You are here

Home » Content

ÇOCUĞUN AKADEMİK YETENEĞİNİN ANNE DAVRANIŞINA ETKİSİ

THE INFLUENCE OF COGNITIVE ABILITY OF THE CHILD ON MATERNALATTITUDE

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2005

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Objective: The influence on maternal attitude of cognitive ability of the child was investigated from a survey of mothers and their preschoolers of high-middle-class. Materials and methods: 90 children whose mean age was 69.2 ± 3.5 months, of whom 56 (62%) were boys and 34 (38%) were girls were included in the study. The adaptive cognitive abilities of the children were evaluated by the rate of correct verbal responses to 12 questions based on age appropriate Stanford-Binet. The symbolic representative abilities of the children were evaluated by Goodenough criteria. The mothering modes of each child was also evaluated by Parental Attitude Research Instrument. Results: Mothers presented democratic attitude in coherence with oppression. In fact, both democratic and oppressive attitudes were more influential with an overt protectiveness. Indeed, mothers of boys were more protective (-0.13 versus -6.06), democratic (0.18 versus -3.03), oppressive (1.79 versus -6.06) but repining more about spouse disharmony (0.25 versus -9.09) compared to those of girls. Maternal protective and democratic attitude, however, showed a negative correlation with cognitive development of boys (r= -0.323, p < 0.05 ), but a positive one with that of girls (r=0.391, p < 0.05). The spouse disharmony, on the other hand, positively correlated with maternal erkekrepulsion to housework (r=0.270, p < 0.05) with a negative correlation with age (r=-0.268, p < 0.05) and/or cognitive development (r=-0.272, p < 0.05) of the child of mothers of home-staying boys. Conclusion: The results were conclusive that an increased maternal protection was operating for those offsprings who are of male gender, weak (with an underscoring cognitive ability), away from maternal protective reach (playschool attendance) and/or is in danger (spouse disharmony). Indeed, maternal protection is believed to deserve to be differentiated with a term as such “maternal anxiety of loss” since it is seemingly operating to detect even subtle signals of threat to well-being of offspring (genetic material carrier of the mother.)
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çal›flmada, toplumun orta-üst ekonomik statüdeki ailelerinden örneklenen çocuklar›n akademik yeteneklerinin anne tutumuna olan etkisi araflt›r›ld›. Gereç ve yöntem: Yafl ortalamas› 69,2 ± 3,5 ay olan, 34’ü (%38) k›z ve 56’s› (%62) erkek, toplam 90 çocuk ve annelerine ait veriler çal›flmaya al›nd›. Çocuklar›n biliflsel yetenekleri, Stanford-Binet Zeka Testi esas al›narak haz› rlanan sorulara verdikleri sözel yan›tlar de¤erlendirilerek ve çizgisel yetenekleri ise ‘Bana bir adam resmi çiz’ komutu ile yapt›klar› resimlerin, Goodenough kriterleri ile de¤erlendirilmesi sonucunda belirlendi. Ayr›ca, eflleraras› uyum, annenin demokrat, bask›c›, ev kad›nl›¤›n› benimseme ve koruyuculuk gibi eviçi tutumlar›, aile tutum ölçe¤i [Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI)] ile belirlendi. Bulgular: Demokrat yaklafl›m içinde olan annenin bir o kadar da bask›c› oldu¤u ve bu iki tutumun anne koruyuculu¤ u ile pozitif korelasyon gösterdi¤i bulundu. Anne; erkeklere k›z çocu¤una oldu¤undan daha koruyucu (-0,13’e karfl›n -6,06), demokrat (0,18’e karfl›n -3,03) ve bask›c› (1,79’a karfl›n -6,06) bir tutum sergiliyordu. Ancak, annenin koruyucu ve demokrat tutumu; erkek çocu¤un baflar›s› ile ters (r= -0,323, p < 0,05), öte yandan k›z›nki ile do¤- ru (r= 0,391, p < 0,05) korelasyon gösterdi. Erkek annesi eflleraras› uyumsuzluktan daha fazla (0,25’e karfl›n -9,09) yak›nd› ve çocu¤un yafl› (r = -0,268, p < 0,05) ve baflar›s› (r =-0,272, p < 0,05) ile ters orant›l› olarak ev kad›nl›¤›- n› reddetti (r= 0,270, p < 0,05). Yani, anne baflar›s›z (zay›f) erkek çocu¤unu daha fazla korumaya yönelirken; baflar› l› k›z (güçlü) çocu¤una daha demokrat davran›yordu. Erkek çocuk annesi eflleraras› uyumsuzluk varl›¤›nda, çocu¤ un yafl ve baflar›s› ile ters orant›l› olarak ev kad›nl›¤›n› reddediyordu. Sonuçlar davran›flbilim kuramlar› ve ba¤- lanma teorisi ile irdelendi. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak; anne koruyuculu¤unun “annenin kaybetme endiflesi” bafll›¤› alt›nda, di¤er davran›fllar›ndan farkl› ve genetik materyali korumaya yönelik filojenik bir davran›fl olarak de¤erlendirilmesinin gerekti¤i üzerinde duruldu.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-cocugun-akademik-yeteneginin-anne-davranisina-etkisi.pdf
  • 2
46-49
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Ainsworth MS. The personal origins of attachment theory. An
interview with Mary Salter Ainsworth. Interview by Peter L.
Rudnytsky. Psychoanal Study Child 1997; 52:386- 405.
2. Alessandri SM, Lewis M. Differences in pride and shame in
maltreated and nonmaltreated preschoolers. Child Dev 1996;
67:1857-1869.
3. Ansbacher HL. The Goodenough draw a-man test and primary
mental abilities. J Consult Psychol 1952;16:176-180.
4. Arend R, Gove FL, Sroufe LA. Continuity of individual adaptation
from infancy to kindergarten: a predictive study of ego-resiliency
and curiosity in preschoolers. Child Dev 1979; 50: 950-959.
5. Arnold EH, O'Leary SG. The effect of child negative affect on
maternal discipline behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1995;
23:585-595.
6. Blum HP. Separation-individuation theory and attachment theory.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc 2004; 52: 535-553.
7. Bowlby J. Children generate "internal working models of attachment"
that influence the organization of their attachment-seeking
behaviors. Psychiatry 1996; 59: 20-33.
8. Boyatzis CJ, Chazan E, Ting CZ. Preschool children's decoding
of facial emotions. J Genet Psychol 1993; 154:375-382.
9. Bretherton I. Bowlby's legacy to developmental psychology.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 1997; 28: 33-43.
10. Broberg AG. Areview of interventions in the parent-child relationship
informed by attachment theory. Acta Paediatr Suppl
2000; 89:37-42.
11. Collins WA, Maccoby EE, Steinberg L, Hetherington EM,
Bornstein MH. Contemporary research on parenting. The case
for nature and nurture. Am Psychol 2000; 55:218-232.
12. Denham SA, Blair KA, DeMulder E, Levitas J, Sawyer K, Auerbach-
Major S, Queenan P. Preschool emotional competence:
pathway to social competence? Child Dev 2003; 74: 238-256.
13. Denham SA, Caverly S, Schmidt M, Blair K, DeMulder E,
Caal S, Hamada H, Mason T. Preschool understanding of emotions:
contributions to classroom anger and aggression. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry 2002; 43: 901-916.
14. El-Sheikh M. Children's emotional and physiological responses
to interadult angry behavior: the role of history of interparental
hostility. J Abnorm Child Psychol 1994; 22:661-678.
15. Gardner FE. The quality of joint activity between mothers and
their children with behaviour problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry
1994; 35: 935-948.
16. Hart CH, DeWolf DM, Wozniak P, Burts DC. Maternal and paternal
disciplinary styles: relations with preschoolers' playground
behavioral orientations and peer status. Child Dev 1992; 63:
879-892.
17. Hastings PD, Coplan R. Conceptual and empirical links between
children's social spheres: relating maternal beliefs and preschoolers'
behaviors with peers. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev
1999; 86: 43-59.
18. Holland JG, Skinner BF. The Analysis of Behavior. NY:Mc-
Graw Hill, 1961.
19. Maughan A, Cicchetti D. Impact of child maltreatment and interadult
violence on children's emotion regulation abilities and
socioemotional adjustment. Child Dev 2002; 73:1525-1542.
20. Mauro CF, Harris YR. The influence of maternal child-rearing
attitudes and teaching behaviors on preschoolers' delay of gratification.
J Genet Psychol 2000; 161:292-306.
21. Michael J. Supplements to Accompany Concepts and Principles
of Behavior Analysis. 2nd ed 2000, pp.1-54.
22. Miller PH. Children's reasoning about the causes of human behavior.
J Exp Child Psychol 1985; 39:343-362.
23. Shih AR, von Baeyer CL. Preschool children's seriation of pain
faces and happy faces in the Affective Facial Scale. Psychol Rep
1994; 74:659-665.
24. Stipek DJ, Ryan RH. Economically disadvantaged preschoolers:
ready to learn but further to go. Dev Psychol 1997; 33:711-723.
25. Strand PS. Coordination of maternal directives with preschoolers'
behavior: influence of maternal coordination training on
dyadic activity and child compliance. J Clin Child Adolesc
Psychol 2002; 31: 6-15.
26. van Asperen de Boer S. The Stanford-Binet test in the determination
of high intellectual level. Ned Tijdschr Psychol 1960;
15:47-82.
27. Vaughan ME. Rule-governed behavior and higher mental processes.
In: S Modgil and C Modgil (eds). BF Skinner: Consensus
and Controversy. Barcombe, England: Falmer Press, 1987,
pp. 257-264.
28. White C, Barrowclough C. Depressed and non-depressed mothers
with problematic preschoolers: attributions for child behaviors.
Br J Clin Psychol 1998; 37: 385-398.
29. Zuckerman M, Bibback BB, Monashkin I, Norton JA Jr. Normative
data and factor analysis on the Parental Attitude Research
Instrument. J Consult Psychol 1958; 22:165- 171.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com