COUNSELING CENTER

scientific research has been attempted to understand the antecedents of such behavior.

The literature contains research on prejudicial attitudes toward a number of identified groups including blacks (e.g., Minatoya, Sedlacek, & Brooks, 1984), women (e.g., Minatoya & Sedlacek, 1983), and the disabled (e.g., Stovall & Sedlacek, 1983). In recent years, age has become a category for consideration in this body of literature. In 1971, McTaVish presented a review of the literature on perceptions of old people. According to his findings, old people are generally viewed as ill, tired, mentally slower, not sexual, forgetful, withdrawn, unproductive, grouchy and defensive. Research has also shown an age bias among college students toward older students (Peabody & Sedlacek, 1382); and of educational and college student personnel professionals toward older adults (Celio, Sedlacek, & Schlossberg, 1977). Riley, Johnson and Foner (1972) have suggested that a cohort-centrism may exist and that individuals express negative attitudes toward others of different age groups. If this is the case, such negative attitudes may also extend toward children. There are two good reasons to study (negative) attitudes toward children. First, research has not yet established whether or not such prejudicial attitudes and negative affects actually do

exist. An exploration and acknowledgement of these attitudes may help us comprehend what currently appears to be arbitrary discrimination toward children. Second, research shows that attitudes toward an individual or group can at least predict the overall pattern of behavior toward that individual or group. Racist, sexism and other forts of prejudice have historically resulted in a variety of discriminatory actions ranging from avoidance and exclusion to outright violence. Ashmore's (1970) definition of a minority group states: "The key point about a minority group is that it is in a subordinate position with regard to status and power" (p.250). Children are a minority group by this definition and may be subject to the same negative cognitions, affects and discriminatory behaviors as other groups.. Attitudes are a good place to begin to explore this pattern.

As was stated earlier, very little research has actually been done on the attitudes of adults toward children. What little research exists, has usually focused on specific adult-child interactions such as attitudes toward child rearing (e.g. Cohen & Eiduson, 1973), attitudes of teachers toward their students (e.g. Khan & Weiss, 1978), and attitudes of the elderly toward children (e.g. Cryns & Monk, 1972; Higgins & Faunce, 1977; Seefeldt & Jantz, 1979). A

more general study was conducted by Rowers and Wrightsman (1978) in which they developed scales to measure a respondent's orientation toward children's rights. The scales contained two polar ends: nurturance (giving the child what you believe is good for him/her) and self-determination (allowing the child to make his/her own decisions). The scales were administered to high school juniors and seniors, undergraduate college students, and adults in continuing education programs. In all cases, respondents were more 1. likely to favor the nurturant poles of the scales at the expense of the child's self-determination. Bohrnstedt, Freeman and Smith (1981.) conducted a more thorough study o£ adult attitudes toward children's autonomy. The study included 1,002 adults responding to vignettes on parent-child conflict. Their results indicated that an individual is a more likely to take the side of the child in a conflict if the respondent Is young, well-educated, has no religious identification or has a Jewish background, is Anglo-white or Asian, and the child in question is older (i.e. teenager). An Individual is more likely to take the side of the parent in a conflict if the respondent is older, less well-educated, has a Catholic or Protestant background, is black or Hispanic, and the child in question is younger (i.e. pre-teen., early teens).

Knight, Seefeldt, and Sedlacek (1.984) attempted a more general investigation into the attitudes of adults toward children under the age of 12. A Situational Attitude Scale-Adults/Children (SAS-A/C) was developed to assess whether attitudes toward children in social situations are positive, negative, or neutral. The SAS methodology was originally developed to measure the degree of prejudice one racial group holds toward another (Sedlacek & Brooks, 1974). The methodology has been successfully applied to a number of different racial groups as well as to sex (Minatoya and Sedlacek, 1983), age (Peabody & Sedlacek, 1982), and disabled individuals (Stovall and Sedlacek, 1983). The methodology presents subjects with ten social, situations or vignettes which reflect varying degrees of social distance and asks them to respond to ten bipolar pairs of adjectives for each situation. These adjectives reflect three dimensions: evaluative, potency, and activity. Half the subjects receive a version to which children are present in each of the ten social situations while the other half receive a version in which no mention of children is made. Research indicates that this procedure limits psychological withdrawal and makes it more difficult for subjects to respond on the basis of social desirability (Sedlacek & Brooks, 1972). The results of the Knight et al. (1984)

study showed that in nine of the ten social situations, attitudes were significantly different when children were present. Situations representing close social proximity were most likely to be viewed as negative along the evaluative dimension. There were no significant sex differences.

The current study was conceived of as a substantive as well as a methodological inquiry into the attitudes of adults toward children. It is basically a replication and an extension oaf Knight et al (1984) and attempts to address several questions left unanswered by that study. First, is, the SAS -A/C an appropriate tool for the study of attitudes toward children; are the results replicable? Second, can a shortened version of the SAS-A/C be utilized thus reducing the number of items from 100 to 50? Third, the Knight et al. study used a young adult population. Would the same results be found with a younger population? When do these attitudes toward children develop? And fourth, the Knight et al. study utilized only univariate analyses. Multivariate approach may be more appropriate for the complex data generated by the SAS-A/C. It was hypothesized that the results of this study would parallel and therefore reinforce the results of the previous research: situations including children would be viewed more negatively than

situations in which no mention of children is made. A younger population was utilized and a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was employed to reflect more accurately the multivariate nature of the data. This study also sought to investigate how attitudes toward children vary with the degree of social distance and whether or not there are any sex differences in attitudes toward children.

Method

Subjects

Subjects for this study were 246 entering freshmen (43% male, 57% female, 7% black, 74% white, 5% Asian, 1% Hispanic) at a large eastern university. Due to missing data, not all subjects were included in all analyses. The modal age was 18 with only 2% of the subjects under the age of 17 and 1% over the age of 19. The majority of subjects (86%) had fathers in professional. or semi-professional occupations; 77% also indicated that their mother was employed either full-time or part-time, the majority of these women (64%) in professional or semi-professional occupations. Twenty-nine percent identified themselves as Catholic, 31% as Jewish, 24% as Protestant, 8% as other, and 8% as none.

Materials

A shortened version of the Situational Attitude Scale-Adults/Chilren (SAS-AC) was utilized for this study. The SAS methodology was originally developed to measure the degree of prejudice one racial group holds toward another (Sedlacek Brooks, 1970). Development of the SAS-AC is described in detail in Knight, Seefeldt and Sedlacek (1980). Briefly, the instrument used in the present study consisted of five hypothetical situations representing previously measured levels of social distance. The five situations in orders of increasing social-distance included: 1) having a person as a guest in my home for a week; 2) renting a room to someone in my home; 3) having a person I live in the apartment next to mine 4) having dinner in a nice restaurant with another person sitting nearby; and 5) sitting next to a person on an airplane flying non-stop from Washington, DC to San Francisco. Each situation was followed by ten bipolar scales representing the three dimensions of semantic meaning: evaluation, potency, and activity. The adjectives used for the bipolar scales were suggested by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957). There were two forms of the SIBS-AC. The control form did not designate the ages of any of the participants in the situation. In the experimental form, however, a child or

children under the age of seven was included. Both forms consisted of identical instructions, social situations and bipolar scales. The instructions and situations are included in Exhibit 1.

Procedure

The two forms of the SAS-AC were randomly ordered and administered simultaneously on each occasion they were administered. Students were not aware there was more than one form of the scale. The administrator, an adult white female, read the directions to the group and was assisted by several student workers. Participation was voluntary and anonymous and all students present at the sessions on the selected days participated. Administration required less than 15 minutes.

Results

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed over the complete, 50-item SAS-AC questionnaire with sex (male vs. female) and form (children vs. no children) as the grouping variables. Results from this analysis were significant for form, (50,157)= .532, p<.01. Twenty-nine of the 50 univariate analyses performed an the data were also significant for form at tae p<.01 level. (This is a larger number of significant analyses than would

be expected by chance; Sakoda, Cohen, a Beall, 1954). The means and standard deviations for these analyses are presented in Table 1. In every case, situations involving children were viewed less positively than situations not specifically including children. Overall, there were no significant effects for sex (l (50, 157) = .800, p>.01 or for the interaction sex x form (l (50, 157) = .716, p>.01.

A separate two way MANOVA was run on each of the five situations contained within the SAS-AC questionnaire. A wins she overall Analysis form was significant for each of the five situations at the p<.01 level. One of the situations also showed a significant main effect for sex (p<.o1): males rated situation #1 more negatively than did females Where were no significant interactions.

Discussion

The results of thin study show that subjects rated social situations more negatively when children under the age of seven were included in those situations This result was consistent across all situations regardless of the social distance involved. It was also consistent across sex.. The only sex difference found was that males rated one of the SAS situations more negatively overall (i.e., regardless of whether or not children were present). This

situation (having dinner in a nice restaurant) was one of the most socially distant situations on the SAS. It is

possible that females are socialized to be more comfortable with such superficial types of social contact and so rated these situations more favorably.

The SAS appears to be a useful tool in the study of attitudes toward children. Reducing the number of items from 100 to 50 appears to be an economical move both in terms of the amount of time necessary to complete the instrument and the number of subjects needed for statistical significance. Further reductions, however may not be possible without losing the benefit of including social situations of varying social distance. Although social distance did not appear to be related to the attitudes toward children in this study, it is still too early to eliminate this as a possible variable in future research.

Further exploration into the attitudes of adults toward children is needed at this point. At what age do these attitudes develop? Such attitudes are already formed by the time an individual reaches young adulthood as evidenced by this study and its predecessor (Knight et al, 1984). Replication of this study with a younger population would help answer this question. Does exposure have any effect on attitudes toward children? Few if any of the subjects in

this study had children of their own or were exposed to children on a regular basis (the same was true in the Knight et al, 1384, study despite the older population). Repeating the shady with a sample of parents would prove informative on this point. The Bohrastedt et al (1981) study on the attitudes of adults toward children's autonomy found racial arid religious differences. Such an analysis on the current data would prove useful in .exploring some of the correlates of attitudes toward children. Finally, research investigating the relationship between attitudes and behavior toward children might prove very useful in understanding why society treats children as it does.

As we continue our study into the attitudes of adults toward children, it is important to keep in mind the broader social context. Even if ire show that negative attitudes, prejudice and discrimination toward children exist, the analogy between, children and other minority groups may necessarily be limited. As Bohrnstedt et al (1981) point out: “Other disenfranchised groups usually have the capacity and potential to compete equally with peers in. the community. Both experience and scientific data indicate that mature judgment and the ability to make individual decisions and to participate fully in the social life of the community depend on age related cognitive and social

development” (p. 460). Child advocacy groups, including the Children's Defense Fund, acknowledge that children are, not adults and are in many ways dependent on adults for care. By the same token, children often do not have the resources available to them to protect themselves from the arbitrary behavior of adults. It is for this reason that we need to be particularly aware of negative attitudes and behaviors directed toward children. If children are unable to protect themselves, then the burden lies with the rest of us.

References

Ashmore, R.D. Prejedice: causes and cures. In Social Psychology, by B.E. Collins. Reading, Mass,: Addison-Wesley, 1970.

Bohrnstedt, G.W., Freeman, H.E., and Smith, T. Adult perspectives on children's autonomy. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 1981, 45(4), 443-462.

Celio, M.B., Sedlacek, W.E., and Schlossberg, N.K. The development of a measure of attitudes toward age. Counseling Center Research Report #8-77, College Park, Md.: University of Maryland, 1977.

Children's Defense Fund. What is CDF? Questions and Answers about the Children's Defense Fund. Washington, D.C.: Washington Research Project, 1978.

Children's Defense Fund. A, children's defense budget analysis of the presidents FY 1984 budget and children. Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense Fund, 1983.

Cohen, J. and Eiduson, B.T. Changing patterns of child rearing in alternative lifestyles: Implications for

development. In A. Davids (ed. ), Child personality and psychopathology: Current topics. New York: John

Wiley, 1973.

Cryns, A.G. and Monk, A. Attitudes of the aged toward the young: A multivariate study in Intergenerational perception. Journal of Gerontology 1972, 107-112.

Gelles, R.J. Family Violence Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979.

Holt, J. Escape from childhood. New York: Ballantine Press, 1974.

Khan, S.B. & Weiss, J. The teachings of affective responses. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.) Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.

K1ausne r, S . Z . Two centuries of child-rearing manuals. Washington, D.C.: The Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children, Inc., 1968.

Knight, G.D., Seefeldt, C., and Sedlacek, W.E. Measuring the attitudes of adults toward children. Counseling Center Research Report 4-84, College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1984.

Margolin, C.R. Salvation as liberation: the movement for children's rights in a historical context. Social Problems, 1979, 25, 441-452.

McTaVish, D.G. Perceptions of old people: A review of research methods and findings. Gerotologist 11(4).

Part 2, 1971, 90-101.

Minatoya, L.Y., and Sedlacek, W.E. THE SASW: A means to measure environmental sexism. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 1983, 47, 26-30.

Minatoya, L.Y., Sedlacek, C., and Brooks, G.C. Assessing attitudes of white university students toward blacks in a changing context. Journal of Non White Concerns in Personnel and Guidance 1984, 12, 69-79.

Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Peabody, S.A. and Sedlacek, W.E. Attitudes of younger university students toward older students. Journal of College Student Personnel. 1982, 23, 140-143.

Riley, M.W., Johnson, M., and Foner, A. Aging and society: Vol. III: A sociology of age stratification. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.

Rogers, C.M. and Wrightsman, 1..a. Attitudes toward children's rights: nurturance or self-determination? Journal of Social Issues, 34(2), 1978, 59-68.

Sakoda, J.M., Cohen, B.H., and Beall, G. Tests of significance for a series of statistical tests.

Psychological Bulletin 51, 1954, 172-175.

Sedlacek, W.E. and Brooks, G.C., Jr. The development of a measure of racial attitudes. Psychological Reports, 27, 1970, 971-980.

Sedlacek, W.E. and Brooks, G.C., Jr. Situational Attitude Scale (SAS) Manual .Chicago: Natresources, Inc., 1972.

Seefeldt, C. and Jantz, R.K. Elderly person's attitudes toward children. Unpublished report. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 1979.

Stovall, C. and Sedlecek, W.E. Attitudes of sale and female university students toward students with different physical disabilities. Journal of College Student Personnel 1983, 325-338.

Table 1: Means*, Standard Deviations and Results of Analyses of Variance
		MALE				FEMALE
Item No.	Situations**	FORM A		FORM B		FORM A		FORM B		DIFFERENCES SIGNIFICANT AT .001 ***
	Bipolar Adjective Dimensions	MEAN	S.D.	MEAN	S.D.	MEAN	S.D.	MEAN	S.D.
I. NICE RESTAURANT
1	friendly-unfriendly	1.67	0.93	1	0.78	1.24	0.85	1.13	0.79	F
2	passive-active	1.73	0.96	1.64	1.06	1.87	1.01	1.69	0.89
3	tough-fragile	1.85	0.74	1.7	0.63	2.06	0.83	2.05	0.74	S
4	negative-positive	2	1.05	2.59	0.84	2.35	1.03	2.84	0.93	F
5	short-long	1.81	0.87	2.07	0.76	1.96	0.89	2.03	0.64
6	deliberate-impulsive	1.77	1.04	1.95	1.1	2.26	0.91	2.11	0.82
7	superior-inferior	1.33	0.78	1.77	0.89	1.48	0.86	1.78	0.86	F
8	weak-strong	2.65	0.93	2.57	0.79	2.5	0.82	2.44	0.83
9	intentional-unintentional	2	0.97	1.77	1.1	1.89	1.04	1.94	0.89
10	comfortable-uncomfortable	1.94	1.24	1.05	1.08	1.39	1.27	1.2	1.1	F
II. APARTMENT NEXT DOOR
11	fast-slow	1.79	0.74	1.36	0.97	1.72	0.9	1.55	0.87	F
12	humorous-serious	1.63	1.1	1.2	0.9	1.48	0.93	1.38	0.85
13	willing-unwilling	1.6	1.09	0.84	0.91	1.28	1.09	1	0.85	F
14	bad-good	2.27	0.89	2.91	0.91	2.46	1.04	2.89	0.91	F
15	strong-weak	1.52	0.97	1.3	0.85	1.46	0.82	1.44	0.73
16	active-passive	1.56	1.09	1.23	0.89	1.39	0.96	1.09	0.83	F
17	friendly-unfriendly	1.06	0.86	0.43	0.59	1.06	1.16	0.5	0.71	F
18	small-large	2.27	1	2.32	0.8	2.04	0.91	2.2	0.78
19	hot-cold	1.88	0.82	1.45	0.82	1.76	0.75	1.61	0.7	F
20	unsociable-sociable	2.6	1.16	3.27	0.9	3.07	1.15	3.33	0.86	F
III. ROOM TO RENT
21	willing-unwilling	2.04	1.38	0.89	0.89	2.13	1.39	1.14	0.99	F
22	slow-fast	2.12	0.94	2.2	0.79	2.18	0.97	2	0.85
23	weak-strong	2.6	0.84	2.86	0.73	2.52	0.99	2.73	0.95
24	serious-humorous	1.67	1.08	1.98	1.13	1.85	1.2	1.86	1.22
25	disapproving-approving	1.85	1.2	2.25	0.94	2.02	1.21	2.38	0.83	F
26	friendly-unfriendly	1.33	1.02	0.7	0.82	0.64	0.72	1.11	0.96	F
27	intentional-unintentional	1.54	0.82	1.18	0.79	1.52	1	1.28	0.98	F
28	small-large	1.98	0.88	2.34	0.95	2.4	0.94	2.27	0.82
29	active-passive	1.52	0.97	0.95	0.83	1.39	1.05	0.92	0.98	F
30	comfortable-uncomfortable	1.8	1.32	1.27	1.03	2.02	1.14	1.32	0.91	F
IV. SEAT ON AIRPLANE
31	pleasurable – painful	1.61	1.09	1.14	1.05	2.27	1.12	1.25	1.01	F, S
32	simple-complex	2	1.01	1.89	1.09	2.23	0.93	1.8	0.95
33	humorous-serious	1.35	1.03	1.42	1.02	1.77	1.11	1.41	0.84
34	bad-good	2.43	1.02	2.73	1.06	1.88	1.04	2.68	0.93	F
35	short-long	1.98	0.9	2.16	0.86	2.19	0.79	2.16	0.81
36	heavy-light	2	1.03	2.2	0.99	2.02	0.91	2.45	0.76	F
37	intentional-unintentional	2	1.06	1.69	1.02	1.77	0.99	1.98	1.23
38	unwilling-willing	2.33	1.13	2.66	0.91	2.02	1.1	2.7	0.9	F
39	sociable-unsociable	1.3	1.22	0.95	0.97	1.6	1.23	1	0.89	F
40	active-passive	1.5	1.08	1.5	1.08	1.88	1.06	1.41	0.9
V. HOUSE GUESTS
41	approving-disapproving	1.63	1.3	0.72	0.95	2	1.15	0.73	1.11	F
42	small-large	2.13	1.06	2.5	0.98	2.44	0.92	2.41	0.97
43	unwilling-willing	2.24	1.31	3.05	1.06	2.06	1.06	3.23	0.86	F
44	weak-strung	2.63	0.98	2.77	0.81	2.4	1	2.68	0.83
45	intentional-unintentional	1.57	1.02	1.34	1.07	1.79	0.8	1.52	1.15
46	friendly-unfriendly	1.15	1.19	0.45	0.78	1.23	1.04	0.5	0.95	F
47	slow-fast	2.2	1.02	2.58	0.87	2.31	0.75	2.48	1	F
48	humorous-serious	1.41	1.24	1.14	0.92	1.63	0.96	1.09	1.05	F
49	uncomfortable-comfortable	2.22	1.33	3.02	1	1.92	1.05	3.18	0.99	F
50	active-passive	1.26	1.08	0.8	0.96	1.67	1	1.05	1.12	F

* Scale A to E (numerical equivalent, 1-4)

** See Exhibit 1 for complete situations