Expert Answer :SOCW6310: Discussion 1: Group Research Designs (WK

  

Solved by verified expert:There are several different types of research designs. Each design is intended to respond to a particular type of research question. The type of research design depends on the type of research questions asked. For this Discussion, select one of the articles from the reading list and consider several classifications of group research designs. Use sub-headings for response based on instructions Post your response to the following: Describe which groups are compared in the research. Then, classify the research design as follows: By explaining whether the study is pre-experimental (cross-sectional, one-shot case study, and longitudinal), experimental (control group with pretest and posttest, posttest only, or four-group design), or quasi-experimental (comparing one group to itself at different times or comparing two different groups)By indicating what the researchers report about limitations of the studyBy explaining concerns you have regarding internal validity and the ability of the study to draw conclusions about causalityBy explaining any concerns you have about the generalizability of the study (external validity) and what aspect of the research design might limit generalizability Please use the resources 3 peer reviewed references to support your answer including resource provided. Reference Pinderhughes, E. E., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Zelli, A. (2000). Discipline responses: Influences of parents’ socioeconomic status, ethnicity, beliefs about parenting, stress, and cognitive-emotional processes. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(3), 380–400. Retrieved from Walden Library databases.
wk_5_article_for_discussion_pinderhughes.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Expert Answer :SOCW6310: Discussion 1: Group Research Designs (WK
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0893-3200/00/$5.00
DOI: 10.1037//0893-3200.14.3.380
Journal of Family Psychology
2000, Vol. 14, No. 3, 380-400
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Discipline Responses: Influences of Parents’
Socioeconomic Status, Ethnicity, Beliefs About
Parenting, Stress, and Cognitive-Emotional Processes
Ellen E. Pinderhughes
Kenneth A. Dodge
Vanderbilt University
Duke University
John E. Bates
Gregory S. Pettit
Indiana University
Auburn University
Arnaldo Zelli
Duke University
Direct and indirect precursors to parents’ harsh discipline responses to hypothetical
vignettes about child misbehavior were studied with data from 978 parents (59%
mothers; 82% European American and 16% African American) of 585
kindergarten-aged children. SEM analyses showed that parents’ beliefs about
spanking and child aggression and family stress mediated a negative relation
between socioeconomic status and discipline. In turn, perception of the child and
cognitive-emotional processes (hostile attributions, emotional upset, worry about
child’s future, available alternative disciplinary strategies, and available preventive
strategies) mediated the effect of stress on discipline. Similar relations between
ethnicity and discipline were found (African Americans reported harsher discipline), especially among low-income parents. Societally based experiences may
lead some parents to rely on accessible and coherent goals In their discipline,
whereas others are more reactive.
Parent discipline practices are integral in theories of children’s socialization. Parents’ use of
physical punishment with their child is of special interest. Numerous theories posit a role for
physical punishment in the development of antisocial behavior in children. According to one
set of theories, discipline responses are made in
the context of multiple influences ranging from
more distal factors such as culture, ethnicity,
and socioeconomic status (SES) to more proximal factors such as available social supports,
family structure, and family processes (Belsky,
1984; Luster & Okagaki, 1993; Rubin, Stewart,
& Chen, 1995). Indeed, SES and ethnic differences have been found consistently in
physical punishment (e.g., Deater-Deckard,
Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Department of Psychology
and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University; Kenneth A. Dodge and Arnaldo Zelli,
Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University;
John E. Bates, Department of Psychology, Indiana
University; Gregory S. Pettit, Department of Psychology, Auburn University,
This research was supported by National Institute
of Mental Health Grant MH42498, and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Grant HD30572 and a William T. Grant faculty
scholar award. We are grateful for the participation of
numerous parents, children, and teachers. Special
appreciation for assistance with this article is extended to Robert D. Laird, Robert Nix, and Laura
Griner Hill.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Department of
Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
37203. Electronic mail may be sent to ellen.e.
pinderhughes @ vanderbilt.edu.
380
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
SPECIAL ISSUE: SES, ETHNICITY, AND DISCIPLINE
Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Dodge, Pettit, &
Bates, 1994; Luster, Rhoades, & Haas, 1989;
McLoyd, 1990). More proximal influences such
as stress also have been linked to punitive parenting (e.g., McLoyd, Jayaratne, Ceballo, &
Borquez, 1994). Another set of theories suggests that the most proximal influence on discipline responses can be found in parents’
cognitive-emotional processes regarding situationally based child misbehavior (e.g., Dix,
1993). This study drew from these two sets of
literature to examine relations among contextual influences, cognitive-emotional processes,
and parents’ use of physical or harsh punishment. Consistent with Luster & Okagaki
(1993), who have suggested several patterns
through which contextual influences may affect
discipline responses, this study examined direct
and mediated relations among SES, ethnicity,
gender, stressors, parents’ perception of the
child, parenting beliefs, cognitive-emotional
processes, and the use of physical and harsh
punishment (hereafter referred to as discipline
responses). Two models of direct and mediated
relations between SES and discipline responses
and between ethnicity and discipline responses
were tested. The theoretical and empirical literatures supporting these models are discussed
next
381
Direct and Mediated Relations Between
SES and Parenting
Figure 1 presents a model of direct and mediated relations between SES and discipline responses. SES has been found consistently to
have negative relations with physical and harsh
punishment. Although there may be differences
in this relation across ethnicity (e.g., DeaterDeckard et al., 1996), this relation is hypothesized to hold within ethnicity.
Parenting Values and Beliefs
As Figure 1 depicts, one theorized pathway
linking SES and parenting practices is parenting
beliefs (Kohn, 1963; Okagaki & Divecha,
1993). With a sample of European American
mothers, Luster et al. (1989) found that SES
was negatively related to values embracing conformity and positively related to values endorsing self-direction. In turn, the effect of these
parental values on parenting behaviors was mediated by parenting beliefs about discipline,
promoting exploratory behavior, and affectionate, responsive behavior. This leads to the question of whether the relation between SES and
parenting behavior could be mediated by parenting beliefs. Several studies illustrate the link
CognltlveEa»tion»l
ProccsMg
Figure 2. Hypothesized model of relations among socioeconomic status (SES), parenting beliefs, stress,
perception of child, cognitive-emotional processes, and discipline responses.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
382
PINDERHUGHES, DODGE, BATES, PETTIT, AND ZELLI
between parenting beliefs and attitudes and parenting behavior (e.g., Dix, 1993; Luster et al.,
1989). Luster and Kain (1987) found differences between parents who believed that parenting positively affects child outcomes (high
efficacy) and parents who believed that parenting has little effect on child outcomes (low
efficacy). Parents high in efficacy endorsed
love, affection, and modeling as critical influences, whereas parents low in efficacy, especially fathers, tended to endorse discipline.
Stressors, Parent Perception of the Child,
and Parent Cognitive-Emotional
Processes
Another pathway through which SES is hypothesized to influence differences in discipline
responses is stress: Economic hardship exposes
low-SES parents to additional stressors that undermine their ability to use inductive discipline
strategies and that result in higher parental reliance on punitive discipline (see McLoyd,
1990, for a review of the literature on these
relations). Parental stress has been found to be
associated positively with punitive parenting
practices (e.g., Crnic & Greenberg, 1987;
McLoyd et al., 1994; Patterson, 1986). Low
SES may operate through the following specific
stressors that are associated with punitive and
unsupportive practices: being a single parent
(e.g., Fox, Platz, & Bentley, 1995), having a
large number of children (e.g., Fox et al., 1995),
having an unplanned pregnancy (e.g., Zuravin,
1987), and living in an unsafe neighborhood
(e.g., Abell, Clawson, Washington, Bost, &
Vaughn, 1996).
Parents’ Perception of the Child
Although external stressors are hypothesized
to have a direct link to parents’ discipline responses, their influence also may be mediated
by parents’ perception of the child and parents’
cognitive-emotional processes when faced with
child misbehavior. External stressors have been
found to predict parents’ negative views of the
child (Conger, McCarty, Yang, Lahey, &
Kropp, 1984). And parents’ perception of child
functioning has been linked to parenting behaviors, particularly among parents of aggressive
children (Rubin et al., 1995). Aggressive behavior by children in preschool and early elementary school tends to evoke negative parent emotions and cognitions, which lead to more
negative parenting behaviors (Rubin & Mills,
1992; Rubin et al., 1995).
Parents’ Cognitive-Emotional Processes
McLoyd (1990) noted that stressful life conditions facing low-income parents undermine
their emotional state. Dix (1991) has suggested
that high levels of stressors negatively affect
parents’ cognitive-emotional processes. Several links have been found between cognitiveemotional processes and parents’ discipline responses. First, it has been shown (e.g., Dix,
Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989; MacKinnon-Lewis,
Lamb, Arbuckle, Baradaran, & Volling, 1992;
Strassberg, 1995) that parents’ tendency to
make hostile attributions about the child correlates with punitive parenting. Second, intense
negative affect about child misbehavior may be
related to use or endorsement of forceful discipline (Dix, 1993; Dix & Lochman, 1990).
Third, parental worry about the future implications of current child misbehavior may affect
discipline responses. This process may be intensified when important socialization goals are
involved (Dix, 1991, 1993). For example, a
parent who values obedience is more likely to
become upset over his or her child’s defiance
than is a parent who places less value on obedience. These different emotional reactions to
defiance might lead to different discipline responses. Fourth, parental perceived control over
the misbehavior is another process that may
affect discipline responses (Dix, 1991). Parents
who perceive that they lack control over the
misbehavior in question are more likely to have
negative emotions than those who believe they
can control the misbehavior (Bugental, Blue, &
Lewis, 1990). In this study, perceived control
over the misbehavior was assessed in two ways:
the degree to which parents perceived that they
could prevent the problem behavior in the future
and the variety of noncoercive alternative disciplinary strategies they reported as being available to them.
Direct and Mediated Relations Between
Ethnicity and Parents’ Discipline
Responses
The direct and mediated relations between
ethnicity and discipline responses were theorized to be the same, with one key difference.
SES was expected to moderate relations be-
SPECIAL ISSUE: SES, ETHNICITY, AND DISCIPLINE
tween ethnicity and stress. The literature supporting this model is summarized next.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Ethnicity and Parenting Beliefs
African American mothers have reported
greater use of physical discipline than do European American mothers (Deater-Deckard et al.,
1996). African American parents also have displayed more punitive attitudes toward their children (e.g., Reis, Barbera-Stein, & Bennett,
1986). How parents think about physical or
severe discipline and its purpose as a socialization strategy may differ for African Americans
and European Americans (e.g., Deater-Deckard
& Dodge, 1997; Garcia Coll, 1990; Jackson,
1997; Kelley, Power, & Wimbush, 1992; Ogbu,
1981). For example, ethnic differences have
been found in parents’ acceptance of spanking
(Heffer & Kelley, 1987). Thus, this study represents a further step in examining ethnic differences in parenting (Deater-Deckard et al.,
1996; Pettit, Bates, & Dodge, 1997) by specifically assessing whether parenting beliefs mediate relations between ethnicity and discipline.
Ethnicity, Stress, Parents’ Perceptions of
the Child and Cognitive-Emotional
Processes
Researchers have noted the moderating role
of SES in relations between ethnicity and stressors (McLoyd, 1990; Myers & King, 1983). In
their study of race, SES, and distress, Kessler
and Neighbors (1986) found that low-income
African Americans were particularly vulnerable
to additional race-related stressors and constraints and reported higher levels of stress than
did low-income European Americans. In contrast, no differences emerged between stress
levels reported by middle-income African
Americans and European Americans. These
findings were consistent across multiple epidemiological data sets. With higher levels of
stress, low-income African American parents
may be likely to engage in more punitive discipline responses (e.g., McLoyd, 1990). In the
study reported here, SES was hypothesized to
moderate relations between ethnicity and stressors. Low-income African American parents
were expected to report greater stress and to
endorse more physical and harsh discipline responses than their European American counterparts. Among middle-income parents, no ethnic
differences in level of stressors were expected,
383
and no differences were expected in relations
between level of stressors and discipline.
In summary, this study tested direct and indirect contributions of SES to discipline responses and direct and indirect contributions of
ethnicity to discipline responses. The study, part
of a longitudinal investigation of child development, used cross-sectional data. Parents’ responses to multiple hypothetical vignettes involving child misbehavior were the measure of
discipline responses. Parenting beliefs, family
stress, parents* perception of the child, and
cognitive-emotional processes were hypothesized to mediate relations between SES and
discipline responses and relations between ethnicity and discipline responses. Parenting beliefs included beliefs about (a) the effectiveness
of spanking and (b) the appropriateness of peerdirected aggression by the child. Stressors included marital status, number of children, having an unplanned pregnancy, living in an unsafe
neighborhood, and conflict in romantic relationships. Parent perception of the child was assessed as the distinctiveness of the description
of the child and parental affect toward the child.
Cognitive-emotional processes included hostile
attribution of the child, upset affect about the
misbehavior, concern about the future implications of the misbehavior, available alternative
discipline responses, and preventive discipline
responses.
This study included fathers as respondents.
Fathers’ voices are relatively rare in the literature on parenting (Phares, 1996). Although
mothers and fathers have been found to engage
in similar levels of harsh discipline (e.g.,
Feldman & Wentzel, 1990), research on relations among contextual influences, cognitiveemotional processes, and discipline responses
has focused primarily on mothers. Thus, inclusion of fathers here has the potential to extend
current understanding of parents’ discipline responses. More specifically, this design enabled
examination of parent sex as a moderator of
relations among SES, ethnicity, parenting beliefs, stress, perceptions of the child, cognitiveemotional processes, and discipline responses,
which Phares (1996) and Rubin et al. (1995)
noted are important new avenues for study.
Method
Participants
Respondents in this study were participants in the
Child Development Project (described in previous
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
384
PINDERHUGHES, DODGE, BATES, PETTIT, AND ZELLI
reports; e.g., Dodge et al., 1994; Pettit et al., 1997).
They were selected in two cohorts from Nashville,
Tennessee (a midsized mid-South urban community
with about 25% of the participants residing in federally subsidized housing); Knoxville, Tennessee (an
Appalachian rural and small urban community); and
Bloomington, Indiana (a small midwestern city, with
many of the participants selected from working-class
backgrounds, including some rural families of Appalachian descent). Families were recruited at the time
of the kindergarten preregistration and (in April or
August preceding the September of matriculation)
asked to participate in a longitudinal study of child
development. Two cohorts of participants were recruited in successive years. About 70% of families
agreed to participate. Because about 15% of kindergartners do not preregister, this proportion of the
sample was recruited in August by mail, letter from
school, or telephone. Of the 585 participating families, 52% had a male child, and 48% had a female
child; R2% were White, 16% were African American,
and 2% were from other ethnic backgrounds, mostly
Asian American. When the father lived in the same
home as the child, both parents were invited to participate. Of the 978 participating parents, 581 were
mothers, including adoptive mothers and stepmothers
(475 White, 95 African American, and 11 other), and
397 were fathers, including adoptive fathers and stepfathers (358 White, 30 African American, and 9
other). Of the 585 families, both parents participated
in 393 cases, mothers only participated in 188 cases,
and fathers only participated in 4 cases.
Procedure
In the summer before—or, in some cases, soon
after—the child’s matriculation in kindergarten, two
trained interviewers visited the mother, falher, and
child in (heir home for a 3-hr session. In almost all
cases, at least one of the two visitors was of the same
ethnicity as the family. One visitor obtained written
informed consent and then privately interviewed one
randomly selected parent while the second parent
completed a battery of written instruments. The other
visitor interviewed the child to collect information
not relevant to this article. After about 90 min, the
two parents switched roles. The parent interview
consisted of a demographic survey, a history of the
child’s development, and parenting divided into past
and current (past 12 months) eras. This interview was
followed by the presentation of five hypothetical parenting situations designed to solicit parent discipline
responses and cognitive-emotional processes. A
written battery further assessed the parent’s discipline responses and values and the child’s behavior.1
The parent interviewer was trained over a 4-week
period that included reading a detailed procedure
manual, observing interviews by a master interviewer, and conducting interviews with a supervisor
present. Interviewers were trained to a reliability of
.80 or higher (percentage agreement across all items,
with the supervisor’s scores as the criterion) before
they began to collect data on their own. Independent
reliability assessments were obtained by a trained
observer who either accompanied the interviewer
for or listened to tapes of 56 randomly selected
interviews.
Constructs and Measures
Demographic characteristics. Parent sex (1 =
mother, 2 = father) and child sex (1 = boy, 2 = girl)
were coded via interviewer observation. Ethnicity
(1 = White, 2 — African American, 3 = other) was
coded via direct questions to the parent. During the
interview, the parent’s and partner’s education and
employment status were solicited. Family SES was
computed with Hollingshead’s (1979) four-factor index of social status (based on parent and partner
education and current occupation; sample M — 39.5,
SD = 14). As recommen …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYSHELP