allyson Fu nam oto,and Jessica Kurta for their constant support. I am grateful to them for listening to mycontemplations and ideas, even though th ey m ay have sounded like they were out of leftfield. Their help in developing m y thesis and keeping m e grounded w ith laughter andcheers have made this adventure a pleasure.

1 would not be at this stage without my parents who have always believed in m eand continuously supported my decisions. Appreciation also goes out to my siblings,Elaina, Bianca, Jason and Daniela, for helping me put my studies first and to my friendsSara, Megan, L ana, Ky le, Jen, and Ch ristine for taking me away from my work w henneeded.

Finally, I would like to thank my editor and greatest supporter, Mike for alwayskeeping m e in check and for his endless praise in all of my a ccomp lishments.

8/13/2019 Prq

7/126

V

Table of C ontentsList of Figures viiList of Tab les viiiIntroduction 1

Types of Power 5Sources of Powe r 9Power and Parenting Style 10Power and Child Outcom es 11Power and Developm ent 13The Role of Perceptions 14Investigating Pow er through Conflict 15Areas of Conflict 17The Present Study 18

Method 21Participants 21Procedure 22Measures and Coding 23

Results 29Preliminary Analyses 29Age and Gender Effects 29Hypothesis 1: Power across Dom ains 30Hypo thesis 2: Pow er and Parenting Style 31

8/13/2019 Prq

8/126

viHypothesis3:Perceptions of Power and Relationship Quality 32Hypothesis 4: Power and Child Behaviour Outcom es 33Hypothesis 5: Types of Power by Actor 33

Discussion 46Limitations 61Future Directions 64Implications for Parenting and Parent-Child Dyna mics 65Conclusion 66

References 68

8/13/2019 Prq

9/126

List of Figuresvn

Figure Page1 Domain by Actor ANOV A Interaction 352 Type of Power by Actor Interaction 36

8/13/2019 Prq

10/126

V l l l

List of TablesPage

Desc riptive Statistics for Child and Parent Measu res 37Desc riptive Statistics for M othe r M easures 38Age and Gend er Effects 39Analysis of Variance of Dom ain of Conflict 40Associations between Pow er and Parenting Style 41Association between Ac tors ' Ratings of Relationship Quality and Power RatingA greem ent 42Association between Power and BASC scores 43Associations between BAS C scores and Parenting Style 44Analysis of Variance for Type of Power 45

8/13/2019 Prq

11/126

IX

List of Appen dicesPage

Ethical Approval 74Information Letter 76Consent Form 79General Information Questionnaire 82Interview Scenarios 85Conflict Interview 90Interview Coding Scheme 93Parental Autho rity Questionnaire-Revised (Reitman et. al., 200 2) 98Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire (Furman & Giberson, 1995) 101Visual Aid: Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire 108Behaviour Assessment System for Children (BASC-2; Reynolds &Kamp haus, 2004) 110Ma rlowe-Crown e Social Desirability Scale (Strahan & Gerba si, 1972) 114

8/13/2019 Prq

12/126

1

IntroductionRecently, there has been a change in paren ts' beliefs about child developm ent and

parenting strategies reflected by the shift in the balance of power from the parent to thechild (Elkind, 1994). Previous efforts to study power in the parent-child relationship havebeen largely thwarted by the underwhelming amount of research currently available onthe topic. This analysis contributes to the database of knowledge b y pinpointing the typesof power used by parents and children as well as depicting how they perceive the use ofpower during conflict situations.

The relationship between parents and children is fascinating but complex, as itencomp asses a close interdependence of behaviours, a combination o f emotions, needs,and goals, as well as a variety of interactions that m ake up a history between partners(Kuczynski, 2003 ). Overarching theoretical mo dels that depict such close relationshipsrevo lve around three fundamental assum ptions : causality, agency , and power (Lollis &Kuczynski, 1997). Causality is viewed in terms of socialization, focusing on complianceand internalization of values. Agency views individuals as actors with the ability to makesense of their environm ent, initiate chang e, and m ake choices (Kuczynski, 2 003 ). Finally,the topic of power in social relationships is a dynamic process consisting of va riousresources possessed on different levels by each partner in the dyad. According to Lollisand Kuczynski (1997), in the past 30 years, these assumptions have shifted towardparent-child bidirectionality, away from a more unidirectional view (i.e., parent to child).

Lollis and Kuczynski (1997) describe bidirectionality as a two-way mutual orreciprocal influence in interactions and relationships. In this close relationship bothparents and children contribute through actions, thoughts, and emotions forming a

8/13/2019 Prq

13/126

2dynamic bond (Lollis & Kuczynski, 1997). A crucial factor in the reciprocal nature of theparent-child dyad is equal agency, acknowledging that children have individual ideas,beliefs, and know ledge about their relationship (Cum mings & Scherm erhorn, 200 3). Inearlier models, parents were described as active agents and children as passive recipients,whose behaviours of agency (e.g., noncom pliance) were labeled as deviance (Kuczyn ski,2003;Lollis & Kuczynsk i, 1997). Further elaborating, Kuczynski (20 03) suggested thatthis portrayed a constrained view of child ren's ag ency, ignoring a child 's ownexperiences and perspectives, effectively eliminating their own active role in thesocialization process.

Accom panying the change from the unidirectional to bidirectional m odel of th eparent-child relationship, a shift in parents' beliefs about child development andparenting strategies occurred. More specifically, there has been a significant change inparental values towards a greater preference for autonom y in childre n's decision-makingand less preference for obedience (Alwin, 1990). This recent favouring of autonomy inchildren is linked to the idea of children as active agents, which requires a give and takesocialization approach, providing children with options and choices to create situationswhere they will com ply (Greishaber, 2004 ).

Kuczynski (2003) defines autonomy as self-determined motivation to attainpersonal control over the environment. On the one hand, this type of behaviour has beenassociated with various positive effects on child development, such as intrinsicmotivation, greater creativity, higher cognitive flexibility, better conceptual learning,positive emotional tone, and higher self-esteem, to name a few (Deci & Ryan, 1987). Onthe contary, Kuczynski (2003) contends that ch ildren's assertion of autonomy in the

8/13/2019 Prq

14/126

3

parent-child relationship has been associated with high levels of noncom pliance, w hichcan be unfavourable to paren ts.

Although m uch research h as looked at the positive effects of teaching autonom yto children as opposed to teaching obedience, few researchers have focused on theoutermost part of this pendulum swing where som e parents may be allowing children agreat deal of freedom and power in decision-making. Th at is, the balance of pow er andauthority in the parent-child relationship, as has been argued by some (e.g., E lkind,1994),may have shifted from adults to children. However, there has been little researchin support of this argument as well as little inquiry into the dyads' perceptions of thisconstruct as it occurs in their relationship.

According to L ollis and Kuczynski (199 7), "power consists of different resources(French & Raven) that are managed differently across family types (Baum rind) and areconstantly negotiated within relationships, across relationships, and across development"(p.448). Power itself is best considered as a variable that is subject to bidirectionalprocesses in which both parents and children are vulnerable and influential with regard toeach other (Greishaber, 2004; Lollis & Kuczynski, 1997). As such, a careful analysis ofissues of power in parent-child relationships m ay illuminate greater unde rstanding ofthese ideas. Thus, the objective of this research is to fill the gap in the know ledg e byidentifying how parents and children view and use power in their parent-childinteractions, particularly in the context of conflict. Conflict will be used as a window toidentify the dyads' use of power as it is often triggered by the struggle between children'sautonomy seeking beh aviours and parental control attempts. This is clearly a context inwhich to exam ine bidirectional processes (Bush & Peterson, 2008).

8/13/2019 Prq

15/126

4Power

The construct of power is multifaceted, consisting of individual, relational, andcultural resources (Greishaber, 2004; Kuczynski, 2003). It is defined as the potentialability of one person to change the direction of another p erson's behaviour, w hich isaccomplished b y using forces to exert influence on another (Wolfe, 1959). From Pu nc h's(2005) perspective, power can generally b e understood as "getting what you w ant" (p .172).One important aspect of pow er is that it is neve r static, varying over time and space(Wolfe, 1959). Explanations of power are described as part of social relationships and notpersonal attributes, therefore all social criteria influence sources of power, which canvary from relationship to relationship and even within the same relationship in a differentsocial context.

Wolfe (1959) identifies three assumptions about the nature of individuals andinterpersonal relations that directly affect the use of power. First, he em phasize s that allindividuals are constantly trying to satisfy their wants and needs as well as attaining theirown goals. Wolfe further mentions that these are attained through social interaction.During these interactions, a continual exchange of resources between actors makespossible the fulfillment of these needs and goals. In effect, the resources that on e has intheir possession can be transferred to the other socially to meet specific objectives thats/he may have (Wolfe, 1959). Consequently, the more resources one has in his or hercontrol, the more pow er one wields.

When studying power in the parent-child relationship, it is important to decipherits characteristics conceptually from parental control. According to Barber (2002), thereare two main types of parenting behaviour: parental support, such as warmth,

8/13/2019 Prq

16/126

5responsiveness, and attachment and parental control, including discipline, coercion, andlove withdrawal. When studying parental use of power, parental support and control aretheoretically related as these concepts underlie parenting style characteristics. But theseconcepts are not directly related to pow er types as discussed in the next section.Types of Power

French and Raven (1959) distinguish between different kinds of power includingcoercive, reward, legitimate, referent, expert, and information power, which can accountfor the various effects of social influence. A s each type of pow er is defined, exam ples

will be brought up in the context of parent-child relationships.Coercive power occurs when the recipient expects that s/he will be punished if

s/he fails to conform to requests. The parent who is physically larger and holds moreauthority over the child has the ability to execute this negative form of power.

On the lighter side of power execution is reward power. The explanation iscontained within the label, as a person holds power on the basis of the ability to rewardthe other. The strength of this partner's power increases with the magnitude of thereward. In the parent-child dyad, parents can reward children with positive (e.g., verbalpraise) or negative (e.g., stop hassling child once chores are done) reinforcements ormaterials goods. Further, both parents and children can reward each other by displayingpositive affect (e.g., hugging). Punch (2005) identifies resource power as a separate typeof power that seems to be linked to characteristics of reward power, where access toresources is the mediator. For exam ple, parents control children's access to income,material goods, as well as their allocation of time and space. Parents have more power

8/13/2019 Prq

17/126

6over household resources and therefore, power over their children. With such resources,parents can enforce punishment o r discipline, enhancing legitimate power (Punch , 200 5).

Legitimate power stems from internalized values in the recipient, which dictatethat the person in power has a legitimate right to influence their behaviour. According toPunch (2005), parental legitimate power is linked to their inherent roles as protectors andproviders, nurturing children's well-being. French and Raven (1959) further describemultiple bases of legitimate power including cultural values, social structure, anddesignation of legitimizing agent. The basis of cultural values allows a person possessing

certain characteristics to hold power over others specified by the culture. Culturalresources involve rights conveyed to parents and children by the laws, customs, andpractices evident of a particular culture.

Parental power is legitimate in that parents are explicitly given the au thority to setrules that children must follow. Western culture also legitimizes children's power andconstrains pare nts' use of power. Th is has developed from an increase in childr en's rightsin the Western World, including standards ofcare,right to education, freedom frommaltreatment, freedom of self-expression, and norms of companionate parent-childrelationships (Punch, 2005). In relation to the basis of social structure, the recipientaccepts the power of another as the right of the social organization of their group orsociety involving hierarchy. Finally, designation of legitimizing agent is a basis of powerwhere an influencer is seen as legitimate because the recipient has accepted the situationat hand.

The last three types of power identified by French and Raven (1959) are referent,expert, and information power. Referent power is based on identification with a specific

8/13/2019 Prq

18/126

person. Therefore, if one is highly attracted to another or wants to maintain a relationshipwith that individual, the power will reside in that person. Expert power is granted on thebasis of one individual having advanced know ledge within a particular dom ain, wh ichcan favour either person depending on the type of knowledge held. Information pow er isbased on o ne 's ability to persuade another using logic and reasoning.

Beyond the initial six types of power bases are two additional power resourcesrelevant to this study, negotiation and sneaky power. Negotiation and sneaky power wereidentified during the interview coding process post-data collection. Negotiation powerwas defined as an actor offering a comprom ise to resolv e a conflict (e .g., actor offering ato wear a sweater instead of a jacket when it is cold outside).

Sneaky power was identified by researchers and defined as using deception to getwhat one w ants. According to Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) by Buller andBurgoon (19 96, as cited by G ombos, 200 7), deception is a process that involves tw o-wa yinteractive communication, in which the liar and the target are involved in a simultaneoustask. In this study, both mother and child are involved in the task of resolving a conflict.As an example, parents have stated that they would find ways to detract their child fromgetting what they want as stated by a child "she [mom] would constantly tell me about it[school activity] and tell me things that would be interesting about it, some of themwould be lies, some of them would be true". Similarly, incidents arose in which a childwould say to their mother, "I'll do it later", not intending to do it at all. In anotherexample, a child indicated that they would "put the vegetables in my mouth, go to thebathroom and spit it out without mom knowing". Basically researchers defined this as

8/13/2019 Prq

19/126

8

getting what they want in a deceptive way, without directly affecting the other partner inthe dyad.

With all of these types of power in mind, it is important to be aware that the rangeof powe r varies greatly. M ost of these sources of power apply to young children b ecauseof their capacity to engage in interaction and reward or punish parental behavior(Perlman, Siddiqui, Ram, & Ross, 1999). More specifically, both parties in a relationship(e.g., sibling, parent-child) may hav e a small am ount of power in all domains or o ne 'spow er may vary across domains and time. Also, it is how power is used that m aydetermine the impact on o ne another.

In terms of the parent-child relationship, power is an interdependent asymmetryconsidering both pa rents and children have resources to draw upon despite absolutedifferences in power. Traditional conceptions of power asymmetry in the parent-childrelationship have been static, primarily em phasizing that parents have m ore powe r thanchildren. However, as previously mentioned, recent research has shown that thisassumption is not representative in understanding the occurrences of everyday family life(Kuczynski, 2003). For instance, parents seem comfortable accepting influence from theirchildren (e.g., choosing a meal for dinner) and tolerate conflict as part ofa cooperativeparent-child relationship (Kuczynski, 2003). Further, Punch (2005) explains that childrennot only have strategies for counteracting adult power, but they are also active agentswith the ability to assert power over adults. Accordingly, this research will take intoaccount the horizontal features in today's social power relations, which according toPerlman et al. (1999), have rarely been used by personal relationships researchers.

8/13/2019 Prq

20/126

9Sources of Power

In the parent-child relationship, there are various sources of power held in varyingdegrees by different partners as identified by Kuczynski (2003). Individual resourcesconsisting of physical strength, control over rewards, expertise, and information areviewed as foundations of parental powe r. Executive power, which is the capacity to thinkahead, set goals, and act proactively to prevent future problems, is another example of aprimarily parental source of power, which can direct the course of social interaction.Relational resources allow one to generate power as a participant in an interdependentrelationship; therefore, parents and children are mutually dependent and can either grantor deny gratification. This leads to an ideal example portraying the complexity of theparent-child relationship w here parents can use coercive power to obtain the comp lianceof their children; however, because compliance is an important attribute for parentalfeelings of competence, the parent then becomes dependent on the child for that type ofgratification. In this case, the child can withhold compliance from the parent and exertpower. Conversely, parental use of autonomy support may lead to child compliance andchild and parental competence, leading to a more positive relationship.

According to Punch (2005), in contemporary time s, children actively ch allengeparental authority, and she notes that families are more likely to be sites of negotiationrather than control and regulation. This does not come as a surprise since children todaymay have greater access to exponential power as active social agents and can exert suchpower through resistance and noncompliance. It is important to keep in mind thatdifferent parenting styles are associated with children's varied ability to exert powerwithin the family (Punch, 2005). This topic is now addressed.

8/13/2019 Prq

21/126

10Power and Parenting S tyle

Baumrind's (1966) classic parenting styles initially associated with parentalcontrol can be associated with the amount of power exerted by both parents and children.The authoritative style of parenting is regarded as the gold standard in Western culture asit encourages children to become cooperative, content, and self-controlled (Berns, 2004).This democratic style of parenting includes characteristics such as warmth,responsiveness, reasoning, neg otiation, and easy-going give and take parent-childinteractions (Baum rind, 1966; Greishaber, 2001). Th is category of parenting, acco rdingto Greishaber (2004), is in line with relational perspectives, which oppose the idea ofparents as authority figures and instead views parents and children as mutually powerfuland vulnerable towards each other, regardless of apparent differences in legitimateauthority, individual capacities, and material resources. The authoritative style ofparenting then seems to allow for a balance of power between the parent and child,although there may be situations where parents do exert power (e.g., safety). Accordingto Bush and Peterson (2008), this parenting style has been linked to desirable adaptiveskills in ch ildren, such as high levels of self-esteem, social skills, and schoolperformance.

Authoritarian parents view children as passive and use more behaviouristapproaches, favouring punitiv e, forceful measures as these parents strongly valueobedience (Baum rind, 1966; Greishaber, 2001). This style of parenting would allocatemost of the power to parents and be associated with negative child behaviours such asfear, distrust, and discontent (Berns, 2004). In terms of child outcomes, this type ofparenting has been associated with problematic behav iours, including n oncom pliance.

8/13/2019 Prq

22/126

11internalizing and externalizing behav iours (Barber, Olsen, & Sh agle, 1 994; Bush &Peterson, 2008).

At the other end o f the parenting style spectrum is permissive paren ting,characterized by a lack o f follow-through and disregard of misbehaviour, w here p arentsuse nonp unitive measures, accepting the child's impulses and desires (Baumrind, 1966;Greishaber, 2001). This behaviour is associated with a failure to enculturate childrensuccessfully as well as failing to appropriately manage children 's behaviour (Greishaber,200 1). Execution of such parenting strategies could lead to child beh aviours of

aggressiveness, impulsiveness, and lack o f self-control (Berns, 2004). According toGreishaber (2001 ), "refusal to conform to ordinary rules and conv entions of societythreatens the social and m oral order because such children con tinually challenge soc iety 'spositioning o f adults as authority figures" (p . 227). Children living w ith perm issiveparents, according to Bush and Peterson (200 8), are mo re likely to associate with deviantpeers, have low m otivation, and develop externalizing beh aviours.

The fourth type o f parenting, uninvolved, is described by low control and lowwarm th, in which parents have few demands on and are withdrawn from the child. Thisform of parenting has been associated with deficits in attachment, cognition, and self-esteem. This style would lack power assertive behaviours in both parents and theirchildren, as their relationship is characterized by disconnectedness.Power and C hild Outcomes

Broadly, these parenting styles, along w ith parental behav iours andcharacteristics, contribute to various social and psychological child outcomes (Bush &Peterson, 2008). Through various types of parenting, social com petence can either be

8/13/2019 Prq

23/126

12fostered, allowing children to adapt normative behaviours and values, or hindered,possibly leading to internalizing or externalizing problem behaviours, such asanxiousness or conduct p roblem s, respectively (Bush & Peterson, 2008). Therefore, th isresearch will investigate whether levels of power in the parent child-relationship,theoretically related to parenting styles (Baum rind, 1966), are associated w ith certainchild outcomes, as previously outlined.

In short, it is important to be aware that pow er in the parent-child relationsh ipma y moderate the association between parenting styles and child outcomes. For instance,authoritative parenting is characterized by reciprocal attributes, including responsiveness,reasoning, negotiation, and a give and take relationship (Baumrind, 1966; Greishaber,2001).This should reflect a balanced amount of power, in that parents discuss and listento their children when parenting, which has been associated with positive outcomes suchas independent behavior and social responsibility (Baumrind, 1971). Authoritarianparenting behaviours, which favour controlling, punitive, and forceful measures(Baumrind, 1966; Greishaber, 2001), weighs power heav ily on the parent's side of theparent-child relationship. This imbalance may then lead to negative child outcomes suchas internalizing and externalizing behaviours (Barber, O lsen, & Shagle, 1994; Bush &Peterson, 2008). Finally, permissive parenting, including a lack of follow-through andaccepting the child's impulses and desires (Baum rind, 1966; Greishaber, 2001), allowsthe child more pow er in the dyad, possibly leading to externalizing beh aviours (Bush &Peterson, 2008).

8/13/2019 Prq

24/126

13Power and Development

Another crucial elemen t to consider when studying power in the p arent-childrelationship is that the child 's resources for qualitative and quantitative power changethroughout development as they acquire greater social-emotional skills and cognitiveability and begin to self-regulate behaviour. Parenting interactions also change, as thechild grows older; therefore, the developmental variations between the dyad involvemutual adjustments on behalf o f each party. As their respective roles change, theirrelationship network must adapt continually to the shifting capacities and needs that

emerge (Collins & Ma dsen, 2003).In terms of power, Kuczynski (2003) exp lains that asymmetry is quite high during

the early years of development, favouring the infant, decreases during middle childhood,and increases again during adolescence as children's physical strength and othercognitive abilities progress to an equal or greater level than those of the parent. Collinsand Madsen (2003) mention that although parent-child interactions become less frequentin middle childhood, previously shared experiences have created expectancies about theprobable reactions of both parents and children to various kinds of situations. Theseexpectancies then gu ide each pe rson 's behaviour in interaction with the other. F urther,during midd le childhood, children have increased capacity for independence, g oal-directed behaviour, and effective comm unication (Collins & Madsen, 2003 ). Hen ce thefocus of the proposed research will tap into ch ildren's perceptions of po wer in th e parent-child relationship in middle childhood, as by this time they have developed a repertoire ofinteractions that have created expectancies of future behaviours within their relationship.Further, school-aged children are able to evaluate themselves from the perspective of

8/13/2019 Prq

25/126

14others and are more likely to evaluate themselves in terms of psychologicalcharacteristics (e.g., being well behaved, smart; Cumm ings & Schermerhorn, 2003 ). Thisstudy examined parents' and children's perspectives, specifically through the context ofconflict, which will be described below. How ever, first the role of perceptions in theparent-child relationship is addressed.TheRole of Perceptions

The aim of this study wa s to identify the inner workings of toda y's parent-childrelationship, which h as received limited attention in the literature. It is important tounderstand both sides of the story, so to speak, as both parents and children have theirown ideas and expectancies regarding the intricacies of their relationship. According toFurman, Jones, Buhrmester, and Adler (1989), capturing the perspective of childrenreveals subjectively important qualities of their relationships.

The term 'perception' is defined by the Oxford dictionary (Barber, 1998) as aninterpretation or impression based on one's understanding of something. Identifyingparents' and children 's perceptions is possible due to their social cognitions, emotions,motives, and behavioural routines in close relationships. Relationship schemas areanother pertinent factor, wh ich are knowledg e structures acquired as a function ofrepeated experiences within relationships (Bugental & Happaney, 2000).

Furman et al. (1989) have studied parents' and children's perspectives of siblingrelationships and developed a multi-perspective framework that not only looks at siblingrelationships in depth , but also other types of close relationships. In this research,children were administered a standardized interview, which was used to identifycommonly reported relationship qualities. From this, a 51-item questionnaire was

8/13/2019 Prq

26/126

15developed identifying four main factors of the sibling relationship: warmth/closeness,relative status/power, conflict, and rivalry. Further, four dimensions, warmth, egalitariancloseness, power assertion/conflict, and protectiveness, emerged from the parent-childrelationship m easure. The present study used the abridged version of this measure inorder to assess the dyad's relationship quality (Furman & Giberson, 1995).

In the parent-child relationship, Davidov and Grusec (2006) mention that ratherthan relying on specific socialization strategies, parents and children must beknowledgeable of how their partner will react to different control attempts. The authorsfurther discuss that this understanding would allow parents to tailor their intervention tosuit their child in that specific situation. This reasoning may also relate to children, inthat, knowing how their parent would respond in a certain situation.Investigating Po wer through Conflict

In order to identify power relations between parents and their children, a specificcontext must b e used in w hich power m ay be exerted. Kuczynski (2003) discussesvarious areas of interaction that bring about power assertion between partners, includingconflict, cooperation, child assertion, negotiation, mutual responsiveness, play, andfriendship-like qualities. According to Greishaber (2004) "parent-child conflict is aboutrelations of power" (p. 57). Further, previous literature points out that parents controlledconflict and discipline, yet recent research indicates that children play a crucial ro le ininfluencing parents in all phases of discipline (Kuczynski, 2003).

In general, social or interpersonal conflict can be defined as a state of resistanceor opposition between two individuals (Chaudry, 1995). More specifically, parent-childconflict has been de scribed as a construct related to paren ting practices as well as th e

8/13/2019 Prq

27/126

16dynamics of the dy ad's bidirectional relationship (Ostrov & B ishop, 2008). In addition,conflict has been found to help a child develop a better understanding of themselves andothers (Chaudry, 1995). Particularly during middle childhood, as children improve theirverbal and reasoning skills, engaging in conflict may aid in the development of conflictmanagement skills such as negotiation, compromise, concepts of fairness, and ability topersuade or adopt another pers on's point of view (Chaundry, 1995).

Perlman et al. (1999) discuss how French and Raven's (1959) bases of powerhave been used previously to analyze children's conflict interactions with parents andpeers.To elaborate, when parents discipline, children can either comply or resist thedemand, and it is clear that when there is power assertion, there may be resistance.Further, Kuczynski (2003) states that the most credible evidence depicting the capacity ofchildren's influence has been found during situations of parent-child conflict and parentaldiscipline.

To gain a deeper und erstanding of the link between conflict and power, Perlmanet al. (1999) described the interplay between parent-child conflict and parental discipline.For instance, parents' greater physical strength and control of material resources enablethem to use coercive and reward power with their children. Children can also have accessto coercive power in parent-child relationships, in their case by using defiance. In termsof expert power, parents possess greater knowledge and expertise, although they arelimited to moral and conventional domains but not personal (e.g., food, friends). In thiscontext, conflicts can arise when parents and children disagree about parents' expertise ina certain domain. Positive emotional relationships in relation to referent power betweenparents and children allow for responsive problem solving and more collaborative

8/13/2019 Prq

28/126

17resolutions of conflict. Information power in parent-child relationships is used whenparents and children reason with each other in their conflict resolutions. Legitimatepow er, closely linked to social no rms and moral rules, allocates greater power to parentswho must serve the needs of their developing children, which simultaneously authorizeschildren to be in power. F or exam ple, when a child does not say thank you w hen sociallyrelevant, the parent has th e legitimate responsibility to apprehend that behaviour, andwhen a child is hungry and has not eaten all day, but only wants to eat French fries, theparent has the responsibility to feed the child.

Inbrief conflict is a clear context to identify power in the parent-childrelationship as both mem bers of the dyad derive it from varied sources. One concreteexam ple was described b y G reishaber (2001), in which a 5-year-old boy and his motherwere playing computer games and constantly challenging each other to occupy a morepowerful position. In this case, the parent attempted to use various forms of power tosocialize her child and teach him to behave accordingly. Gre ishab ers (2001) detailedexam ple in her chapter, 'Beating m om : How to win the power g am e', illustrates that boththe parent and child have access to various forms of control that constantly change thebalance of pow er.Areas of Conflict

Parent-child conflict can arise in personal (e.g., autonomy seeking), moral (e.g.,concern for oth ers' welfare), and conventional (e.g., responsibility) do mains. Nucci andSmetana (19 96) take a closer look at such areas of conflict by identifying m oth ers' viewsof children's personal freedom. In this investigation, mothers of children aged five toseven were interviewed using open-ended q uestions about their concepts of children's

8/13/2019 Prq

29/126

18personal freedom, autonom y, and individuality. R esults showed that mothers believedthat they should b e in control of mo ral, conven tional, and prudential topics and that theirchildren were given choice in personal areas. More specifically, mothers reported settinglimits on issues of safety, family conventions, and daily routines, whereas children werepermitted to make decisions about food, recreational activities, clothes, and friends.

Along the sam e lines, Kuczynski (2003) mentioned that parents of children agedsix to 11 years recalled incidents when their children successfully challenged them inareas of parental personal behaviour, conventional behaviour, health and safety

behaviours, and parental attitudes and values. Further, in a pilot study conducted byGreishaber (2004), mothers pointed out conflict-producing events, including bed time,tidying, toys, clothes, dressing, television viewing, food selection and consumption, andshopping. Consequ ently, to assess characteristics of power, the present study em ployedthe topics previously documented as events in which conflict is likely to occur ineveryday mother-child interactions.ThePresent Study

With the understanding of the dyn amics of the parent-child relationship and thenew outlook on the parent-child dyad from a bidirectional perspective, Kuczynski (2003)argues that future research should focus on identifying how such relationships areformed, maintained, and perceived in everyday life. Hence, the focus of this research wasto tap into children 's and their mothers' use and perceptions o f power in the parent-childrelationship during midd le childhood. M others and their children were the main focus o fthis research in order to simplify the data collection and analysis. Attaining the dyads*

8/13/2019 Prq

30/126

19perspective was crucial to developing a complete picture of the concept of pow er intoda y's parent-child relationship.

In order to investigate the use and views of power, interviews w ere administeredto both mothers and their children using hypothetical scenarios. According to Perlman etal .(1999), interviews are most com monly used w hen studying personal relationshipsbecause the participan ts' responses are thought to represent behaviours. The scenariosgiven to the dyads w ere of personal, conventional and prudential conflict situations inwhich parents and their children w ould typically assert power. Their responses allowedfor an analysis of parents' and children 's perspective of pow er in these three conflict-producing domains.

Along with an interview assessing the amount and types of pow er used, m othersreceived the Parental Authority Q uestionnaire-Revised (Reitman, Rhode, H upp , &Altobello, 2002) assessing their parenting style, the Behavior A ssessment S ystem forChildren (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) to rate children's problem behavioursand adaptability as well as the Marlowe-C rowne Social D esirability Scale (MC-S D;Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972) to control for social desirability. Both mothers and childrenwere administered the Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire (PCRQ; Furman &Giberson, 1995) assessing their relationship quality.

The hypotheses were as follows:(1) Regarding issues of conflict (Greishaber, 2004; Nucci & Smetana, 1996; Wolfe,

1959):a. In the personal dom ain, the child and moth er will rate the child as having

mo re power than the mother.

8/13/2019 Prq

31/126

b. In the conventional and prudential domains, the mo ther and child will ratethe mother as having more po wer than the child.

(2) In terms of parenting style and power (G reishaber,2001,200 4; Lollis &Kuczynski 1997):

a. Authoritative mothers will allocate a more balanced am ount of pow er inall do mains.

b. Authoritarian mothers will rate themselves as having more power in alldomains.

c. Permissive mothers will allocate mo re power to their child in all dom ains.(3) In relation to the association between p erceptions of power and relationship

quality (Davidov & Grusec, 2006):a. Is there agreement between mo thers and children's ratings of the level of

power across the different domains of conflict?b. In cases wh ere there is high agreement between mo thers and c hildre n's

ratings, it is expected that the quality of the parent-child relationship willbe higher.

(4) In regards to power and child outcomes averaged across domains (Bush &Peterson, 2008):

a. When the balance of pow er is weighted towards the mother (authoritarianparenting) children w ill be reported as having more internalizing andexternalizing beh aviours.

8/13/2019 Prq

32/126

21b. Wh en the balance of power is weighted towards the child (permissive

parenting), children will be reported as having more externalizingbehaviours.

c. W hen the balance of power is more equally weighted, children will berated as having mo re adaptive skills.

(5) For types of power used by parents and children both actors will rate:a. Mo thers as using more coercive power than childrenb. M others as using more reward power than childrenc. Mo thers as using more information power than childrend. M othe rs as using more negotiation strategies than childrene. Mo thers as using more expert power than childrenf. M others and children as using an equal amount of legitimate powerg. Children as using more sneaky power than m othersh. Children as using more referent power than m others

MethodParticipants

Forty-one mother-child dyads (20 boys ,21girls) were recruited for this study.Children were between the ages of seven and 12 years(M= 10.12,SD= 1.42) distributedfairly evenly (7-year-old,n= 1; 8-year-olds, n= 5; 9-year-olds,n= 8; 10-year-olds,n =9; 11-year-olds,/?= 11 ; and 12-year-olds,n= 7). MothersMage = 42.66(SD= 4.37) andfathers M ag e = 44.42(SD= 5.72). Tw enty-three families had one sibling and 16 hadtwo siblings. Families lived in a large urban (3,000,000), bilingual (French/English) city,with 34% of families speaking m ainly English at home, while 46 % spoke both English

8/13/2019 Prq

33/126

22and French equally. Both paren ts' backrounds ranged widely (e.g., Caucasian, Europe an,African Am erican). Families were generally midd le class based on paren ts' yea rs o feducation after high school (mothersM=6.23,SD=2.5 7; fathersM= 5.08,SD = 3.03)and occupation (e.g., teacher, engineer, lawyer).

After attaining ethical approval from the University (see Appendix A), 56 parentswho had participated in previous studies conducted in Dr. Nina How e's Research Labwere sent an information letter offering a mo vie gift certificate as an incentive forparticipating (see Appendix B). Recruitment then consisted of a follow up call to answerany questions. Following agreement to participate, appointments w ere made at a tim emost convenient for the families. Three families chose to participate at the research lab,while the remaining data collection took place at the family's hom e. Upon arrival, thedetails of their participation were re-explained and mothers' written consent (seeAppendix C) and their child's verbal consent were attained.Procedure

The mother and child were interviewed indepen dently. The interview proc ess w asexplained to the participants and clarifications were made prior to the commencement ofthe interviews. The process consisted o f the researcher reading various conflict situationsaloud, followed by open-ended and closed-ended questions. The interviews wererecorded using digital audio rec orders, in which audio files were easily transferred to acomputer for transcribing and coding. In addition, the mother responded to generalinformation questions (see Appendix D), as well as four self-report measures identifyingparenting style, relationship quality, child behaviours and social desirability. The childresponded to a relationship quality measure analogous to the one administered to the

8/13/2019 Prq

34/126

23

mother. The order of the interview and questionnaires were counterbalanced to controlfor any influence of instrument order.

Prior to conducting this research, the data collection process was piloted in orderto narrow down four issues per domain of conflict, to refine questions in the interview,and to tweak any imperfections in the wording of the questions and procedure of the datacollection.Measures and Coding

Conflict scenarios.The interview was created to meet the needs of this researchtargeting four issues in three conflict-provoking domains (see Appendix E), including (a)personal (recreation, clothes, friends, and shopping), (b) conventional(politeness/manners, responsibility, chores, and homework), and (c) prudential (foodselection, bedtime, appropriate weather wear, and time watching television). The domainsof conflict were chosen from previous research (Kuczynski, 2003;Nucci & Smetana,1996;Sm etana & Gaines, 1999), which documented the personal, conventional, andprudential domains as occurring most often in conflicts between mothers and children.These doma ins were also found to more likely go either way, in terms of either themother or child resolving the conflict in their favour compared to the other domains ofconflict (e.g., moral, safety), which most likely would be resolved in the mothers' favour.The issues of conflict used to represent each domain were retrieved from various sourcesand identified as the most common issues in everyday parent-child relationships (Collins& Laursen, 1999;Greishaber, 2004; Nucci & Smetana, 1996; Smetana & Gaines, 1999).

Conflict interview.After each conflict scenario was read aloud, three open-endedquestions targeted how the interviewee and their mother would respond to a situation in

8/13/2019 Prq

35/126

their respective favour, as well as how the conflict would actually be resolved in theirfamily. These questions were designed to gather information on what types of power (i.e.,coercive, reward, legitimate, referent, expert, information, and sneaky) were used bypartners to steer the resolution of the conflict in their favour and to identify what w ouldessentially occur between the dyad. Subsequently, one closed-ended question targeted thelevel of power held by either the mother or child by asking which partner in the dyadwould h ave g otten their w ay in each situation(1= definitely child, 2 = probably child, 3= b oth, 4 = prob ably m other, 5 = definitely mother). To attain a scale of the balancedamount of power, cod es were transformed from definitely mo ther or child to a score of1= low b alance, from probably mother or child to a score of 2 = moderate balance, andfinally "bo th" w as recoded as 3 = high balance of power. This allowed for a quantitativecomparison of the level and balanced amount of power exhibited by each partner invarious situations (see Appendix F).

Interview Coding.D ue to technical d ifficulty, o ne parent interview failed torecord after a few seconds, therefore, 40 parent interviews and 41child interviewsremained. Each interview ranged on average from 10 to 20 minutes. Each audio-recording was transcribed and then coded by two researchers. Five mother and five childtranscripts w ere coded b y both researchers for training purposes. The coding scheme (seeAppendix G) was specified as the coders discussed participants' responses and comparedthem to the definitions of power types. The negotiation code was added to the codingscheme as many participants indicated an offer to negotiate as a solution to a conflictsituation. Once training was complete and the coding scheme was clearly defined,reliability co ding was conducted. On 20 percent ofthetranscripts(n=17) coders reached

8/13/2019 Prq

36/126

2584 % agreement overall and over 8 0% agreement was achieved for each code (coercion =80%,reward = 8 0% , legitimate = 8 0% , referent = 100%, expert = 100%, information =89%,sneaky = 8 9% , and nego tiate = 87% ). Both referent and expert power occurredinfrequently, and therefore were not included in the analyses of this study.

Parental Authority Questionnaire. The Parental Authority Questionnaire-Revised(PAQ -R; Reitman et. al., 2002) was administered to assess parenting style (see AppendixH).This was a revised version of B uri 's (1991) original mea sure. The questionnaireconsisted of 30 items (10 per parenting style) targeting characteristics of B aum rind's(1971) parenting p rototypes: au thoritative, authoritarian, and perm issive. For exam ple, anitem on the authoritarian subscale is, "When 1ask my children to do something, I expectit to be done imm ediately, without question". Responses w ere set on a5-pointLikertscale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. This measure allowed fora comparison of parenting styles with the level of power used by both mothers andchildren in various conflict situations.

From the data that were collected, three subscale scores (range 10 - 50)represented the number o f times that each mother endorsed the three types of parentingstyles.The higher the score, the greater the moth ers' reported use of a particular parentalstyle of authority. Reitman et al. (200 2) stated that the reliability coefficients for theauthoritarian and permissive scales ranged from .72 to .76 and the authoritative scaleattained analphaof .77.This provides modest convergent validity for all subscales in thePAQ -R, which was m easured against the Parenting Scale (PS ; Arnold, O'Leary,Wolff &Acker, 1993) and the Parent-Child Relationship Inventory (PCR1; Gerard, 1994).

Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire. The Parent-Child Relationship

8/13/2019 Prq

37/126

26Questionnaire (PCRQ; Furman & Giberson, 1995) assesses mothers and children'sperceptions of their relationship quality. The short version con sists of 40 items (seeAppendix I), such as, "How m uch do you and your Mom do nice things for each oth er? "Items are answered on a5-pointLikert scale(1= hardly at all to 5 = extremely m uch ; seeAppendix J for child visual aid for answering). For the purpose of clarity, minor changeswere mad e to the response category, specifically the fifth point on the Likert scale w asmodified from 'extremely m uc h' to 'a lot' and the general wording of each statement wasalso modified from 'your parent' to 'your Mom'.

The items targeted 19 qualities of the parent-child relationship (e.g., affection).Furman and Giberson (1995) indicate that internal consistencies of these subscales wereacceptable{alphas= .83 to .84 for children 's reports;alphas= .84 to .85 for m oth ers'reports). Five factors w ere derived from the moth er's responses, including w armth,personal relationship/closeness, disciplinary warmth, power assertion, andpossessiveness. Four factors were derived from child responses including, warmth,egalitarian closeness, power assertion, and protectiveness. The egalitarian factor includestwo parent subscales, (a) personal relationship and (b) disciplinary warmth.

Behavior Assessm ent System for Children, Second Edition.The BehaviorAssessment System for Children (B ASC -2; Reynolds & K amphaus, 2004) is acomprehensive tool to assess a variety of problem behaviou rs, school prob lems, andadaptive skills (see Appendix K). It includes a child self-report form, as well as parentand teacher reports for preschool children, middle-childhood aged children, andadolescents. Only the parent report (for rating children 6-11 years old) was used due tothe population under investigation. Items (total = 160) are rated for how frequently each

8/13/2019 Prq

38/126

27behaviour is perceived to occur on a four cho ice response (N = neve r, S = som etimes, O= often, A = almost always). Five scales are rated: externalizing problem s, internalizingproblem s, school problems, other problems, and adaptive skills. However, for thepurposes of this study, only three ofthe five subscales were used for analyses (i.e.,externalizing problems, internalizing problem s, and adaptive skills). The externalizingproblems scale is based on ratings of conduct problems (e.g., lies to get out of trouble),hyperactivity (e.g., can 't w ait to tak e a turn), and aggression (e.g., seeks reveng e onothers). The internalizing problems scale is a co mposite of ratings of anxiety (e.g.,worries about making m istakes), depression (e.g., seems lonely), and som atization (e.g.,complains of being sick when n othing is wro ng). Lastly, the adaptive scale includes item son activities of daily living (e.g., acts in a safe manner), adaptability (e.g., adjusts well tochanges in family plans), functional communication (e.g., is able to describe feelingsaccurately), social skills (e.g., offers help), and leadership (e.g., gives good suggestionsfor solving problems).

Internal consistency reliability estimates, according to Merrell (2003), areimpressive as score coefficients are in the .80 to .90 range . Further, test-retest reliab ilityhas been calculated as typically ranging from .70 to .80 (Merrell, 2003).

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.The Marlowe-Crowne SocialDesirability Scale (MC -SD; Strahan & G erbasi, 1972) was administered to the mother inorder to control for social desirability bias in their responses (see Appendix L). The MC-SD was developed to measure any bias an individual m ay have towards affirming socialnorm s. This scale was given to participants in this study in order to ev aluate how mucheach individual was likely to answer questions in a more socially favourable direction. It

8/13/2019 Prq

39/126

28consists of 15statements in which participants were asked to answer as true or false. Forexample, one item is, "I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake". Accordingto Strahan and Gerbasi (1972), reliability of the scale is supported by "the finding offairly similar coefficients across samples diverse in subject composition and conditions ofquestionnaire adm inistration" (p. 192).

8/13/2019 Prq

40/126

29

ResultsPreliminary Analyses

Prior to testing the hy potheses, data were checked for accuracy of inputting, andanalyses were conducted to check for ou tliers, skewness, and kurtosis. These preliminarytests indicated that the data were normally distributed, with the exception of one outlierwith a high score on the BA SC-2 scale, which w as controlled for by rem oving theparticipant's scores for analyses involving this scale. To test for social desirability bias, aPearson correlation was conducted between th e Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability(MCSD) scale and all the variables in the dataset. There was only one significantassociation with authoritative parenting,r=. 37 ,p

8/13/2019 Prq

41/126

which the ch ild's rating of the level of power in the personal domain as well as thechild 's rating of the balance of power in personal and prudential dom ains were po sitivelycorrelated with the ch ild's ag e. In subsequent analyses involving these variables, age wasfirst controlled for, however this did not change the degree or direction of the results,therefore analyses are reported without age controlled.

Gendereffects.Pearson correlations analyzed the effect of gender on all variablesin the data set. Findings, presented in Table 3, indicated a relationship between genderand children's adaptive skills as rated by the mother, as well as with children andmothers' reports of relationship quality. T-tests show that, according to mothers, girlswere reported as having better adaptive skills, /(39) = -2 .74 ,p

8/13/2019 Prq

42/126

31hypotheses w ere supported. Results revealed a main effect o f domain,F(2,38) = 76.52,p.05.Hypothesis 2: Power and Parenting Style

Pearson correlations were used to test the hypothesis that authoritative p arentswill allocate a more balanced amount of p ower in all domains (see Table 5). Thecorrelations between authoritative parenting style and power balance lead tononsignificant results in all domains.

To test the hypothesis that authoritarian parents would rate themselves as havingmore power than children in all domains, a series of Pearson correlations were conducted.Specifically, correlations between authoritarian parenting style and level of powerassigned by each actor (mother and child) were conducted. In the personal domain, agreater authoritarian parenting style was related to children's appraisal of power towardsthe mother. In the conventional d omain, the m ore authoritarian the parenting style, themore the child rated the m other as having more pow er. In the prudential d omain, as th e

8/13/2019 Prq

43/126

32parenting style was reported to be more authoritarian, children rated their mother ashaving m ore power and mothers also rated them selves as having more power.

To ex amine the hyp othesis that permissive parents would allocate mo re pow er totheir child in all domains, Pearson correlations revealed that only in the prudentialdomain, the m ore permissive the parenting, the more children rated them selves as hav ingmo re power than their mothers.Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of Power and Relationship Quality

Pearson correlations were conducted to determine the level of power agreementbetween raters (mothers and children). These results showed a significant positivecorrelation between m others and c hildren 's ratings of power in the prudential dom ain(r =.38,p

8/13/2019 Prq

44/126

33

these analyses revealed a significant association between agreement of reported levels ofpower between actors in the personal domain and children's rating of relationship quality.Specifically, the higher the agreement between m others and children's ratings of pow erin the personal domain, the greater the child rated the dyads' relationship quality. Theremaining regression analyses w ere nonsignificant.Hypothesis 4: Power and Child Behaviour Outcomes

In order to analyze the hypotheses with regard to power and child outcom esacross domains, Pearson correlations were conducted (see Table 7). Findings w erenonsignificant. Specifically, the expectation that w hen the balance of power w as eitherweighted towards the parent (authoritarian parenting) or the child (permissive parenting),mothers would report children as having more externalizing behaviours w as notsupported. Also, the hypothes is stating that when the balance of pow er was more equallyweighted, children will be rated as better adjusted was not supported.

To investigate further, an additional Pearson correlation was conducted betweenparenting style and child outcome measures (see Table 8). Results indicated a significantassociation between authoritative parenting and adaptive skills and authoritarianparenting and internalizing behaviours.Hypothesis 5: Types of Power byActor

A 2(actor) X 6 (type of power) within-subject ANOV A w as performed (seeTable 9) to assess wh ether mothers used more coercive, reward, information, andnegotiation power than children to achieve their goals. Also, this analysis revealedwhether both mothers and children used an equal amount of legitimate power andwhether children used more sneaky power than parents to achieve their goals.

8/13/2019 Prq

45/126

34

Results indicated a main effect of power,F{\, 35) = 73.31,/?

8/13/2019 Prq

46/126

35

Figure J. Domain by Actor ANOVA Interaction

Personal

actor- - C h i l d Parent

ConventionalD o m a i n

Prudential

8/13/2019 Prq

47/126

Figure 2.Ty pe o f Pow erbyActor AN OV A Interac t ion

36

L>

Oeuo

0.6 H

0.5-

0.4-

0.3-

0.2 H

0 . H

o.oH

actor--Child Parent

~\ 1 1 1 1 rCoerc ive Reward Legit imate Information Negotiat ion Sneaky

TypeofPower

8/13/2019 Prq

48/126

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for Child and Parent Mea sures

Power DomainPersonalConventionalPrudential

Balance of PowerPersonalConventionalPrudential

Power TypeCoerciveRewardLegitimateInformationNegotiationSneaky

RelationshipQuality

MotherM(SD)

2.37 (.87)4.23 (.59)3.48 (.68)

1.71 (.38)1.59 (.38)1.98 (.52)

,25 (.15).10 (.09).37 (.16).57 (.21).29 (.16).01 (.03)8.5 (.71)

N404040

404040

40404040404041

ChildM(SD)

2.78 (.89)4.05 (.62)3.69 (.78)

1.88 (.37)1.66 (.44)1.77 (.43)

.03 (.07)

.07 (.12)

.46 (.19)

.36 (.25)

.25 (.19)

.19 (.16)8.4 (.85)

N414141

414141

41414141414141

Note. Possible range of scores for Power D omain is 1 to 5, Balance of Power is 1 to 3,Typ e of Power 0 to 1, and R elationship Q uality is1 to 10.

8/13/2019 Prq

49/126

Table 2Descriptive Statistics for Mother Measu res

Parenting Style M (SD) NAuthoritarian 28.39 (5.82) 41Authoritative 42.27 (4.02) 41Permissive 23.78 (5.33) 41

BASC ScoresExternalizing 48.78 (7.44) 41behaviorInternalizing 49.6 1(1 1.04 ) 41behaviorAdaptive Skills 50.46 (6.67) 41

Social Desirability 8.32 (3.34) ~ 4 1Social DesirabilityNote.Possible range of scores for Parenting Style is 10 to 50. BASC120,and Social Desirability is 0 to 15.

8/13/2019 Prq

50/126

Table 3Age and Gender Effects

Gender EffectsBASC Scores Child Mother

Age EffectsChild Mother

Externalizing behaviorInternalizing behaviorAdaptive

Parenting Style

-.14.06.41**

-.05

.08

.11

AuthoritarianAuthoritativePermissive

Relationship Quality .50 * *

.01

.26

.28.35* .02

-.25-.12

.12

.03Power Level

PersonalConventionalPrudential

Balance of Power

.10.18.11

-.10.11-.06

.39"

.10

.15

.09-.16-.01

PersonalConventionalPrudential

-.09.04.18

-.81.08.13

.50**.23.40* *

-.12.10.24

Note.This table includes ratings by the child and mother correlated with age andgender of the child.

8/13/2019 Prq

51/126

40

Table 4Analysis of Variance of Dom ain of Conflict

Source df F rf_ PDom ain (D) 2 4.23 .18 .02Acto r (A) 1 46.82 .55 .00D x A 2 78 .85 .81 .00

*p

8/13/2019 Prq

52/126

41Table 5Associations between Power and Parenting Style

Parenting stylePow er Level Authoritarian Authoritative Permissive

Child Mother Child Mother Child MotherPersonal .35 * .13 .15 .01 -.28 -.19ConventionalPrudential

.32*

.40*.10.41**

.04

.08.23.16

-.18-.46**

-.09-.18

Balance of PowerPersonalConventionalPrudential

.06-.16.10

.07-.03-.05

-.27-.02-.07

-.06-.22-.11

-.14.17.23

-.07.04.06

*p

8/13/2019 Prq

53/126

Te6

AoaobwRnoRaohpQuyaAmeoPwRn

Se1

MohsRnof

Pwn=40)

CdsRnof

Pwn=41)

Se2

MohsRnx

CdsRn

Po

Moh

R2=

-08

0.1 AR

2 - -0

5.0 s -0

8.09

=07 s -0

5

Cd

R2=

-06

-04 AR

2 - .3

7*

.0 s -0

6-04

=1 s .33

C

o

Moh

R2=

.14

-02

AR2-

.31

.02 s .14

-02

=09 s .30

Cd

R2 =

.12

-19 AR

2.10

.05 s .12

-19

=01 s .10

Pua

Moh R2 =

.27

-07 AR

2-12

.07 s .25

-07

=01

s-12

Cd

R2=06

P

s

.23

.21

-2

-18

AR2 =05

P

s

-23

-23

*/?