A Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire

Author(s): Anne Roe and Marvin Siegelman

Source: Child Development, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jun., 1963), pp. 355-369
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126732 .
Accessed: 21/01/2015 07:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A PARENT-CHILDRELATIONSQUESTIONNAIRE'

ANNEROE*
HarvardUniversity

and MARVINSIEGELMAN
City Collegeof New York

The Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR) was devised to obtain

a measure of the characteristic behavior of parents towards their young
children, as experienced by the child. It has been used in studies of late
adolescents and of adults who have filled it out with reference to their own
childhood. A form with slightly modified wording is now in use with chil-
dren. There are separate questionnaires for Father and Mother.
There are Io subtests, six of 15 items each, for behavior characterized
as Loving, Protecting, Demanding, Rejecting, Neglecting, and Casual, and
four of Io items each for Symbolic-Love Reward, Direct-Object Reward,
Symbolic-Love Punishment, and Direct-Object Punishment. The first six
of these categories fit a theoretical model suggested by Roe (4) and were
conceived as being related in a circular continuum as shown in Figure I.
* GraduateSchool of Education, Harvard
University, 17 Sumner Road, Cambridge 28,
Massachusetts.
1 This questionnairewas developed for use in a study of the origin of interests, which
is supportedby a researchgrant from the National Instituteof Mental Health.
ChildDevelpm., x963, 34, 355-369. ? SocietyforResearchin ChildDevelopment,Inc., 1963.

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILD DEVELOPMENT

NEGLECTING CASUAL

AVOIDANCE ACCEPTANCE

COLD WARM LOVING

REJECTING

EMOTIONAL CONCENTRATION ON
THE CHILD

DEMANDING PROTECTING

FIGURE1-Hypothetical model of the realm of parent attitudes.This is the model

originallysuggested.The intermediatecategories(avoidance,acceptance,emo-
tional concentration)have now been dropped.

The descriptions in Table I suggest the nature of these items. The categories
used for Reward and Punishment follow the work of Sears, Maccoby, and
Levin (1i). No prediction was made regarding the relation of the Reward
and Punishment scales to the categories in the Roe model.
A large number of items were culled or adapted from the literature and
others were constructed to fit the io categories. These were submitted to
colleagues2 with descriptions of the categories. Each one independently as-
signed each item to a category or discarded it. All of the items included in
the questionnaire were assigned to the same category by all of the judges,
and the same items were originally used for both parents. The items refer to
2 Isidore Chein, BarbaraDohrenwend,
Murray Horowitz, and Claire Selltiz, at New
York Universitywhere the study was begun. Their assistanceis gratefully acknowledged.
356

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROE and MARVIN SIEGELMAN

TABLE I
DESCRIPTIONOF CATEGORIES

Protective-This category includes parents who give the child's interests first priority.
They are very indulgent, provide special privileges, are demonstrativelyaffectionate,may
be gushing. They select friends carefully, but will rarely let him visit other homes without
them. They protect him from other children, from experiencesin which he may suffer dis-
appointment or discomfort or injury. They are highly intrusive and expect to know all
about what he is thinking and experiencing.They reward dependency.
Demanding-Parents in this group set up high standardsof accomplishmentin particu-
lar areas, manners, school, etc. They impose strict regulations and demand unquestioning
obedience to them, and they do not make exceptions. They expect the child to be busy at
all times at some useful activity. They have high punitiveness.They restrictfriendshipsin
accord with these standards.They do not try to find out what a child is thinking or feel-
ing, they tell him what to think or feel.
Rejecting-Parents in this group follow the extremer patternsof the preceding group,
but this becomes rejectingwhen their attitude is a rejectionof the childishnessof the child.
They may also reject him as an individual. They are cold and hostile, derogate him and
make fun of him and his inadequaciesand problems.They may frequently leave him alone
and often will not permit other children in the house. They have no regard for the child's
point of view. The regulationsthey establishare not for the sake of training the child, but
for protecting the parent from his intrusions.
Neglecting-These parentspay little attention to the child, giving him a minimum of
physical care and no affection. They forget promises made to him, forget things for him.
They are cold, but are not derogatorynor hostile. They leave him alone, but do not go out
of their way to avoid him.
Casual-These parentspay more attention to the child and are mildly affectionatewhen
they do. They will be responsiveto him if they are not busy about something else. They do
not think about him or plan for him very much, but take him as a part of the general situ-
ation. They don't worry much about him and make little definite effort to train him. They
are easygoing, have few rules, and do not make much effort to enforce those they have.

Loving-These parentsgive the child warm and loving attention. They try to help him
with projects that are important to him, but they are not intrusive. They are more likely
to reason with the child than to punish him, but they will punish him. They give praise,
but not indiscriminatingly.They try specificallyto help him through problems in the way
best for him. The child feels able to confide in them and to ask them for help. They invite
his friends to the house and try to make things attractivefor them. They encourage inde-
pendence and are willing to let him take chances in order to grow towards it. Distinction
between Loving and Casual categoriescan be difficult.A basic differentiatingfactor is the
amount of thought given to the child's problems.
Symbolic-Love Reward-The parents using this kind of reward praise their children
for approved behavior,give them special attention, and are affectionatelydemonstrative.

Direct-ObjectReward-These include tangible rewards such as gifts of money or toys,

special trips, or relief from chores.
Symbolic-Love Punishment-Such punishments include shaming the child before
others, isolating him, and withdrawing love.
Direct-Object Punishment-These include physical punishment, taking away play-
things, reducing allowance, denying promised trips, and so on.

357

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILDDEVELOPMENT
specificbehaviors,not to attitudes,in orderto reducesome of the difficulties
derivingfrom the use of retrospectivedata.In the directionsand the example
given below, the scoring system is indicated.
... Readeachstatementcarefullyand thinkhow well it describeshow your
motheractedwhile you were growingup. Think especiallyaboutthe time
beforeyou were 12. Beforeeach statementthereare four lines. These are
labeledVeryTrue;Tendedto be True;Tendedto be Untrue;VeryUntrue.
Put an X on the line thatindicateshow trueyou thinkeachstatementwas
of yourmother.If noneof thesedescriptionsseemsquiteright,you mayput
the X betweentwoof thelines.
Tended Tended
Very to be to be Very
True True Untrue Untrue
My mother
1. objectedwhen
-- I was late
5 4 3 2 I (score) formeals.

The first versionwas given to a casualsampleof 26 male NYU students

as part of a pilot study for a researchproject.Computationof reliabilities
and item analysisled to changesin x2 items in both scalesand in four addi-
tional itemsfor Mothersand five for Fathers.Some items in both Protecting
and Casualscaleswere more effectivefor one parentthan for the other. In
the presentforms, there are now ix items which are differentfor the two
parents.
These revised forms have now been used with other college students
and with male and female adultsas partof a studyof the origin of interests,

TABLE 2

RELIABILITIES(TRYON)* FOR THE HARVARD SAMPLE

Father Mother

Loving ................................ .896 .872

Protecting .............................. .780 .761
Demanding ............................. .826 .836
Rejecting ............................. .850 .759
Neglecting .............................. .868 .745
Casual ................................. .81o .800o
Symbolic-LoveReward .................... .757 .708
Direct-ObjectReward .................... .783 .798
Symbolic-LovePunishment ................ .687 .759
Direct-ObjectPunishment ................. .788 .769
* The formulais R = [n/(n - -
I)] (I Sij/Sx2) where Si2 = sum of variancesof
each item, and Sx2 = total variance.
358

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROE and MARVIN SIEGELMAN
with the resultsreportedbelow. The college sample included 142 Harvard
seniors, selectedsequentially,except as noted, from alphabeticlists of stu-
dents in differentfields of academicconcentration.Studentswhose parents
were known to be dead or divorcedwere not included,and the names were
chosenso thatnot morethan 20 percent camefromprivateschools(Harvard
over-all percentage is The mean age was 21, with a range from r9
50).3
to 22. Subtestreliabilitiesfor this sampleare given in Table 2.

TABLE 3
MEANSAND STANDARDDEVIATIONS
FORPCRSUBTESTS

HARVARD ADULT
MALE ADULTFEMALE
N= 142 N= 44 N= 44
Subtest Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Fathers
Loving ................... 56.0 Io.4 51.3 12.5 58.8 Io.8
Protecting ................ 39.0 8.7 39.7 9.6 43-4 9.3
Demanding............... 41.6 9.7 40.8 II.9 36.7 11.5
Rejecting ................. 27.0 7.8 30.6 8.5 26.1 9.5
Neglecting ............... 29.1 9.1 30o.1 9.5 29.2 10.2
Casual 47.8 8.8 45.3 11.2 47.1 12.0
...................
Symbolic-Love Reward ..... 32.9 6.o 32.1 7.7 32.6 7.3
Direct-Object Reward ...... 24.4 6.6 25.3 8.4 24.7 6.7
Symbolic-Love Punishment.. 23.7 5.7 24.7 8.o 23.8 6.7
Direct-Object Punishment... 22.0 6.7 22.7 7.4 2I.I 8.9
Mothers
Loving .................. 59.4 9.1 57.1 10o.4 57.o 12.7
Protecting ................ 42.6 8.8 42.I Io.8 42.3 8.8
Demanding ............... 38.4 9.6 41.2 9.9 42.1 9.1
Rejecting ................. 25.2 6.2 26.7 7-2 29.3 11.7
Neglecting ............... 23.8 5.8 25.8 7.1 26,6 8.3
Casual ................... 48.0 8.5 41.6 8.9 9.9
44.3
Symbolic-LoveReward ...... 35.5 5.6 35.5 6.3 33.6 7.8
Direct-ObjectReward ....... 25.5 7.2 27.7 5.8 24.4 7.9
Symbolic-Love Punishment . 25.4 6.7 26.8 7.2 26.7 6.4
Direct-Object Punishment 21.4 6.5 23.4 6.6 22.6 8.3
...

Ages of Subjects ........ 21.0 1.2 33.8 6.3 35.6 8.2

Eachadult sampleincluded22 engineersand 22 socialworkers.The men

averaged34 yearsand the women, 36. The two subsamplesof each sex did
not differ importantlyon the PCR subtests.These specializedgroups were
in the studywas voluntaryandstudentswerepaidfor theirtime.Accep-
3 Participation
tanceratewas 43 percent.Exceptthatacceptances werelowestamongsciencemajors,we
wereunableto detectany consistentbiases.
359

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILDDEVELOPMENT
selectedfor their appropriatenessto the major study. The samplesare not
consideredrepresentativeof adults of either sex in general,but since they
are the only adult groups which have been given this questionnairethe
resultsare includedhere.
PCR meansand standarddeviationsfor the Harvardand the two adult
samplesare given in Table 3 for each parent.For the two male groups,only
three of the 20 differencesin means are significant: Loving and Rejecting
for Father and Casual for Mother.The two adult groups also have only
three significantdifferences: Loving and Rejectingfor Father and Direct-
Object Rewardfor Mother.Although these are too few to be reliable,the
consistencysuggeststhat this adult male groupmay have had less loving and
more rejectingfathers than the other two, yet the general picture is very
similarfor all of the groups.

TABLE 4

INTERPARENT CORRELATIONS

PCRSubtests Harvard Adult Males Adult Females

Loving ....................... .495 .388 .110

Protecting ..................... .568 .520 .425
Demanding ................... .398 .149 -.o64
Rejecting .................... ...569 -550 .256
Neglecting .................... .546 .580 .3o10
Casual ................... .... .425 .347 .446
Symbolic-LoveReward .......... .550 .570 .394
Direct-ObjectReward .677 .422 .282
...........
Symbolic-LovePunishment ....... .530 .550 .383
Direct-ObjectPunishment ........ .639 .445 .513
Average ................ .540 .452 .306

Factor LR ..................... .615 .547 .376

Factor CD ..................... .462 .158 .312
Factor O ...................... .597 .545 .317

There are differencesin the interparentcorrelationsfor the groups,how-

ever, as shown in Table 4. These tend to run somewhathigher for the Har-
vardsample.There could quite reasonablybe more halo effectin this group.
Whetherthe markedlylower correlationsfor the women may be interpreted
to mean that parentsdiffer more in treatmentof daughtersthan of sons or
that the women discriminatemore sharplybetween their parentsthan the
men do is, of course,indeterminableon these data.
A factor analysiswas done for each group, using the principal-compo-
nents methodand subsequentvarimaxrotation.Three factorswere extracted
360

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROEand MARVINSIEGELMAN
for each group. The loadings are given in Table 5. The factorialpicture
for the three groupsis closely similar.
Table 6 summarizesresultsof a numberof other studiesof parent-child
relationsand indicatestheir relevanceto the resultswith the PCR. The first

TABLE 5
ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

FATHERS MOTHERS
Adult Adult Adult Adult
Harvard Male Female Harvard Male Female

FactorLR
Loving .................. .804 .741 .806 .769 .791 .752
Protecting ............... .151 .043 .162 -.035 .003 .075
Demanding .............. -.179 -.221 --.314 -.202 -.572 -.331
Rejecting ................ -.772 -.743 --.796 --.755 -.826 -.700
Neglecting ............... -.799 -.8Io -.826 --.780 -.754 --.844
Casual .................. -.1I53 --.192 .017 .070 .08i .064
Symbolic-Love Reward ...... 348 .708 .519 .319 .588 .717
Direct-Object Reward ....... -.023 .272 -.027 .04I .159 .o81
Symbolic-Love Punishment .-. .264 -.409 -.518 -.424 --.557 --.496
Direct-Object Punishment ... -.276 -.196 -.296 -.251 -.347 -.18o

FactorCD
Loving ...................195 -349 .194 .252 .206 .307
Protecting ............... .005 -.156 .o010o -.126 -.105 .017
Demanding .............. -.663 -.755 -.776 -.745 -.488 -.694
Rejecting ................ -.306 -.419 -.432 --.332 -.241 -.429
Neglecting ............... .004 -.049 -.222 .017 -.053 -.111
Casual .................. .658 .716 .657 .722 .691 .694
Symbolic-Love Reward ...... 055 -.045 .048 -.092 -.023 .216
Direct-Object Reward ...... -.1oI .150 .120 -.076 .129 .017
Symbolic-LovePunishment .-.544 -.663 -.574 --.480 -.254 --.534
Direct-ObjectPunishment ... -.6to -.598 -.675 -.547 --.434 --.640
Factor 0
Loving .................. .209 .153 .122 -.019 .254 .38I
Protecting ............... .557 .556 .484 .594 .407 .217
Demanding .............. -.094 .027 -.014 .118 .041 --.150
Rejecting ................ -.184 -.038 -.048 -.o15 -.098 -.134
Neglecting ............... .044 -.129 -.096 --.137 -.327 -.093
Casual .................. .154 .075 .143 -.082 .062 .ir6
Symbolic-Love Reward ..... .281 .184 -375 .551 .442 .372
Direct-ObjectReward ....... ..154 .526 .580 .218 .58o .607
Symbolic-Love Punishment .. .171 .1oo .1o6 .139 .147 -.o2o
Direct-Object Punishment ... .i8 .078 -.145 .198 .169 .082

361

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILD DEVELOPMENT

TABLE6
COMPARISONOF FACTORS WITH FINDINGS OF OTHER STUDIES
PARTI---OBSERVATION
STUDIES

Similar
Descriptionof Study Findings Factors

Baldwin, Kalhorn, and Breese (1) 3 central syndromes:

Fels population. 125 children up
to 14 years. Ratings of 30 variables
of parent behavior made by visitors
following two-hour observations.
Data handled by syndrome analy-
sis.
Democracyin the home: justifica- CD
tion, democracy and clarity of pol-
icy; non-coerciveness and non-re-
strictiveness,etc.
Acceptance of the child: accept- LR
ance, rapport,effectiveness."Accept-
ance-rejection is the fundamental
dynamic."
Indulgence: protectiveness,solici- O
tousness, intensity of contact, etc.

Rogf (6) I. Concern for the child: child- O ?

Factor analysis of Fels data.
centeredness,acceptance, rapport,
etc.
2. Democraticguidance: democ- L (R)?
racy, justification of policy, readi-
ness of explanation,noncoerciveness.
3. Permissiveness:mild penalties, C (D)?
lax enforcement,nonrestrictiveness.
4. Parent-child harmony: non- L (R)?
disciplinaryfriction, nondiscord,
nonreadinessof criticism.
5. Sociability adjustment of par-
ents: social family, well-adjusted
home, understanding.
6. Activeness of home: active
home, well-managed household.
7. Nonreadiness of suggestion:
nonreadinessof suggestion or criti-
cism, unsociability.

Schaefer,Bell, and Bayley (9) Two bipolar dimensions, orthog-

56 mothers rated on 32 behavior onal:
variables from notes made by ob- Autonomy vs. Control CD
servers during o10 to 20 testing ses- Love vs. Hostility LR
sions of children, I month to 3 years.
I8 scales arranged in circumplex
order, centroidfactor analysis.

PART II-INTERVIEW STUDIES

Sewell, Mussen, and Harris (12) i. Feeding permissiveness No clear

Interview ratings of 38 child 2. Toilet training permissiveness similarities
trainingpractices.I62 families with 3. Noninsistence to our
5- and 6-year-old children. 4. Casualtreatment factors.
5. Parent-childinteraction
6. Nonpunitive treatment
7. Promotion of independence

(continued on next page)

362

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROE and MARVIN SIEGELMAN

TARLE6 (continued)
COMPARISONOF FACTORS WITH FINDINGS OF OTHER STUDIES
PART II-INTERVIEW STUDIES (continued)

Similar
Descriptionof Study Findings Factors

Schaefer,Bell, and Bayley (9) Rotated reference axes same, or-

Interviews with 34 mothers of dering not as clear as for data from
children 9 to 14 years. observations.
Treatment as above. Autonomy vs. Control CD
Love vs. Hostility LR

Milton (3) A. Strictness or nonpermissive- (C) D

Interviews of 375 suburban NE
mothers of children 5 and 6 years.
44 scales.
Centroidfactor analysiswith rota-
tion to simple structure.
(Data of Sears, Maccoby, and
Levin [ i])
ness of parentalbehavior
B. General family interactionor
adjustment
C. Warmth of mother-child re- L (R)
lationship
D. Responsible child-training
orientation
E. Attitudes towards aggressive-
ness and punitiveness
(Factors A and C independent.
FactorsF and G poorly defined.)

PART III-REPORTS OF PARENT BEHAVIOR AS SEEN BY THE CHILD

Slater (i3) (unpublished) I. Emotional supportivenessand LR

Retrospective. 138 male college warmth
freshmen: Parental Role Patterns II. Inhibitory demands and disci- CD
Questionnaire.56 items reduced by pline
cluster analysis to 2 independent
scales.

Schutz (io) POP administered to 150 college

All interpersonal behavior sub- students giving intercorrelationsof
sumed under three needs: inclu- Warmth-discipline ...... .09
sion, control, and affection. Scales Warmth-attention ...... .6I
constructedto measure these called Discipline-attention ..... .08
FIRO-B. Parent-child interactions Descriptionsof variables:
measured by analogous scale called Inclusion (Attention) O
Attention, Discipline, and Warmth Control (Discipline) CD
in Perception of Parents instru- Affection (Warmth) LR
ment (POP).

Schaefer (8) (unpublished) For each parent:

Current. 26 scales of io items A. Nurturance LR
each (designed to measure compo- B. Psychologicalcontrol
nents of the factors of nurturance C. Physical control Combined
and control in parent behavior), D. Extreme autonomy and in CD
parallel forms for each parent. 85 lax discipline
normal and 8I delinquent boys; Mothersonly:
8o normal girls. E. Suppressionof aggression
Principal components analysis
with varimax rotation.

363

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILD DEVELOPMENT
three studies in the table are based on ratings derived from observation of
parents with their children; the next three are based on ratings made from
interviews with mothers; and the last group are studies in which the report
comes from the child, either about how his parents are behaving now or
how he remembers that they behaved when he was young.
Our first factor, LR for Loving-Rejecting, is clearly bipolar. The heaviest
positive loadings are for Loving and Symbolic-Love Reward; highest nega-
tive loadings on Neglecting and Rejecting. Loadings for seven of the scales
are extremely close for all three groups. There are some discrepancies among
the groups in loadings for the two Reward and for the Symbolic-Love Pun-
ishment scales, but these do not affect interpretation of the factor. For all
our groups, for Fathers, this factor accounts for the greatest percentage of
the variance (Table 7), but it is secondary for the Mothers of the students.

TABLE 7
PERCENTAGEOF THE VARIANCE FOR DIFFERENT FACTORS

LR CD O
Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers

Harvard ................... 51 27 24 51 13 9
Adult Males ................ 57 63 24 7 9 17
Adult Females .............. 62 67 15 15 10 7

With the exception of the Sewell, Mussen, and Harris study (12), all of
those noted in Table 6, whatever the source of the data, report a cluster or
factor which is clearly one of affection and warmth, as contrasted with cold-
ness and rejection. This factor usually appears as a bipolar one, but some-
times as only one or the other end of the scale. There seems no doubt that
our factor LR is essentially the same.
Our second factor is CD, for Casual-Demanding. There are no serious
discrepancies in loadings for any of the subtests for all three groups. High
positive loadings are all on the Casual scale; high negative ones on De-
manding and the two Punishment scales. For adult males this factor accounts
for only 7 per cent of the variance for Mothers, although it is the second
most important for Fathers. Factor CD is also closely similar to factors or
clusters reported in other studies. Again the relation to the Sewell, Mussen,
and Harris study (12) is the least clear, but except for their factor 5, Parent-
child interaction, all of their factors relate to permissiveness and control in
different aspects of child life. A similar situation exists with regard to the last
Schaefer (8) study where Factors B, C, and D all relate to control. As with
Factor LR, it is not clear to what extent the analogous factors in other
studies are completely bipolar, although the Autonomous-Control factor re-
ported by Schaefer is clearly so.
364

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROEand MARVINSIEGELMAN
Our third factoris named O for overt concernfor the child. Its interpre-
tation is somewhat less obvious but it appearsto representovert, obvious
expressionof interestin the child which may take the form of tangible,con-
crete rewards,or protectiveregulations,but is not necessarilyaffectionate.
There are some discrepanciesin loadingsfor the studentand adult groups,
and it appears to be a unipolar factor. Although both Neglecting and
Rejectinggenerallyload negatively,the loadingsare extremelysmall except
in one instance.Highest loadingsare either on Protectingor Direct-Object
Reward,with Symbolic-LoveRewardalso contributingpositively,especially
for Mothers.Exceptfor Mothersof the adult males, it carriesthe least vari-
ance of any of the factors.This factoror a similarone appearsin relatively
few of the otherstudies.It seems similarto the clusterreportedby Baldwin,
Kalhorn,and Breese(I), calledIndulgence,and it may be the sameas Roff's

oC

iL

.001 x S-LR
oN
xN xP L
R
D-OR x o D-OR
01
0 0o S-LR

x R .

o S-LP
o D-OP
S-LPx
D-OP x xD

oD

FIGURE
2-Plot for factors LR and CD, Harvard sample.
x Father
o Mothers
365

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILDDEVELOPMENT
(6) factorI, Concernfor the child.The factorcalledAttentionby Schutz
is
(Io) certainlyvery closelysimilar.
Schaefer(7) has notedthat manytheoretical and empiricalstudiesof
maternal andchildbehavior canbeinterpreted in a generalconceptual model
of circumplex order.The schemereportedby him is similarto thatshown
in Figurei. His schemeis determined bytwodimensions, Love-Hostility and
Autonomy-Control, whichareindependent andorthogonal. It is noteworthy
thatthe otherstudiessummarized in Table6 whichhaveincludedbothof
thesefactorsor similarones have also foundthis samerelationbetween
them.Figure2 givesthe plotfor the Harvardsamplefor FactorsLR and
CD. This two-dimensional model,however,is not adequateto portraythe
threedimensions indicatedby our factoranalysis.Note the positionin Fig-
ure2 of the two Rewardandthe Protecting Scaleswhichloadon the third
factor.FactorO carriedrelatively littleof thevariancein oursamples,hence
a two-dimensional modelwithaxesfornurturance andcontrol,asconstructed
by Schaefer, canbe saidto coverthe maindomainof parent-child relations.
BothfactorsLR andO havesignificant correlations with measures of pres-
ent orientation towardspersonsfor all samples,with thosewhoseparents
weremorelovingandmoreattentivehavinghigherinterestin personsnow.
FactorCD hasno suchrelations.
In our furtherstudiesof the Harvardand adultgroupswe are using
factorscores,basedon coefficients computedseparatelyfor each group,
insteadof scoreson the separatesubtests.The coefficients for the Harvard
are
sample given in Table 8. These are applied to standard scores.Factor
scoreshavethe advantageof condensingthe information obtainablefrom
the PCRintothreemeasuresinsteadof Io, butof coursesomeinformation
is lost in the process.If a moredifferentiated description is desired,scores
on the io scalesmaybe usedseparately.

TABLE 8
FACTOR SCORE COEFFICIENTS,HARVARD SAMPLE

FATHERS MOTHERS
LR CD 0 LR CD 0

Loving ..................... +-.35 +-.9 +-34 -.03 -.o8

--.02
Protecting ................... -.03 +.43 -.05 +.06 +.43
--.02
Demanding .................. +.04 -.31 -.05o +.o07 -.42 -.04
Rejecting .................... -.31 -.0Io -.14 -.33 -.05 +.00
Neglecting .................. +.5 +- .23 -.36 +.17 -.05
Casual ...................... --.35 +.35 +.16 +.37 +.o8
--.15 -.1I
Symbolic-LoveReward ......... +.o4 -.02 +.16 +.o6 +.o1 +.40
Direct-Object Reward .......... --.o01 -.03 +.o9 +.oo +.oo +.Io
Symbolic-Love Punishment ..... -.03 -.21 +.20 -.10 +.07
--.12
Direct-Object Punishment ...... - .02 -.27 +.17 -.o1 --.I6 +.08

366

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROEand MARVINSIEGELMAN
The adult samplesare too small to provideuseful subsamples,but data
from the student sample have been examinedfor relationsbetween factor
scoresand religiousbackground(Mother'sreligion), socioeconomicposition
of family, and birth-orderof subject.
Comparisonson religiousbackgroundare confinedto the Jewish (N =
49) and Protestant(N = 79) groups.No significantdifferenceswere found
for factorsLR and CD for either parent,but factorO for both parentswas
significantlyhigherfor those with Jewishbackgrounds.That is, Overtatten-
tion to the children was more characteristicof both parentsin the Jewish
group. Socioeconomiclevel of parentsdid not differ with religion.

TABLE 9
SOCIOECONOMICBACKGROUND AND PCR FACTOR SCORES,
HARVARD SAMPLE

High- SOCIOECONOMICBACKGROUND -----Low p

1 &2 3 4 5 6 for Analyses
N=37 N=22 N=44 N= I5 of Variance
N=•14
Fathers
LR ............ +.13 + .33 -.09 -.32 - .48 .o5-.o25
CD ............ -.07 -.35 +.15 +.12 +.36 .zo-.o5
O ............. +.02 +.12 -.05 -.02 -.16 > .Io
Mothers
LR ............ +.o6 +.22 +.13 -.48 -.55 < .005
CD ......... -.o5 -.26 +.15 +.22 +.05 > .Ix
O ............. --.12 -.14 +.19 -.05 +.09o > .o

Neither factor 0 nor factor CD varies with socioeconomicgroup, but

factorLR does vary consistentlywith this rating.The socioeconomicgroups
are defined,as shownin Table 9, in termsof Father'soccupationand income
during the childhoodof the subject,as indicatedbrieflybelow:
x. Aristocracy:old Americanfamilies,usuallywealthy.
2. High statusoccupationor professionand well-to-do.
3. High status occupationor profession,but not well-to-do.
4. Low statusoccupationor profession.
5. White collar.
6. Skilledworkmen.
For both parentsit would seem that, the higher the socioeconomiclevel, the
more loving the parents. Sears, Maccoby,and Levin
(Ii) reported that
middle-classmothersin their study were somewhat warmer towards their
children than working-classmothers. Our working-classgroups are very
small,and we have a numberof subjectsfrom the upperclass,but the direc-
tion of the differencesis the same in our groups.Sears,Maccoby,and Levin
367

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CHILD DEVELOPMENT
also reported that their middle-class mothers were somewhat gentler and
more permissive. Their ratings of permissiveness are not very closely com-
parable to our Casual-Demanding factor, and in our sample we found the
upper class parents to be more demanding than the others, but the differ-
ences did not reach statistical significance.

TABLE IO
MEAN FACTOR SCORES FOR
COMPARISONOF OLDEST OR ONLY CHILDREN (N= 91) WITH CHILDREN
IN OTHER ORDINAL POSITIONS (N= 49)

Oldest Other p

Fathers
LR ............... - .087 +.255 .05-.02
CD ............... +.030 -.044 > .Io
O ............... -. 119 +.209 < .o01

Mothers
LR ............... +.013 -.044 > .Io
CD -.oi6 +.037 > .o10
............
O ............. +.015 -.074 > .Io

We also looked for possible relations between birth-order and factor

scores. These data are given in Table Io. There were in our sample x8 only
children, 73 oldest of two or more, and 49 in other positions in the family.
(A large percentage of oldest children appears to be common among college
samples.) The numbers are not large enough for very refined analysis, and
we report here only the comparison between those who were only or oldest
children and the others. It is clear that there are no significant differences
in factor scores for Mothers, but both LR and O show significant differ-
ences for Fathers, with the younger children receiving more affection and
more attention than the older ones, but no significant difference in discipline
is noted. Lasko (2) found that parent behavior toward the first child in
two child families was likely to be less warm and more coercive. Sears,
Maccoby, and Levin also reported that the oldest child was likely to
be more disciplined and(ii) to receive less
open expression of affection. Total
number of children in the family, their sex, and the difference in their ages
are factors which should be taken into account in any full discussion of
differences with ordinal position.
In summary, we have reported the development of a Parent-Child Re-
lations Questionnaire with subtests, to be administered to subjects regard-
ro
ing their own parents' behavior towards them when they were children.
There are separate forms for Fathers and Mothers, differing only slightly.
Three different samples have yielded the same three factors for each parent:
368

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ANNE ROEand MARVINSIEGELMAN
Loving-Rejecting(LR); Casual-Demanding(CD); and Overt Attention
(0). Similaritiesof these factorsto other studies reportedin the literature
have been noted.
Copies of the PCR are availablefrom the authorson request,and they
may be reproducedfor researchpurposes.The form for each parentis usually
completedin under20 minutes.

REFERENCES

I. BALDWIN,A. L., KALHORN,J., & BREESE, F. H. Patternsof parent behavior. Psychol.

Monogr., 1945, 58 (Whole No. 268).
2. LASKO,J. K. Parent behavior toward first and second children. Genet. Psychol.
Monogr., 1954, 49, 97-137-
3. MILTON, G. A. A factor analytic study of child-rearingbehaviors. Child Develpm.,
1958, 29, 381-393.
4. RoE, A. Early determinants of vocational choice. J. counsel. Psychol., 1957, 4,
212-217.
5. ROE,A., & SIEGELMAN, M. The origin of interests. In press.
6. ROFF, M. A factorialstudy of the Fels parent behavior scales. Child Develpm., 1949,
20, 29-44.
7. SCHAEFER, E. S. Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and for child
behavior. Paper read at the Conferenceon Researchon ParentalAttitudesand Child
Behavior,Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri,March 4-5, i960.
8. SCHAEFER, E. S. Multivariatemeasurementand factorial structureof children's per-
ception of maternal and paternal behavior. (Mimeo.)
9. SCHAEFER, E. S., BELL,R. Q., & BAYLEY, N. Development of a maternalbehavior re-
search instrument. J. genet. Psychol., 1959, 95, 83-104.
10. SCHUTZ, W. C. Firo: a three-dimensionaltheory of interpersonal behavior. Holt,
Rinehart,& Winston, i96o.
II. SEARS,R. R., MACCOBY, E. E., & LEVIN,H. Patternsof child rearing. Row, Peterson,
1957.
12. SEWELL, W. H., MUSSEN, P. H., & HARRIS, C. W. Relationshipsamong child-training
practices. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1955, 20, 137-148.
13. SLATER, P. Parental behavior and the personalityof the child. (Mimeo.)

369

This content downloaded from 128.120.194.195 on Wed, 21 Jan 2015 07:50:14 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions