University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Spring 2016
School engagement and the mother-child
relationship
Elizabeth Ann Brown Ackerson
University of Iowa
Copyright 2016 Elizabeth AB Ackerson
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3032
Recommended Citation
Ackerson, Elizabeth Ann Brown. "School engagement and the mother-child relationship." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis,
University of Iowa, 2016.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3032.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the Educational Psychology Commons
School Engagement and the Mother-Child Relationship
by
Elizabeth Ann Brown Ackerson
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations
(Educational Psychology) in the
Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
May 2016
Thesis Supervisors: Associate Professor Kathy L. Schuh
Professor Walter P. Vispoel
Copyright by
Elizabeth Ann Brown Ackerson
2016
All Rights Reserved
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
____________________________
PH.D. THESIS
_________________
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Elizabeth Ann Brown Ackerson
has been approved by the Examining Committee for
the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Psychological and Quantitative Foundations (Educational Psychology)
at the May 2016 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
___________________________________________
Kathy Schuh, Thesis Co-Chair
____________________________________________
Walter Vispoel, Thesis Co-Chair
____________________________________________
Joyce Moore
____________________________________________
Grazyna Kochanska
____________________________________________
Julie Gros-Louis
To my parents, Dr. Joseph D. Brown and Mrs. Mary E. Brown. They nurtured my love
for learning and always challenged me to think critically. They serve as my models in
my studies as well as my life.
ii
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.
Frederick Douglass
iii
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Dr. Kathy Schuh, my mentor and advisor at the University of Iowa.
She has always expected my best effort. She has been an inspiration to me throughout
my Ph.D. program. I have deep respect for her as a teacher and a researcher. Dr. Walter
Vispoel spent countless hours helping me work through both my writing and the
statistical analysis for this thesis, and I appreciate his consistently positive attitude and
easy demeanor, as well as his expertise. I also acknowledge the rest of my incredible
dissertation committee of professors, Dr. Joyce Moore, Dr. Julie Gros-Louis, and Dr.
Grazyna Kochanska, who dedicated time to my work and helped shape my understanding
of educational and developmental psychology. I also want to acknowledge other
professors that impacted my graduate education and gave time and energy to me: my first
advisor Dr. Johnmarshall Reeve, Dr. Mitch Kelly, Dr. Timothy Ansley, Dr. Robert
Ankenmann, Dr. Steve Alessi, Dr. David Lohman, Dr. Sheila Barron, Dr. Catherine
Welch, and my first development professor Dr. Nancy Jackson. I valued my time in the
developmental psychology department with Dr. Jodie Plumert and Dr. Bob McMurray as
well.
My love to my husband, Kris, and my son, James. They were cheerful and
supportive as I spent time writing, reading, out in the field collecting data, and working
with my peers and mentors at the university. Most recently, Kris allowed me to read my
entire dissertation to him. It took 4 hours! James will most likely never remember all the
time I spent reading and writing when he was little. My boys always come first to me. I
acknowledge my raters, who are friends and colleagues, too – Michelle Rogers and Leslie
Fitzpatrick. They were both so patient and articulate as we worked through the data in
this project. I couldn’t have completed this work, or my degree, without the two of them.
I was fortunate to receive some edits and cheering from my Elizabeth Goldberg, who has
been lovingly helping me with my writing for the last 25 years! My brother Dave was
always a text or phone call away to provide emotional support as a fellow grad student
and Beth supporter. Finally I thank my dearest friends and family–you know who you
are, who always support me, respect me, and make every day of my life brighter.
iv
Abstract
In the present study, I examined how the quality of relatedness (operationalized as
Mutually Responsive Orientation) in the mother-child relationship in kindergarten
students affects the association between the mother’s values about school and the child’s
emotional engagement in school. Relatedness, as described by Self-Determination
Theory, posits when a child feels a sense of relatedness–supported, respected, and
connected with another individual–the child will be more likely to integrate that person’s
values into their own belief system. Sixty-six mother-child dyads were observed and
videotaped doing four everyday activities (mother worked while child played
independently, mother and child had a snack, mother and child played a game, mother
and child cleaned up). In addition, the mothers filled out a questionnaire reporting their
own valuing of school, and children participated in the Berkeley Puppet Interview, a
semi-structured interview between researcher and child in which children reported their
levels of emotional engagement in school to two dog puppets. Data were coded and then
analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Relatedness between mother and child was
found to have a moderating effect on the relation between mothers’ values about school
and children’s school engagement. The strongest relation between mothers’ values and
children’s school engagement was found when mother-child relatedness was low. When
mother-child relatedness was high, the engagement of the child was not affected by the
mother’s valuing of school. The study findings offer implications for how children
experiencing high levels of relatedness with their mothers will be able to be more
successful in the school setting, regardless of the mothers’ valuing of their own school
experiences.
v
Public Abstract
This study focused on how children’s engagement in school might be affected by
their mothers’ values about school and the emotional qualities present in the mother-child
relationship. Other research suggests that when a child feels connected, supported, and
respected in a relationship, the child experiences a sense of relatedness, and will be more
likely to embrace the values of the other person in the relationship and adopt those values
as their own. In this study, 66 mother-child pairs were observed and videotaped doing
four everyday activities (mother worked while child played independently, mother and
child had a snack, mother and child played a game, mother and child cleaned up). In
addition, the mothers filled out a questionnaire reporting their own valuing of school, and
children participated in the Berkeley Puppet Interview, an interview between researcher
and child in which children reported their engagement in school through talking with two
dog puppets. Data were analyzed to look at relations among child engagement in school,
the relatedness present in the mother-child relationship, and the mother’s values about
school. It was found that the connection between mother’s values about school and the
child’s engagement in school depended on the amount of relatedness present in the
mother-child relationship. When mother-child relatedness was low, the values of the
mother were strongly associated with child engagement in school, with low relatedness
and low valuing associated with the lowest observed levels of engagement. However,
when mother-child relatedness was medium to high, the engagement of the child was not
affected by the mother’s valuing of school. Overall, these findings underscore the
importance of mother-child relatedness in understanding children’s engagement in
school.
vi
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1: Study Overview ................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
School Engagement and Internalized Motivation: Self-Determination Theory.............. 2
School Engagement and the Relatedness Need............................................................... 5
Relatedness as the Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship: MRO .............................. 6
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 10
Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Review of Literature ....................................................................................... 15
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 15
Internalization of Values ............................................................................................... 17
Self-Determination Theory as a Lens for the Internalization Process ....................... 18
Self-Regulated Motivation and School Liking .......................................................... 26
Parental Valuing of School Internalized by Children ................................................ 27
Relatedness as the Foundation for Self-Regulated Internalization of Values ........... 30
MRO as Relatedness and its Presence in the Parent-Child Relationship ...................... 30
The Importance of Shared Positive Affect in Social Cognitive Development .......... 32
The Importance of Responsiveness in Social Cognitive Development ..................... 34
MRO and the Internalization of Parental Values ....................................................... 36
Attachment Theory and the Development of Relatedness ........................................ 38
Internal Working Models of Parent-Child Relationships and Their Impact on Other
Relationships ............................................................................................................. 41
Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................... 47
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 47
Design of the Study and Participants ............................................................................ 47
Materials ........................................................................................................................ 48
Data Collection and Measures ...................................................................................... 49
Demographics ............................................................................................................ 49
Independent Variables ............................................................................................... 53
vii
Dependent Variable ................................................................................................... 56
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 59
Recruiting Participants .............................................................................................. 59
The Observation and Interview Session .................................................................... 60
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 62
Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 64
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 64
Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................................................... 64
Correlational Analyses .................................................................................................. 65
Multiple Regression Analyses ....................................................................................... 67
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations .................................................................. 71
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 71
The Impact of Relatedness on Value Internalization and School Engagement ............ 72
Methodology Considerations ........................................................................................ 76
Relatedness – MRO Observation .............................................................................. 76
Mother’s Valuing of School – The Interest Enjoyment Measure .............................. 78
Student Engagement – The Berkley Puppet Interview .............................................. 80
Implications ................................................................................................................... 81
Appendix A: Self-Determination Continuum ................................................................... 84
Appendix B: Demographics Survey ................................................................................. 85
Appendix C: Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) Rubric and Coding ................... 87
Appendix D: Activity Perception Questionnaire .............................................................. 90
Appendix E: Berkeley Puppet Interview- School Scales .................................................. 92
Appendix F: Recruitment Materials.................................................................................. 97
Appendix G: Consent and Assent Forms .......................................................................... 99
References ....................................................................................................................... 104
viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Variables, Instruments, and Data Sources .......................................................... 49
Table 2: Scoring the Data ................................................................................................. 62
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 65
Table 4: Correlations between Study Variables................................................................ 65
Table 5: Model Summary ................................................................................................. 68
Table 6: Final Regression Equation .................................................................................. 69
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Relatedness as a Moderator ............................................................................... 10
Figure 2: The Hypothesized Moderating Effects of High and Low Relatedness ............. 10
Figure 3: Education of Mothers in the Study .................................................................... 50
Figure 4: Race and Ethnicity of Children in the Study ..................................................... 51
Figure 5: Family Yearly Income in the Study .................................................................. 52
Figure 6: Child School Engagement and Relatedness ...................................................... 66
Figure 7: Child School Engagement and Mother’s Valuing of School ............................ 66
Figure 8: Relatedness and Mother’s Valuing of School ................................................... 67
Figure 9: Three Levels of Relatedness.............................................................................. 70
x
1
Chapter 1: Study Overview
Introduction
Participation in school life is an integral part of childhood. Why is it that some
students are positively engaged in the school experience while others are not? In this
study, I focused on the quality of relatedness present in the mother-child relationship,
mother’s valuing of school, and their relations to the child’s emotional engagement in the
first formal year of schooling, kindergarten.
I explored the presence of warmth, shared positive affect, emotional bonding, and
responsiveness in the mother-child relationship, operationalized here as Mutually
Responsive Orientation (MRO) (Kochanska, 2002). The quality of relatedness between
caregiver and child is paramount in social-emotional development and has a cascading
effect on future social cognitive development, both within family relationships as well as
relationships with others in other settings such as school (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991;
Henning & Striano, 2011; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Wentzel, 1999). While
studies have often utilized children’s self-report to measure the level of relatedness felt
with others and then made connections between relatedness and school emotional
engagement, MRO is measured by observation of mother and child relationship
characteristics to ascertain the relatedness present, and prior to this study it had not yet
been explored in relation to child emotional engagement in school.
The level of a child’s emotional engagement in school is often associated with the
internalization of values and beliefs held by significant others in the child’s social milieu.
A high level of relatedness between mother and child increases the likelihood the child
will internalize the mother’s values and adopt them as his or her own. Beliefs and values
2
individuals hold are often the motivation for their actions, and impact school engagement
(Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Wentzel, 1996; Wentzel,1999). School
engagement, in turn, increases academic achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
2004).
There is research supporting that children internalize parental valuing of school
(Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Noack, 2004; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012), but there
are few studies looking at how internalization takes place. In this study, I postulated the
quality of relatedness in the mother-child relationship (as operationalized by MRO) as the
basic mechanism for a child’s internalization of mother’s values, and utilized SelfDetermination Theory (SDT) as my lens for explaining this process of internalization
(Ryan & Deci, 2009). If relatedness is a mechanism for internalization, then it should
impact how mothers’ valuing of school correlates with school emotional engagement. In
this study, I investigated how relatedness between mother and child, mother’s valuing of
school, and child’s emotional engagement in school are interrelated.
School Engagement and Internalized Motivation: Self-Determination Theory
Emotional and behavioral engagement in the school setting have been found to be
positively associated with the fulfillment of psychological needs, one of which is
relatedness (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Self-Determination Theory (SDT),
my lens for describing the internalization of social values, is a theory of human
motivation in which fulfillment of three psychological needs fosters well-being and
growth in an individual. The needs are competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Competence involves feeling effective in bringing about desired results, and knowing
what the desired results are (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci,
3
2009). Autonomy is having a feeling of being in control of one’s own actions, to be selfinitiating (Deci et al., 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2009). A sense of relatedness involves feeling
connected with and understood by others by developing secure connections with others in
one’s social milieu, and also contributes to well-being (Deci et al., 1991; Reis, Sheldon,
Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Wentzel, 1999). Based on SDT, the reason there is a
positive correlation between school engagement and fulfillment of the psychological
needs is that supporting the psychological needs leads the individual to feel more
intrinsically motivated (which brings about engagement).
Intrinsic motivation is the natural human tendency to learn and create, and
exemplifies the “positive potential of human nature” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p.70).
Intrinsic motivation has been empirically associated with higher engagement in school
(Benware & Deci, 1984; Deci, 1992; Thomas & Oldfather, 1997). However, if an
individual is not initially intrinsically motivated, extrinsic motivation is needed.
Extrinsic motivation is when behavior is regulated based on extrinsic
consequences, such as a reward or punishment, and actions are attributed to reasons
external from the self. In contrast, intrinsic motivation is when behavior is regulated
based on the inherently enjoyable qualities of the action itself, independent of outcome
(Deci et al., 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2009). However, the lines are blurred between extrinsic
and intrinsic, as socially constructed behaviors and ideas can be internalized in an
individual to make them feel intrinsically motivated. SDT attributes this internalization
and increased intrinsic motivation to fulfillment of the three psychological needs. SDT
proposes a continuum of motivation, from extrinsic to intrinsic.
4
As the needs are satisfied, extrinsic motivation becomes intrinsic, and
internalization happens. The more self-regulated the extrinsic motivation is, the more
fully the three psychological needs are satisfied, and certain socially constructed
behaviors and ideas become more like intrinsic motivation (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci,
1999; Ryan and Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Consider an example provided by
Grolnick, Deci, and Ryan (1997) to illuminate this continuum of extrinsic motivation:
Think about a boy who feels an intense pressure and a sense of having to do well
on an exam to prove his self-worth and gain some imagined approval from a
generalized other. The cause of the boy’s trying to do well is inside him, but
according to our theory it is not internal to his sense of self. It is as if he were
being forced to behave by a contingency that has been imposed on him, even
though the contingency is now within him. He has partially internalized a
regulation, has taken it in without accepting it as his own. As such, he would lack
a sense of willingness and choice and instead would feel pressure, anxiety, and a
sense of “should.” This form of regulation differs greatly from that of a child who
tries hard because the achievement is what he wants for himself, because it is
central to his future goals and personal values. According to our definition,
internalization is thus not an all-or-none phenomenon. Rather, it concerns the
degree to which an activity initially regulated by external sources is perceived as
one’s own and is experienced as self-determined. Internalized regulations can
thus vary in their levels of autonomy and integration. (p. 140)
This example is a clear illustration of how a behavior can be either more or less
extrinsically motivated based on an individual’s perceptions and values. The lack of the
5
first student’s choice and strong feeling of “should” points to the autonomy need being
unfulfilled, whereas the second student perceives his actions as being his own choice.
That is, he is choosing to work hard because he has a personal valuing of that
achievement. A table summarizing the internalization continuum in SDT can be found in
Appendix A.
School Engagement and the Relatedness Need
If a child engages in school and learning tasks for reasons that are less
autonomous and therefore more extrinsically motivated in nature, such as “I will get in
trouble if I don’t do my schoolwork” or “I don’t want to disappoint my parents,” the
emotional engagement of the student will not be as high as a child who might say, “I do
my homework because I like learning about science.” Emotional engagement refers to
students’ affective reactions in school, sense of belonging, and valuing of school
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). For example, in a study by Ryan and Connell
(1989), the affective reactions of students to school activities were explored. Upperelementary children (ages 10-12) reported more internally regulated (autonomous)
reasons for participation in school activities such as doing homework and classwork also
reported more enjoyment and liking of school, whereas children who cited more external
reasons for engaging in school activities reported less enjoyment and liking of school.
Feeling autonomous and competent is set within social relationships in which an
individual feels a sense of belonging and support (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Wentzel, 1996,
1999). This sense of belonging and support helps to satisfy the need for relatedness.
Relationships in which the relatedness need is satisfied direct individuals to engage in
activities and tasks that are valued by the others they are relating with, and promote a
6
feeling of autonomy, emotional well-being, and competence (Connell & Wellborn 1991;
Wentzel, 1999).
Connell and Wellborn (1991), in a group of 220 third-sixth grade students, found
a positive correlation between three relationships involving perceived relatedness (with
parents, teachers, and peers) and classroom engagement. Relatedness in all cases was
defined as students feeling emotionally secure within relationships. Teachers rated
students’ typical emotional engagement, while students reported perceptions of
relatedness between themselves and others. Perceived relatedness between parents and
students correlated directly with emotional engagement in school, perceived relatedness
between students and peers, and perceived relatedness between students and teachers.
This illustrates the importance of relatedness between parent and child, as not only does it
correlate directly with school emotional engagement but also indirectly via increased
feelings of relatedness with peers and teachers (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Wentzel, 1999).
Relatedness as the Quality of the Parent-Child Relationship: MRO
Arguably the most fundamental relationship in a child’s life, the parent-child
relationship is a powerful resource for fulfillment of the relatedness need, as evidenced
by research on attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988). Attachment theory emphasizes the
importance of socialization within the family. Research on internalization of family
values, rules, behavior expectations, and development of conscience points to the crucial
role of secure attachment of child to parent, and a loving, mutually respectful relationship
in that internalization process (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Kochanska, 2002; Kochanska,
Coy, & Murray, 2001; Macoby, 1999; NICHD, 2008; Wentzel, 1999). In looking at
7
possible mechanisms of the emotional parent-child relationship, Kochanska and her
colleagues identified a construct called Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) (2002):
MRO is a positive, close, mutually binding, and cooperative relationship, which
encompasses two components: responsiveness and shared positive affect.
Responsiveness refers to the parent’s and the child’s willing, sensitive,
supportive, and developmentally appropriate response to one another’s signals of
distress, unhappiness, needs, bids for attention, or attempts to exert influence.
Shared positive affect refers to the “good times” shared by the parent and the
child—pleasurable, harmonious, smoothly flowing interactions infused with
positive emotions experienced by both. (p. 192)
MRO focuses on the warmth and emotional bonding present in the parent-child
relationship. Both attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) and the MRO construct
(Kochanska 2002) align with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2009) in that as a
child feels more supported, respected, and connected with another individual, the more
likely the child will be to embrace and internalize the values and beliefs of that person.
The characteristics of MRO, responsiveness and shared positive affect, are identified as
important aspects of social cognitive development, and are considered basic requirements
in the early mother-child relationship as a springboard for healthy social-emotional
development (Jones, 2008; Henning & Striano, 2011; Stormark & Braarud, 2004).
Yet it has been noted in other studies that there has not been much empirical work
in examining how young students’ level of relatedness with significant others impacts
their functioning in school (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). In
one study, adolescent students, who reported positive identification with their mothers,
8
felt that school was more important for their future and had a higher sense of
efficaciousness, aspiration and expectation for success (Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk,
Eccles, & Sameroff, 2001). Autonomy support and high responsiveness, both important
aspects of the early parent-child relationship, have been correlated with perceived
competence (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991) and long-term, positive effects on the child’s
academic performance and prosocial behavior above and beyond other demographic
variables (Morrison, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta 2002; NICHD, 2008).
Responsiveness and autonomy support are important aspects of satisfying the
relatedness need. However, the shared positive affect, warmth, and pure emotionality
included in the MRO construct are not explicitly integrated into typical measures of
relatedness when correlating parent-child relationships with school engagement.
Alternatively, the MRO construct encapsulates the qualities necessarily present in the
interactions in the mother-child relationship to fulfill the relatedness need, as seen by the
focus of studies in early child development research on social-emotional development. A
review of the research builds the case that MRO operationalizes the concept of the
relatedness need as qualities that accurately reflect the sense of relatedness in the motherchild relationship.
Aims of the Study
The general aim of this study was to explore the pathways from two independent
variables: (1) mother’s valuing of school and (2) relatedness to the dependent variable:
school emotional engagement in the child. Past research has identified a generally
positive correlation between relatedness and school engagement, with high relatedness
creating a welcoming environment in which autonomy support and competence can be
9
met. This leads an individual toward greater intrinsic motivation and taking ownership of
behaviors, goals and tasks valued in the environment in which he or she functions,
thereby increasing engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Wentzel, 1999).
In this study, I took a closer look at the extent to which the mother’s values are
internalized in the child based on the quality of relatedness between mother and child. To
investigate this, I sought to analyze how the interaction between relatedness and mothers’
values concerning school might impact school engagement. If relatedness is a
mechanism for the child to internalize the values of the mother, relatedness might
moderate the effect of parental valuing of school on the child’s school emotional
engagement. In other words, the quality of relatedness between mother and child would
impact how much or how little parental valuing of school was internalized by the child,
as evidenced by school emotional engagement. Additionally, I intended to introduce and
lay groundwork for MRO as a conceptually sound construct operationalizing relatedness,
and to establish its utility in studying parent-child relationships and their possible impact
on children’s school experiences.
Research Question and Hypothesis
Research Question: How is children’s school emotional engagement affected by
mothers’ values about school and the quality of relatedness in the mother-child
relationship?
Hypothesis: Relatedness moderates the impact of mothers’ valuing of school on
children’s school emotional engagement, as illustrated in Figure 1.
10
Moderator
Relatedness
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Mother’s Valuing
of School
Child’s School
Engagement
Figure 1: Relatedness as a Moderator
Children experiencing high relatedness in mother-child relationships would be
impacted more by mothers’ valuing of school than those children with low relatedness, as
Child's School
Emotional
Engagement
depicted in Figure 2.
Low Relatedness
High Relatedness
Mother's School Valuing
Figure 2: The Hypothesized Moderating Effects of High and Low Relatedness
Significance of the Study
Higher student engagement in school is correlated with higher achievement
outcomes, lower drop-out rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Ladd, Birch, &
Buhs, 1999), and increased scholastic growth over time (Ladd & Dinella, 2009). If
children with high relatedness with their mothers internalize mothers’ valuing of school
and become either more or less emotionally engaged in school based on mothers’ values,
then efforts should be made to educate parents about the impact their values and
relationship have on their child’s school success. Identifying pathways for development
11
of valuing education is a critical area of research in educational psychology, as emotional
engagement is linked to intrinsic desires to participate in the school setting.
Definitions
Autonomy: A feeling of being in control of one’s own actions and self-initiating. One of
the psychological needs (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991).
Competence: Feeling effective in bringing about desired results, and knowing what the
desired results are. One of the psychological needs (Deci et al., 1991).
Coordinated Routines: An element of MRO. Procedures making up “daily activities,
such as meals, caregiving, or nighttime rituals. Both the parent and child have
established mutually agreed-upon expectations and implicit procedures that are
performed smoothly. Both partners mesh their behaviors seamlessly, comfortably, and
enjoyably” (Aksan, Kochanska, & Ormann, 2006, p. 834).
Emotional Ambiance: An element of MRO reflecting the quality of the emotional affect
present in the relationship. High MRO dyads often experience joy and show affection
and humor mutually in the relationship. Those with low MRO experience negative affect
and less pleasure in the relationship (Aksan, Kochanska, & Ormann, 2006).
External Regulation: When a person does something for purely extrinsic reasons; for
example, following a rule or law (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan 1997).
Extrinsic Motivation: When behavior is regulated based completely on extrinsic
consequences, such as a reward or punishment, and actions are attributed to reasons
external from the self (Deci et al., 1991)
Harmonious Communication: An element of MRO. Like intersubjectivity (defined
below), harmonious communication reflects how communication is made possible in a
12
relationship. Dyads are “proficient in reading each other’s signals, enjoy the back-andforth flow of communication, and communication appears to promote their
connectedness” (Aksan, Kochanska, & Ormann, 2006, p. 834).
Identified Regulation: A type of extrinsic motivation due to consciously valuing a goal
or action (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
Integrated Regulation: Doing something or pursuing a particular goal that has become
fully integrated with the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Integrated regulation is very similar
to intrinsic motivation, except that the activity, such as engaging in school learning, is
“personally important for a valued outcome” rather than being done solely for inherent
enjoyment in a task (Deci et al., 1991, p. 330).
Internal Working Models: Schemas in the mind that are either unconscious or
conscious representations of a view of others as well as the self-with-others that help an
individual to make plans, perceive situations, and predict what will happen in future
situations (Bowlby, 1973).
Intersubjectivity: Intersubjectivity occurs when the adult and the child negotiate to
ultimately share the same understanding of the context in which they are operating, and
they are aware that they share that understanding. Either the adult changes his or her
understanding to be the same as the child’s, the child adjusts his or her understanding to
that of the adult’s, or they meet somewhere in between (Wertsch, 1984).
Intrinsic Motivation: When behavior is regulated based on the inherently enjoyable
qualities of the action itself and is not contingent on any outcome (Deci et al., 1991).
Introjected Regulation: Behavior performed when trying to avoid feelings of guilt or
bolster the ego (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).
13
Mutual Cooperation: An element of MRO that refers to the willing stance, interest in
cooperation, and compliance with which each member of the dyad responds to one
another (Aksan, Kochanska, & Ormann, 2006).
Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO): “A positive, close, mutually binding, and
cooperative relationship, which encompasses two components: responsiveness and shared
positive affect” (Kochanska, 2002, p. 192). In addition, it captures the qualities of the
mother-child relationship that stem from individual responsiveness and positive affect:
coordinated routines, harmonious communication, mutual cooperation, and emotional
ambiance (Aksan, Kochanska, & Ortmann, 2006).
Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC): The dimension by which attributions of
behaviors are located, internal or external to the self (Ryan et al., 1991; Ryan & Connell,
1989). PLOC is impacted by the extent to which the psychological needs are filled
(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997).
Relatedness: Feeling connected with and understood by others by developing secure
connections with others in one’s social milieu. One of the psychological needs (Deci et
al., 1991; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Wentzel, 1999).
Responsiveness: “The parent’s and the child’s willing, sensitive, supportive, and
developmentally appropriate response to one another’s signals of distress, unhappiness,
needs, bids for attention, or attempts to exert influence” (Kochanska, 2002, p. 192).
School Emotional Engagement: Students’ affective reactions in school, sense of
belonging, and valuing of school (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
School Liking: The student’s ability to identify with the role of a student and trust in the
teacher (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000).
14
Self-Determination Theory (SDT): A motivational theory that provides an explanation
as to how different types of regulation (external, introjected, identified, and integrated) of
behaviors can be more or less beneficial to an individual’s school success and overall
well-being. PLOC and the three psychological needs (relatedness, competence, and
autonomy) are central to the theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000a)
Shared Positive Affect: “The ‘good times’ shared by the parent and the child—
pleasurable, harmonious, smoothly flowing interactions infused with positive emotions
experienced by both” (Kochanska, 2002, p. 192).
Situation Definition: Understanding of context. While child and adult may share the
same spatiotemporal context, their understanding of that context may differ from one
another (Wertsch, 1984).
Task Value: How important, useful, inherently enjoyable the task is (Noack, 2004).
15
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
Introduction
Entry into formal schooling marks an important shift in a child’s social-emotional
experience. The preschool and home environment before a child enters kindergarten
tends to be more focused on socialization, and preschool teachers tend to be warmer with
students than kindergarten teachers. Expectations for children in kindergarten become
more formalized, and there are more academic and cognitive goals introduced. Children
interact more with peers and in larger groups of peers. This first experience in formal
schooling marks a period of great developmental change, socially, emotionally, and
cognitively, and can be seen as a sensitive period for later school success (RimmKaufman & Pianta, 2000). Given this sensitive period, it is important to understand what
can contribute to a child’s emotional engagement in school, which includes students’
affective reactions in school, sense of belonging, and valuing of school (Fredricks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004).
There is research linking positive motivational attributes such as the level of
school liking, resiliency, and emotional engagement to how much the need for
relatedness is fulfilled (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004;
Gilligan, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch,
1994; Wentzel, 1999). Relatedness is defined as feeling connected with and understood
by others by developing secure connections with others in one’s social milieu (Deci et al.,
1991; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Wentzel, 1999).
As an individual perceives more relatedness within a close relationship, the more willing
he or she is to do something another values. The willingness to do something valued by a
16
friend, respected mentor, or loved one is much greater than to do something valued by a
stranger or a person who is not trusted (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). This is because
the need for relatedness is fulfilled by secure and deep relationships in which values of
another trusted person are integrated into one’s own value system (Ryan & Stiller, 1991).
The two main sections of literature reviewed in this chapter concern the process
of internalization of values and development of the sense of relatedness between mother
and child. The review establishes the need for a conceptually robust construct to
operationalize and measure the level of relatedness experienced in the mother-child
relationship, as well as provides a closer investigation of the links between relatedness,
the mother’s valuing of school, and the child’s school emotional engagement.
The first section is entitled “The Internalization of Values.” To thoroughly
examine the process of internalization of values, this review includes relevant
developmental theories concerning relatedness and value internalization through the lens
of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT is a motivational theory explaining how
different types of regulation can be more or less beneficial to an individual’s school
success and overall well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The review also includes links
among self-regulated motivation, school liking and emotional engagement, and
emphasizes the prominent role relatedness plays in developing self-regulated
internalization of values. The last part of this section is focused on literature describing
parents’ values in relation to children’s values, centered on the internalization of school
valuing. Relatedness is recognized as the foundation for self-regulated internalization of
values.
17
The second section, “MRO as Relatedness and its Presence in the Parent-Child
Relationship” describes how relatedness develops in relationships. To understand how a
sense of relatedness develops in the mother-child relationship, I review social cognitive
developmental theories through the lens of Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO)
(Kochanska, 2002; Aksan, Kochanska, & Ortmann, 2006), illustrating how the MRO
construct aligns well with studies on responsiveness and shared affect in mother-child
relationships. In this study, MRO is a construct operationalizing the concept of
relatedness, as MRO concerns mutuality, reciprocity, and secure attachment in motherchild relationships (Aksan et al., 2006). I elucidate how the construct captures the quality
of relatedness in that relationship, and introduce research that identifies MRO as a
mechanism for internalizing values. An especially important theoretical base of MRO,
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), is reviewed. Findings concerning how early
attachment influences other relationships illustrate the strong theoretical underpinnings
MRO carries, adding viability to it as a construct measuring the quality of the motherchild relationship.
By reviewing both the internalization of values and the development of
relatedness in the mother-child relationship, I lay the groundwork for considering how
mothers’ values and the relatedness present in mother-child relationships interact to
impact children’s school engagement.
Internalization of Values
The parent-child relationship is typically the first relationship the child
experiences. In early childhood, the attachment to the primary caretaker (typically the
mother) sets a secure base from which the values of that caretaker begin to be
18
internalized by the child (Bowlby, 1988; Grusec, 1997; Thompson, 1988). But what is
the process that gives rise to the development of values within this relationship? Values,
social order, and cultural practices of an individual are developed through some kind of
internalization process, and how that process happens is a question that has intrigued
many psychologists (Kochanska, 1994).
So how do children internalize parent values, and use them to drive their
behavior? There are many developmental theories concerning how internalization of
values develops; for example, information processing views focus on cognitive
development, and psychoanalytic views focus on parental discipline and standards of
conduct (Kochanska, 1994).
Self-Determination Theory as a Lens for the Internalization Process
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2009)
provides a lens through which the internalization process can be explained utilizing four
types of self-regulated extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is behavior based
completely on extrinsic consequences, such as a reward or punishment, and actions are
attributed to reasons external from the self (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan, 1991).
Following a rule or law for purely extrinsic reasons is called external regulation
(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan 1997). SDT posits that extrinsic motivation is not purely
externally regulated, and can move towards a type of motivation that is similar to
intrinsic motivation as the psychological needs of an individual become more fulfilled
(Ryan & Deci, 2009). Completely intrinsic motivation denotes behavior regulated based
on the inherently enjoyable qualities of the action itself, independent of outcome (Deci et
al., 1991). Once motivation to act is perceived by an individual as being under one’s own
19
control, motivation feels much more intrinsic in nature. SDT denotes the attribution of
where explanations for outcomes are located, internally or externally, as the perceived
locus of causality (PLOC) (Ryan et al., 1991; Ryan & Connell, 1989). PLOC is impacted
by the extent to which the psychological needs are fulfilled (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan
1997; Ryan & Deci, 2009).
Relatedness is one of the psychological needs. The other two are competence and
autonomy. Competence involves feeling effective in bringing about desired results, and
knowing what the desired results are. Autonomy is having a feeling of being in control
of one’s own actions and self-initiating (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier &
Ryan, 1991). As psychological needs are more fulfilled, the PLOC becomes more
internal, and motivation changes to be more akin to intrinsic, self-regulated motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is correlated with higher school engagement, more academic success,
and improved overall well-being (Benware & Deci, 1984; Deci, 1992; Deci & Ryan,
2000a; Deci & Ryan, 2000b; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris 2004; Nix, Ryan, Manly, &
Deci, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Thomas & Oldfather, 1997).
The continuum of motivation from less self-regulated to more self-regulated is
defined by three main categories: introjected, identified, and integrated. In the following
section, each category will be interpreted using the concepts of relatedness and
internalization of values. Interpreting each category will illuminate how motivation goes
from a more external PLOC to an internal PLOC as self-regulation increases.
Introjected regulation. The first formal psychoanalytic theory to describe
parenting and the process of internalization of values was developed by Freud.
According to his theory, the child takes on values imposed by parents out of fear of loss
20
of love, repressing any hostility he might feel due to the imposition of parents’ values.
The child incorporates parental punishment for transgressions from parentally imposed
values, leading the child to punish himself or experience feelings of guilt due to
transgressions (Grusec, 1997). This type of self-regulation can be defined as introjected
regulation. Introjected regulation refers to behaviors performed when trying to avoid
feelings of guilt or bolster the ego (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). While this regulation is
internal to the individual, it is not truly by choice; rather, introjected regulation is brought
about by coercion and extrinsic control, producing a motivation akin to extrinsic
motivation (Deci et al., 1991). The aim of behavior is to attain an extrinsic goal, such as
love from parents or avoidance of punishment.
Rather than the child identifying with values and taking a personal ownership of
values and becoming more intrinsically motivated, values are transmitted in a unidirectional manner from the parents, without any modifications or constructions coming
from the child (Flor & Knapp, 2001; Grusec, 1997; Lawrence & Valsiner, 1993). A
sense of relatedness is not established between parent and child when introjected
regulation takes place because the uni-directional nature of coercive and threatening
directives does not develop a sense of understanding or security within the relationship.
Feelings of fear and guilt are not associated with a strong sense of relatedness.
Introjected regulation is not considered a type of self-regulation that fosters intrinsically
motivated behavior and is not as desirable. Individuals operating from intrinsic
motivation rather than extrinsically driven actions are more successful in tasks, more
persistent, and experience more overall well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000a).
Identified regulation. Alternative cognitive theories of social learning and
21
development incorporate a more active view of the child’s role in development, where
both parent and child contribute to the internalization process, and the child can identify
with the parent (Vygotsky, 1978). Internalization in cognitive theories includes an
individual’s construction of a cognitive representation of self and the environment around
her (Bandura, 2001). An example of this active meaning-making in the mind of the child
is seen in Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory through observational learning. In
observational learning, individuals can learn by watching others without direct
experiences themselves. Instead, a cognitive representation of a behavior is developed by
watching another perform it. Based on the model observed and whether or not the model
is successful or unsuccessful in the action, the learner develops a sense of how to do
something themselves, as well as how successful she may be. The learner can begin to
value a behavior if the model succeeds in her actions, and the model is someone with
whom the learner can identify.
A sense of relatedness between the learner and the model must be present in
observational learning for it to be effective and for the learner to find value in the
behavior (Bandura, 1999; Bandura, 2004b; Thompson, 1988). The modeler of behavior
must be a competent model the individual can identify with, because “if people see others
like themselves succeed by sustained effort they come to believe that they, too, have the
capacity to do so. Competent models also build efficacy by conveying knowledge and
skills for managing environmental demands” (Bandura, 2004a, p. 622).
Within the parent-child relationship, the child typically takes the role of the
learner and the parent that of the model. For knowledge to be shared successfully
between child and parent, relatedness must be present. Vygotsky’s developmental theory
22
provides a cogent description of how relatedness is developed in a parent-child dyad,
setting the stage for internalization of values. A shared, socially-constructed cognitive
space is created between child and adult in which behaviors and ideas are understood
equally by both participants (Vygotsky, 1978). There is connection, trust, and
understanding in this space creating a sense of relatedness. Vygotsky described this
space of relatedness as intersubjectivity, and noted that the process of internalization
happens when intersubjectivity is present between parent and child within the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD is “the distance between the actual
developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
For problem solving to take place in the ZPD, the way objects and events are
represented in the mind of the adult and child must be in agreement. This is often not the
case, as an adult’s representation of an event or object will be much more advanced than
the child’s. While both individuals share the same spatiotemporal context, their
understanding of that context may be very different from one another. The understanding
of the context is called the situation definition (Wertsch, 1984).
When learning something, such as what a parent values, the child’s situation
definition is different than the adult’s, and the adult often has to change his or her
situation definition to work within the ZPD of the student. This establishes a third
situation definition in which the child and adult can collaborate called intersubjectivity.
Intersubjectivity takes place on the interpsychological plane (between people – cultural
development) (Vygotsky, 1978). First, the adult adjusts his or her situation definition to
23
be the same as the child’s. Then, through their interactions and the support of the adult,
the child–if able–adjusts his or her understanding to that of the adult’s. Together, they
reach the definition of the situation together. Intersubjectivity occurs throughout the
interaction, as the guiding adult and the child negotiate to ultimately be aware and share
the same understanding of the context in which they are acting (Wertsch, 1984). Without
intersubjectivity, the child will not be able to relate to and ultimately identify with a value
system held by his or her caretaker. This co-construction of understanding is called the
“relational zone” by Goldstein (1999), and emphasizes necessary warmth in the
interpersonal relationship to allow learning to take place. The shared situation definition
can lead the child to feel more competent in the understanding of tasks and ideas, as well
as more autonomous as the caretaker and the child have negotiated to find agreement.
The child has not been coerced to take the adult’s view or understanding.
The presence of intersubjectivity or the relational zone in parent-child
relationships high in relatedness is referred to as harmonious communication. When a
parent and child experience harmonious communication (Aksan, et al., 2006),
they are proficient in reading each other’s signals, enjoy the back-and-forth flow
of communication, and communication appears to promote their connectedness.
In contrast, dyads who have failed to develop MRO communicate less well and
often appear disconnected and unable to read each other’s cues. (p. 834)
In this scenario where child and adult negotiate together to understand the situation, the
child can behave in ways that feel less introjected, and take ownership in the
understanding. This promotes a feeling of autonomy, as the child is constructing, along
with the adult, an understanding with mutual agreement and choice. This type of self-
24
regulation of behavior can be called identified regulation. Identified regulation is more
self-determined than introjected regulation, and refers to motivation due to consciously
valuing the goal or action (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, 2009). The goal or action is mutually
agreed upon and understood by the child and the caregiver via the establishment of
intersubjectivity. As the child feels more ownership and competence, the motivation for
acting becomes attributed to internal reasons rather than external ones. The PLOC is
from within, and the behavior feels more self-determined.
Integrated regulation. The interaction taking place between the adult and child
that brings the child to perceive an internally located locus of control likely leads the
child to make qualitative shifts in his or her own situation definition (which occurs on
what Vygotsky calls the intrapsychological plane – constructed in the mind). Learning
through intersubjectivity with a more capable peer or adult pulls along development. It
begins with socio-cultural interactions with others and culture on the interpsychological
plane, and then moves to the intrapsychological plane as the situation definition becomes
shared between adult and child. The child is then able to integrate ideas from the
interpsychological plane into his or her own cognitions (on the intrapsychological plane).
As interactions in the environment occur, scaffolded by an adult, the child integrates
content from those interactions, becoming more developed in cognitive and social
abilities as he or she matures (Wertsch, 1984).
For example, in one study (Rogoff, Malkin, & Gilbride, 1984), children from 4
mos.-17 mos. demonstrated more cognitively complex social abilities as they interacted
with an adult working a jack-in-the-box. Adult-infant dyads were observed at seven
different ages – 4 mos., 5 mos., 6 mos., 7-8 mos., 9-10 mos., 11-14 mos., and 15-17 mos.
25
Half of the observations were with one baby boy, and half were with one baby girl (twin
brother and sister). At each age there were several observations videotaped, with a total
of 26 different adults interacting with the babies over the seven ages. Each time, the
child and adult negotiated play with the jack-in-the box. Observers watched the tapes
and transcribed the sequence of the dyad’s communications, including vocalizations,
intonation, changes in posture, gestures, gazes and actions with objects. The focus of the
observations was on how joint attention was established, how much scaffolding the adult
provided at different ages, and generally how the play was negotiated (Rogoff, Malkin, &
Gilbride, 1984). Interestingly, in the first year, the children’s interactions with the adult
were mainly focused on playing with the toy, whereas during the second year, the
interactions became more about the interpersonal relationship between the child and the
adult. Both adult and child had active roles in shaping the learning experience.
This process of development provides a description of how internalization occurs
at the cognitive level, first on the interpsychological plane between the child and
caregiver, and then again on the intrapsychological plane in the child. Ultimately, when
full internalization has occurred, motivation and behavior of the child come from within.
The child performs tasks and internalizes cultural ideas, beliefs, and values with a feeling
of competence and autonomy. The child is regulating herself in a fully integrated
manner. This can be called integrated regulation, which shares many qualities with
intrinsic motivation. It occurs when doing something or pursuing a particular goal has
become fully integrated with the self (Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Ryan & Deci, 2009).
Integrated regulation is very similar to intrinsic motivation. However, integrated
regulation means the activity, such as engaging in school learning, is “personally
26
important for a valued outcome” rather than being done solely for inherent enjoyment in
a task (Deci et al., 1991, p. 330).
Self-Regulated Motivation and School Liking
The impact of the type of regulated motivation a child feels on school liking and
emotional engagement is evident in a study by Ryan and Connell (1989). They
administered surveys based on a PLOC model to upper-elementary school children,
asking children why they engaged in particular behaviors focusing on achievement and
prosocial behaviors. Reasons for behaviors fell on a continuum spanning external
regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic regulation. They
found that children who had an internal PLOC enjoyed school more and were more
resilient, whereas children with externally located PLOC reported more anxiety and
poorer coping with failure in school. In other words, children who felt more autonomous
and less controlled, and reported their own behaviors to be due to integrated and intrinsic
regulatory reasons, had internalized school tasks and values to be more congruent with
themselves, and therefore enjoyed school more fully. Children with more controlling
regulatory styles reported their behaviors to be due to more introjected or extrinsically
regulated reasons and tended to have more negative school experiences.
Within the self-regulated framework of motivation, relatedness within the school
context also contributes to school liking, which is described as the student’s ability to
identify with the role of a student and trust in the teacher (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). A
sense of relatedness is a unique contributor to school liking and engagement above and
beyond perceived autonomy (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Children enter kindergarten with
27
particular sentiments about school, and these remain fairly stable throughout the year
(Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000).
Children who like school initially participate more fully in school, and that
participation in turn is correlated with student achievement (Lad, Buhs, & Seid, 2000).
Higher student engagement in school is correlated with higher achievement-outcomes,
lower drop-out rates (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999),
and increased scholastic growth over time (Ladd & Dinella, 2009). In particular,
achievement is more highly correlated with participation when a student takes on the
student role willingly and is a compliant and collaborative participant in the classroom
(Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). The willingness to be compliant and collaborative is present
in relationships identified as high in MRO. Aksan et al. (2002) refer to this as mutual
cooperation. Parents and children with high MRO take on a willing stance toward one
another and are eager to collaborate. This is evident in the literature on school liking and
developing a trusting relationship with the teacher as well. As students integrate
teachers’ values as congruent with their own, they are more willing to comply with
classroom expectations and tasks.
Parental Valuing of School Internalized by Children
Research has shown a close relationship between parents’ values and children’s
values (Barnett & Taylor, 2009; Noack, 2004; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012) with
respect to education. For example, mothers’ values concerning school subjects predict
upper elementary school children’s values of those subjects (Barnett & Taylor, 2009;
Noack, 2004; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012). Mother’s beliefs about the
importance of subjects also relate to children’s beliefs about the importance of those
28
subjects (Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles 2012). Finally, Noack (2004) showed that
mothers’ valuing of mathematics and German (native language) predicted their 5th grade
children’s valuing of those topics.
In Simpkins et al. (2012), mothers’ estimation of “importance” was determined by
measuring their enjoyment of the task and belief in the utility of the task for future goals.
The utility of a subject area was assessed with the question “How important is it to you
that this child does well in [sports/music/math/reading]? (1 - not at all important, 7 - very
important)” (p. 1023). In Noack’s (2004) study, utility, perceived importance and
enjoyment were measured by asking mothers and children to respond to statements using
a 4-point Likert-type scale. Statements examined importance (“mathematics is important
in everyone’s life;”) utility (“you have to know mathematics to find a good job;”) and
enjoyment (“I like to do mathematics”) (p. 716).
Noack (2004) also included a key measure concerning children’s perceptions of
mothers’ task valuing, and found that students’ perceptions of mothers’ task values
almost entirely mediated the relationship between mothers’ and students’ values. Even
more interesting, students’ perceptions about the tasks mothers valued were linked to
mothers’ behaviors: role-modeling, encouragement, reinforcement, providing materials,
and coactivity (mother and child participating together in activity surrounding the task or
subject area).
Studies of adolescence conducted by Jodl, Michael, Malanchuk, Eccles, and
Sameroff, 2001) have supported the idea that parents’ and children’s values are closely
related. Mothers’ aspirations and expectations correlated positively with children’s
aspirations and expectations in the school setting, and adolescents’ values and beliefs
29
about school were positively correlated with identification with their mothers. However,
these studies have also shown that parental behavior is less important for older children
than having parents act as conceptual guides or “interpreters of reality” (p. 1257).
All which begs the question, what is the mechanism for a child’s internalization of
teacher’s or parent’s values? While this question has not been specifically addressed in
research (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), the aforementioned studies suggest possible avenues
for future inquiry. Namely, positive emotionality in mother-child relationships likely
plays an important role for both elementary-age children and adolescents. Simpkins et al.
(2012) stated that understanding parent-child interactions during coactivity is critical to
discover “the specific mechanisms by which mothers influence children’s motivation,”
arguing that “variations in the emotional quality of these interactions could be key to
understanding their influences on the ontogeny of the children’s beliefs and behavioral
choices” (p. 1029).
Similarly, Jodl et al. (2001) found that adolescents’ identification with their
mothers included wanting to be like their mothers when grown up and feeling close to
their mothers, and that a feeling of closeness in the mother-child relationship was a
central part of adolescent integration of mothers’ aspirations and expectations about
school (Jodl et al., 2001). The presence of positive emotionality in mother-child
interactions was notably important in value internalization. Together, the studies cited
here point to relatedness being a primary mechanism for parents’ transfer of values to
their children and a predictor of the extent to which children internalize those values.
30
Relatedness as the Foundation for Self-Regulated Internalization of Values
SDT’s continuum of extrinsic motivation from external, to introjected, to
identified, and finally to integrated regulation establishes the importance of relatedness
and how increased relatedness in relationships supports the development of fully
integrated value systems constructed within the self. This is evidenced by increased
school liking when children reported intrinsic regulatory reasons for prosocial behaviors
and high achievement at school (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
2004; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). In these studies, integrated
value systems were coupled with motivation similar in nature to intrinsic motivation.
A child’s sense of competence and autonomy can flourish within a relationship
high in perceived relatedness. When a mother shares her values with her child, the child
can interact with his mother on the plane of intersubjectivity or in harmonious
communication, fostering a sense of control over his learning as they negotiate
understanding. Understanding constructed at a level appropriate for the child, within the
ZPD, creates a feeling of competence. When the psychological needs are met, the
outcome is a kind of self-regulated motivation where parent’s values are integrated into
the child’s belief system and enjoyment in the activity. In such cases, participation in
school increases, and teachers and children can develop mutual cooperation within their
relationships more easily.
MRO as Relatedness and its Presence in the Parent-Child Relationship
Mutual cooperation and harmonious communication are two elements of
Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) (Aksan et al., 2006; Kochanska, 2002). They
are key factors in developing a high level of relatedness in the mother-child relationship.
31
The development of integrated personal valuing would not come to fruition without the
establishment of intersubjectivity, reflecting a sense of relatedness in which the adult and
child feel connected, understood, and trustful of one another in harmonious
communication (Kochanska, 2002; Rogoff, Malkin, & Gilbride, 1984; Vygotsky, 1978;
Wertsch, 1984). As demonstrated in a variety of studies (Fredrickson, 2003; Jodl et al.,
2001; Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000; Noack, 2004; Vinik, Johnston, Grusec, & Farrell,
2013), mutual cooperation is produced through relationships in which mothers and their
children are responsive to one another, make sure they understand one another, help one
another navigate challenges, show positive affect and warmth, and trust one another.
Mutual cooperation and harmonious communication, along with two other
elements–coordinated routines and emotional ambiance–are the hallmarks of
relationships high in mutually responsive orientation. A sense of relatedness is shaped
between mother and child as their bond develops from the beginning of life. A review of
studies outlining the emergence of relatedness within the mother-child relationship in
social cognitive developmental research is presented here through the lens of MRO
(Kochanska, 2002). MRO is defined as
a positive, close, mutually binding, and cooperative relationship, which
encompasses two components: responsiveness and shared positive affect.
Responsiveness refers to the parent’s and the child’s willing, sensitive,
supportive, and developmentally appropriate response to one another’s signals of
distress, unhappiness, needs, bids for attention, or attempts to exert influence.
Shared positive affect refers to the “good times” shared by the parent and the
32
child—pleasurable, harmonious, smoothly flowing interactions infused with
positive emotions experienced by both (p. 192).
The two basic elements, responsiveness and shared positive affect, set the stage for
relatedness in early mother-child relationships. Mother and child both bring levels of
responsiveness and positive affect to the relationship, and from these basic components,
relatedness develops. Harmonious communication, mutual cooperation, coordinated
routines, and emotional ambiance are features of the interactions taking place in the
relationship and cannot be found in either one or the other person. These four features
are linked to and grow out of the responsiveness and positive affect each member of the
dyad brings to the relationship, but can be identified above and beyond them as hallmarks
of MRO. In other words, they are greater than the sum of their parts (Aksan et al., 2006).
The Importance of Shared Positive Affect in Social Cognitive Development
Shared positive affect in the mother-child relationship is important in social
cognitive development, as positive affect motivates both mother and child to continue
interacting with one another in harmonious ways that aid in social cognitive development
from the very beginning of life (Thompson, 1988). Consider smiling as an example of
shared positive affect. Smiling begins in infants’ sleep, and by 4-6 weeks of age they
begin smiling while awake. They smile at any number of stimuli if the stimuli cause a
change in their arousal level (Jones, 2008).
As infants continue to smile when experiencing arousal, they receive positive
reinforcement from caregivers, as the caregivers respond with a smile or other gestures
and sounds of positive affect. This behavior-feedback loop can be called contingency
learning, as behavior of the individual is contingent upon reinforcement from the
33
environment. In the case of smiling, over time, with many experiences of arousal,
smiling, and positive reinforcement, the smile that was once only an expression of
arousal begins to be social in nature. Jones (2008) describes this quantitative
developmental process as follows:
The infant comes to each small event as the combined product of all of his
biological potential as it has been realized in a succession of other events in other
moments. He is slightly changed by each event, so that at any moment in time, he
is the cumulative product of all of his biological and experiential history. Thus,
we expect that large changes in smile production—such as the changes that bring
smiling under social control—will be the cumulative effect of changes on a much
smaller, smile-by-smile scale. (352-353)
A smile moves from a simple arousal behavior to a purposeful, social smile, as
physiological states can develop into psychological emotionality. This emotionality is
developed within the interactions between caretaker and child. In MRO, emotionality
between caregiver and child are referred to as emotional ambiance. As Aksan et al.
(2006) note, dyads that are high in emotional ambiance
experience frequent bouts of joy, show mutual affection and humor, and
effectively reduce negative affect once it arises. Parents and children in
relationships that are not mutually responsive show more negative emotional
ambiance, experience more frequent and more prolonged bouts of negative
emotions, and take less pleasure in each other’s company. (p. 834)
Emotional ambiance is also an influential factor in observational learning.
Bandura further stresses that “people are easily aroused by the emotional expressions of
34
others. Therefore, observers can acquire lasting attitudes, values, and emotional
dispositions toward persons, places, or things that they associate with modeled emotional
experiences” (2004b, p.484). This speaks to how children with negative shared affect in
the mother-child relationship may translate those emotional expressions to other possible
future relationships in the school setting with teachers or peers.
Emotional ambiance in contingency learning is also evident in protoconversations—a term originally coined by Bateson (1971) as cited by Trevarthen and
Aitken (2001), in which young infants and their caregivers engage in dyadic interactions,
with verbalizations, gestures, and emotionality. During proto-conversations, the baby
may learn that when they make a certain sound or gesture, there is high probability they
will receive a certain response.
The Importance of Responsiveness in Social Cognitive Development
In investigating proto-conversations between babies and caregivers, researchers
have found interesting results in infant responses when the behavior of the adult is
temporally not contingent during dyadic relations. Rather than infants interacting with
live caregivers, they are played tapes of prior interactions with caregivers. Infants show
avoidant and distressed behaviors when the responses of their caregivers are out of sync
(Murray & Trevarthen, 1985, as cited by Beebe, Sorter, Rustin, & Knoblauch, 2003;
Stormark & Braarud, 2004). The distress experienced by babies when their expectations
are violated could be compared to the physical arousal discussed in the development of
social smiling, and lead to more complex contingency learning. The distress of the
babies would provide important feedback to the system, causing the system to make
adjustments to predictions over time. If the baby experienced non-contingent responses
35
over a period of time, the trajectory of social cognitive development could be negatively
impacted.
Such effects illustrate the impact emotion can have on the trajectory of social
cognitive development and need for caretakers to respond in a contingent manner to
children. MRO refers to the outcome of responsiveness between parent and child as
“coordinated routines,” which addresses the expectations developed between parent and
child for implicit procedures to be executed smoothly (Aksan et al., 2006, p. 834). An
example of a coordinated routine might be babies eliciting expected outcomes from their
mothers when establishing harmonious communication in proto-conversations, as
described above, or with larger scale tasks, such as feeding or nighttime routines.
In another more extreme example of non-contingent responses, Henning and
Striano (2011) found that infants only detect contiguous behavior from parents within a
certain time frame. Even if a parent is responsive in the content of their behavior,
children cannot perceive a response to their actions if it happens too late. This noncontingent response could impact the perceived agency of the child, again having
deleterious effects on development (Henning & Striano, 2011). If children do not learn to
associate actions with responses from their caregivers they may develop a sense of
learned helplessness, feeling powerless to impact their environment. As the child loses a
sense of agency, she may become less responsive, and therefore the caregiver (also
responding to contingencies in his or her environment) may become less responsive, with
the relationship may suffering accordingly (Henning & Striano, 2011). The relationship
is indeed a mutually responsive one, where both caregiver and child participate in the
developmental process.
36
Content as well as timing is important to developing responsiveness in a
relationship. Consider the still-face paradigm (Tronick, Als, Adamson, Wise, &
Brazelton, 1978, as cited by Henning & Striano, 2011; Weinberg & Tronick, 1996). In
this scenario, an infant would express negative affect and avoidant behavior during a
normal face-to-face interaction in which the adult assumes a “still-face”–thought to be
non-contingent with the infant’s expectation during protoconversations. In the social
learning domain, non-contingent timing and content of a response (e.g., still-face) could
violate the baby’s expectation and thereby create distress or negative arousal. Negative
arousal coupled with non-contingent content and responses leads to negative emotional
ambiance, and uncoordinated routines that thwart harmonious communication and
undermine the development of relatedness in the mother-child relationship.
It is easy to see how non-contingent responses could have an influence on
emotional development from this point of view. A developmental trajectory could be
altered over time as uncoordinated routines and negative emotional ambiance diminish
trust and mutual cooperation in the relationship. The child may have a harder time
perceiving social referencing cues from his caregiver, making harmonious
communication difficult. As responsiveness and positive affect diminish, a mutually
responsive orientation may not develop between mother and child.
MRO and the Internalization of Parental Values
As defined in an earlier section, MRO is a construct that includes both
responsiveness and shared affect as elements brought by individuals into the mother-child
relationship (Kochanska, 1997). MRO encapsulates relatedness in relation to introjected,
identified, and integrated regulation, in the sense that characteristics of MRO
37
(harmonious communication, mutual cooperation, emotional ambiance, and coordinated
routines) bring about perceived relatedness, and create a secure base in which autonomy
and competence perceptions can thrive. Kochanska and Murray (2000) found that
children in mother-child dyads who engaged in high MRO at both toddler and preschool
age were more receptive to embracing the mother’s influences and values, as evidenced
in a positive correlation between the child’s demonstration of high conscience and high
MRO.
Kochanska and Murray (2000) defined conscience as the child’s internalization of
the maternal rules. They measured MRO by combining scores from coding shared
positive affect and shared cooperation with one another (responsiveness) from
observations of mother and child dyads performing free time, snack time, discipline
situations, etc. Conscience was scored on a variety of tasks the child performed in
different scenarios based on internalization of maternal prohibition at toddler age. At
preschool age, scenarios were based on internalization of maternal prohibition,
internalization of maternal request, and reluctance to violate established rules of conduct.
Prosocial behavior was more fully internalized by children who experienced high MRO
with their mothers. Over time, the dyads developed a history of mutual respect, positive
emotionality, trust, and security.
In a study of upper-elementary students, Vinik et al. (2013) further investigated
how values might be best internalized. They found a noteworthy association between
positive value internalization and positive emotionality, again reinforcing the importance
of emotional ambiance in relationships. Together, findings from Vinik et al. and
Kochanska and Murray (2000) illustrate that identified and integrated regulation types of
38
motivation likely enhance positive emotionality and school enjoyment in children. In
both studies, internalization and integration of values about school and the internalization
and integration of values about conscience and following rules of conduct were brought
about through the presence of relatedness within the parent-child relationship.
Relatedness, in turn, provides a springboard for the needs of competence and autonomy
to be fulfilled.
Attachment Theory and the Development of Relatedness
As exemplified in the research concerning responsiveness and shared affect
reviewed in the prior sections, the importance of the caretaker-child relationship in
internalization, socialization, and social cognitive development is a predominant focal
point. Initially, this idea evolved from Bowlby’s theory of attachment (Bowlby, 1983,
1988; Parke & Buriel, 1998). Through his observations of children, Bowlby determined
that a child’s attachment to a primary caregiver was not due to the primary drive of being
fed.
These findings confirmed those from Lorenz (1935, as cited by Bowlby, 1988)
who studied the attachment of ducklings and goslings to their mothers. Lorenz observed
that ducklings and goslings developed attachment to their mothers even though they fed
themselves unassisted by their mothers. Bowlby attributed attachment to ideas from the
biological sciences, such as a control system and developmental pathway. Specifically,
Bowlby described attachment behavior as:
any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to
some other clearly identified individual who is better able to cope with the world.
It is most obvious whenever the person is frightened, fatigued, or sick, and is
39
assuaged by comforting and caregiving. At other times the behavior is less
evident. Nevertheless for a person to know that an attachment figure is available
and responsive gives him a strong and pervasive feeling of security, and so
encourages him to value and continue the relationship. (p. 26-27)
Attachment described above is biologically based and contains a strong emotional
component. The biological framework set forth by Bowlby (1983; 1988) merges nicely
with the contingent learning a child participates in with his or her primary caregiver, as in
the case of early smiling (Jones, 2008). In both cases, the process of development is
motivated by the joint function of the characteristics of the person and the characteristics
of his or her environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
Attachment theory is a biological view of social development, but also
incorporates a cognitive perspective, as Bowlby in his writings specifically describes the
attached individual as developing internal cognitive representations of the self and of the
attachment figure, called internal working models. Internal working models are schemas
in the mind that are either unconscious or conscious representations of views of others as
well as self-with-others that help an individual to make plans, perceive situations, and
predict what will happen in future situations (Bowlby, 1973). Contingency learning as
described previously provides an explanation of how representations develop in children
and aid in attachment development.
Ainsworth, a colleague of Bowlby’s, developed a research model called the
Strange Situation (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970), which provided the first empirical evidence
supporting Bowlby’s attachment theory (Bretherton, 1992). She identified different
patterns in the attachment relationship between mother and child through observing
40
children’s reactions throughout nine episodes of different combinations of being with
their mother, left in a strange situation without their mother, interacting with a stranger,
and reuniting with the mother (Thompson, 1988). She initially developed three
attachment categories containing several subcategories (Ainsworth, 1969). Category B is
now described as children who are securely attached, because these children see their
relationship with their mother as a secure base from which to explore, but when needed
can return to the mother.
Matas, Arend, and Sroufe (1978) found 2-year-old children identified as securely
attached at 18 months to be more willing to explore their environment, more effective in
problem solving, more persistent, and generally more positive than those children
identified as insecurely attached. Children were initially assessed at 18 months using
Ainsworth’s paradigm for identifying attachment classifications. Then, at 24 months, the
children were coded during a 10-minute free-play period and a 6-minute cleanup period.
Bouts of play uninitiated by the mother were recorded. Oppositional and angry behaviors
were recorded during the mother-initiated period of cleanup time. After that, the child
engaged in 4 problem solving tasks, 2 of which were warm-up tasks (simple) and not
coded. The last two were coded, and the mother was instructed to give help when
needed.
Matas et al. (1978) coded several behaviors, such as compliance with mother’s
suggestions, ignoring mother’s suggestions, frustration behavior, and whining and crying.
The authors emphasized the importance of the quality of responsiveness from the mother
during problem solving. The mother’s sensitivity to the needs of the child either
41
promoted a sense of autonomy and ability to explore his or her environment freely or
squelched it with a more controlling, directive style.
In the problem-solving portion of the study, Matas et al. (1978) coded quality of
assistance and supportive presence. They confirmed that children classified with secure
attachment had mothers who demonstrated more sensitive maternal care. Measurement
of MRO is similar to the procedures used by Matas et al. (1978) in that mother and child
participate together in several tasks, such as snack, time when mother is busy and child
must play alone, play together, and clean up.
Securely attached children trust that their mothers are sensitive and responsive to
their needs. Children that are securely attached develop more positive mental models
(internal working models) of themselves including feelings of self-worth, and develop
representations of others as being helpful (Jacobsen & Hoffman, 1997). In contrast,
children who have insecure attachments have negative self-images including feelings of
unworthiness, and are at more risk for developing social and emotional behavior
problems (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Flemming, & Gamble, 1993; Larose & Bernier,
2001).
Internal Working Models of Parent-Child Relationships and Their Impact on Other
Relationships
Children and parents develop internal working models of their relationships that
set the stage for what each expects from one another, or gives them a sense of what those
relationships are like (Kochanska, 2002). These representations in turn guide individuals
to interpret the intricacies of interpersonal relationships.
42
To further explore these ideas, Sturge-Apple, Davies, Winter, Cummings, and
Schermerhorn (2008) investigated how children’s internal representations (internal
working models) of the parent-child relationship are linked to interparental conflict and
children’s adjustment to school. Destructive interparental conflict was hypothesized to
indirectly undermine child functioning due to its drain on effective parenting. The
researchers further expected that this weakened ability to parent would diminish the
child’s internal representation of the parent-child relationship, because the child would
believe that the parent is not emotionally available, displays diminished warmth, and is
less supportive. This, in turn, they hypothesized would have negative effects on the
child’s adjustment to entry of school at the kindergarten level.
Sturge-Apple et al. (2008) gathered data on children’s emotional adjustment at
school as well as their internal representations of family systems. Children’s responses
were recorded using the School Liking and Avoidance Questionnaire (SLAQ;
Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996), the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire
(LSDQ; Cassidy & Asher, 1992) and a revised version of the MacArthur Story Stem
Battery (MSSB-R; Bretherton, Oppenheim, Buschsbaum, Emde, & the MacArthur
Narrative Group, 1990). The MSSB-R consists of narratives concerning family events
and relationships that are resolved by storytelling from the children. Sturge-Apple et al.
found that insecurity in children’s internal representations both in parent-child
relationships as well as interparental relationships were intervening mechanisms that
linked problems within family relationships to problems at school.
In a related study, Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994) administered questionnaires to
606 middle-school students to determine how representations of relationships with
43
parents, teachers, and friends were linked to one another and to adolescents’ functioning
in environments outside the family, such as school. They found that the quality of parent
and teacher relationships with children uniquely contributed to success in school. The
ability for students with a secure attachment to family members to develop positive
relationships with others in the school setting helped to foster motivation, better attitudes
at school, and more effective coping skills.
Students high in relatedness at home tend to develop similar relationships in the
school setting with peers and teachers, whereas those students who lack a secure a base in
the home need to be provided with other opportunities to develop relationships containing
a high level of relatedness (Skinner & Furrer, 2003). The school setting provides an
opportunity for students to develop positive relationships. High quality teacher-child
relationships foster engagement in the school setting (McNeely, 2005; Skinner & Furrer,
2003; Wentzel, 2009). Social work and teacher education programs emphasize positive
school experiences, mentoring, and providing caring and supportive relationships outside
the home setting to increase resilience in kids lacking a secure base in family
relationships (Daniel, Wassell, & Gilligan, 1999; Gilligan, 1998). Sources of resilience
include self-efficacy, self-esteem, and a secure base (Gilligan, 2006). Alarmingly,
Connell and Wellborn (1991) found that parents and teachers both reported that at-risk
students who needed the most assistance routinely experienced less autonomy support
and involvement than did students not identified as at-risk. More controlling behavior
and less involvement with at-risk students will continue to lead them to be more
externally regulated rather than self-regulated in their behavior, thereby blocking the
44
development of perceived relatedness and the integration and internalization of school
values.
An example of the negative effects of controlling teacher styles was demonstrated
by Ryan and Grolnick (1986). They asked upper-elementary children about the climate
of their classrooms in relation to feelings of competence and mastery motivation.
Classroom climates were described as origin or pawn classrooms. Origin-promoting
classrooms were those where teachers supported autonomy and were warm and accepting
of children, while at the same time promoting structure and consistent rules. In contrast,
classes perceived as pawn classrooms were seen as having controlling teachers, with
students having little choice.
Ryan and Grolnick (1986) administered the Origin Climate Questionnaire,
Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perception of Control, Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic
Orientation in the Classroom Scale, and Perceived Competence Scale for Children to the
students in the study. They found students’ feelings of perceived academic competence,
motivation to master school tasks, and self-esteem to be positively correlated with their
perceptions of the classroom climate. Students in origin climates identified with an
internal PLOC for motivation, whereas students in pawn climates identified with an
external PLOC for motivation. In other words, students who felt more supported,
competent, motivated, and autonomous in the classroom felt more self-regulated in their
behavior.
Conclusion
This thesis was based on the premise that self-regulated behavior guided by
internal incentives has important motivational benefits, and that relatedness is a primary
45
mechanism for the internalization process as outlined in Self-Determination Theory.
Self-regulated behavior is similar to intrinsically motivated behavior in which a person
feels he is behaving in a way chosen by himself rather than for reasons external to him
(Deci & Ryan, 2000a; Grusec, Goodnow, & Kuczynski, 2000). Internalization of values
is not a uni-directional process from caregiver to child, because self-regulated values feel
more like intrinsic motivation coming from within. Internalization of values happens
earliest within the caregiver-child dyad. Secure, responsive, and warm relationships are
the basis for internalization of values, which signifies the importance of the relatedness
need being met in parent-child relationships, ultimately culminating in a mutually
responsive orientation.
Relatedness is positively correlated with school engagement, but the links
between parent-child relatedness and school engagement are not “particularly welldocumented or straightforward” (Furrer & Skinner, 2003, p. 150). As reviewed earlier,
there is research emphasizing that parent-child relationships can impact children’s other
relationships in the school setting. However, findings concerning the internalization of
parents’ values about school do not extend to the study of children’s school emotional
engagement.
Because internalization of values happens within relationships high in relatedness,
and relatedness can impact the extent to which behavior is self-regulated and internally
located, relatedness may be the mechanism for children internalizing mothers’ valuing of
school. As mothers’ valuing becomes more integrated into children’s own set of values,
the more likely the child will be intrinsically motivated to behave in accordance with
those values in the school setting.
46
The current study seeks to explore the relations among relatedness, mothers’
school values, and children’s school engagement. Does relatedness moderate the relation
between parental valuing of school and engagement? In other words, can the quality of
relatedness between mother and child be considered a mechanism for the internalization
of the mother’s values about school? If the mother-child relationship is high in
relatedness, the child may become more intrinsically motivated to internalize the valuing
of the mother, and the child’s school engagement might vary with the mother’s valuing of
school. If the mother values school, the child may as well, and therefore be more
emotionally engaged in school. If the mother does not value school, neither might the
child, with emotional engagement in school suffering. If the mother-child relationship is
low in relatedness, the child may not internalize the mother’s valuing of school, and feel
less intrinsically motivated to behave in accordance with his or her mother’s values. In
that case, there would not be a relationship between the mother’s valuing of school and
the child’s school engagement. These possible relations among mother’s valuing of
school, quality of relatedness present in the mother-child relationship, and the child’s
emotional engagement in school were systematically examined in this study.
47
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
In this study, I investigated possible effects of relatedness between mother and
child and mother’s valuing of school on child’s emotional engagement in school.
Relatedness was considered as a possible mechanism explaining internalization of values
between mother and child that moderates effects of mother’s valuing of school on child’s
engagement in school. These relationships are further delineated in the main research
question and hypothesis described below.
Research Question: How is children’s school emotional engagement affected by
mothers’ values about school and the quality of relatedness in the mother-child
relationship?
Hypothesis: Relatedness moderates the impact of mothers’ valuing of school on
children’s school emotional engagement, as illustrated in Figure 1 in Chapter 1.
Specifically, children experiencing high relatedness in mother-child relationships are
expected to be impacted more by mothers’ valuing of school than children with low
relatedness, as depicted in Figure 2 in Chapter 1.
Design of the Study and Participants
The main research question and corresponding hypothesis were addressed via
multiple regression analyses using data obtained in a non-experimental setting.
Participants were pairs of kindergarten children and their mothers. They were selfselected from a pool of families who live in an American mid-western college town and
its surrounding communities that span a range of socio-economic backgrounds. Parents
of all participating children provided assurance that their children were developing at a
48
normal pace without any early health complications or pre-term births prior to collection
of data. The final sample for the study consisted of 66 dyads of children and their
mothers.
Materials
The materials for the study included consent, assent, and informational forms,
questionnaires, and interview and observation materials. For the observations, a set of
books, blocks, and coloring books, a snack, and games appropriate for kindergarten-age
children were used. For the child-researcher interview, I used two puppets (tan puppy
dogs, Iggy and Ziggy). The observation of mother and child interactions and the
interview between child and me were video recorded using an iPad and tripod.
49
Data Collection and Measures
Table 1 summarizes the variables, the instruments used to measure them, and data
sources.
Table 1: Variables, Instruments, and Data Sources
Type of Variable
Independent Variables:
Relatedness
Mother’s School Valuing
Demographics
Instrument
Data Source
Mutually Responsive
Orientation (MRO)
Researcher Observation
Activity Perception
Questionnaire (APQ)
 Socioeconomic status
(SES)
 Mother education
 Ethnicity of child
 Gender of child
 Age of child
Mother Report
Dependent Variable:
Child’s School Emotional Berkeley Puppet
Interview (BPI)
Engagement
Mother Report
Child Semi-Structured
Interview with Researcher
Demographics
Mothers of the participating children reported ethnicity, gender of child,
socioeconomic status (SES), and mother education on a demographics survey, which is
included in Appendix B. SES was reported based on household yearly income. Mother
education was reported based on the highest level of schooling completed. Stems of
multiple-choice questions on mother education varied from “did not attend school” to
“graduate/professional school.”
50
Among the children in the 66 dyads were 36 boys and 30 girls, who attended 28
different elementary schools from 15 towns, with 83% of the children attending schools
in the largest district in the area. The children ranged from 5 years and 11 months old to
7 years and 11 months old, with a mean age of 6 years and 4 months. All of the children
had completed kindergarten. The majority of mothers had at least an undergraduate
college degree. Ethnicity and race of the children was largely white (91%), and family
yearly income had some variability. Figures 3, 4, and 5 depict mothers’ education,
children’s ethnicity and race, and family yearly income, respectively.
Figure 3: Education of Mothers in the Study
51
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Figure 4: Race and Ethnicity of Children in the Study
Hispanic/White
White
52
$10K-$30K
$30K-$50K
$50K-$80K $80K-$100K $100K-$150K
Figure 5: Family Yearly Income in the Study
$150K +
53
Independent Variables
The two independent variables in this study were relatedness (operationalized
using the Mutually Responsive Orientation scale MRO; Kochanska, 2002) and mother’s
valuing of school (measured using the Activity Perception Questionnaire APQ; IMI,
n.d.).
MRO. Scores on the MRO are derived through observation of the quality of
relationship between a mother and child. A child and parent typically participate together
in six videotaped activities: introduction to the study, the child plays independently while
the mother is busy, they share a snack, play together, clean-up, and receive a small gift.
In each of the activities, the quality of the relationship is scored by a coder on a scale of
1-5, with 1 being very low MRO and 5 being very high MRO, considering four
dimensions: (1) coordinated routines (can the dyad settle into a routine and is it
enjoyable or full of conflict?), (2) harmonious communication (is the communication
between parent and child helpful to one another or do they have trouble understanding
each other or have little communication?), (3) mutual cooperation (is there a willing
stance towards one another, are there roles that each accepts – parent as parent, and child
as child, or do they struggle to accept roles and have escalating conflict?), and (4)
emotional ambiance (is there an emotionally positive affect present between the dyad,
where they enjoy being together, or are there bouts of negative affect?) (Aksan,
Kochanska, & Ortmann, 2006; Boldt, 2012). After each of the six activities is assigned a
score, scores are averaged across activities to create a global composite for each dyad
indicating the quality of the mother-child relationship. In the current study, four of the
six activities were videotaped, including child playing independently while mother is
54
busy, mother and child sharing a snack, mother and child playing together, and mother
and child cleaning up together.
In the initial development of the MRO, a set of items was used for each of the
four dimensions, with alpha’s ranging from 0.66-0.84 when children were 7 months old,
and from 0.73-0.91 when children were 15 months old. Those initial items for each
dimension of MRO are now woven into the rubric for coding each activity in which the
mother and child participate. Askan et al. (2006) reported a coding reliability for scores
as indexed by Coefficient Kappa of 0.72. The rubric for scoring the MRO is included in
Appendix C.
To score the MRO in the present study, a trained coder and I split the 66 cases,
which were numbered consecutively based on data collection date and time. The coder
scored cases #1-35, and I scored cases #36-66. The trained coder and I viewed 15 of the
same videos to determine inter-rater reliability. This required that I watch videos #1-5,
#16-20, and #31-35 just as the coder did, so we could compare our coding. I timed the
viewing of the shared videos so that we scored similar amounts of videos in between the
comparison groups. For example, I first scored #1-5 while she did the same. Afterward,
through discussion, we reached agreement on our coding of the videos. Then we moved
on to the next batch of videos to score on our own until we reached the next checkpoint.
I coded 10 more of my own videos, #36-45, while she coded 10 of her videos, #6-15.
Next we both watched videos #16-20. Afterward we compared scores and clarified our
coding again. We continued the same process, reviewing 10 videos independently, then 5
shared videos, until all videos were coded. These three checkpoints totaled a viewing of
15 videos together, comprising about 23% of the participants. At each checkpoint, we
55
discussed what scores we gave and why. Initial coding reliability as indexed by
Coefficient Kappa varied from 0.70 to 0.80, meeting the criterion of over 0.61 suggested
by Landis and Koch (1977) for satisfactory agreement between raters. Each mother-child
activity was scored from 1-5, and the scores from the four activities were summed and
averaged to create a global MRO score for each child denoting relatedness.
APQ. The full form of the APQ (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994) consists
of three subscales (value/usefulness, interest/enjoyment, and perceived choice) with a
total of 25 items. For these items, the authors report factor loadings of greater than .6 on
their targeted factors. In the present study, only results for the interest and enjoyment
subscale are reported. However, Deci and Ryan (IMI, n.d.) note:
The inclusion or exclusion of specific subscales appears to have no impact on the
others. Thus, it is rare that all items have been used in a particular experiment.
Instead, experimenters have chosen the subscales that are relevant to the issues
they are exploring. (n.p.)
For the interest and enjoyment subscale, McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1989) reported
an Alpha-reliability estimate of 0.78. The subscale includes eight items answered using a
Likert-type response metric ranging from 1 to 7 with 1 being not at all true, 4 being
somewhat true, and 7 being very true. One item in the subscale is reverse scored.
Examples of the items include “school is fun to do,” “I thought school was very
interesting,” and “I felt like I enjoyed school while I was doing it.” See Appendix D for a
full list of items. After the appropriate item reversal was made, scores across items were
summed and averaged to create a composite score representing mother’s valuing of
school.
56
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable in the study was the child’s school emotional engagement.
It was measured using the Berkeley Puppet Interview School Scales (BPI-SS), which is a
child-researcher interview method developed from the BPI-Academic module (BPI-A).
In addition to the Academic module, the BPI Self-Perception scales include Symptom
(BPI-S) and Social (BPI-Soc) modules. The BPI Self-Perception domains measure 4 ½ 7 ½ year-old children’s self-reported perceptions of their academic competence,
achievement motivation, social competence, acceptance by peers, depression-anxiety, and
aggression-hostility (Measelle, Ablow, Cowan, & Cowan, 1998). Inter-rater reliability of
coded children’s response to the BPI is typically very high (e.g., 94.7% for kindergarten
responses; Measelle et al., 1998). Internal consistency reliability estimates based on
Coefficient Alpha for the BPI-A subscale scores have ranged from 0.69 to 0.90 (Ablow,
Measelle, & The MacArthur Working Group on Outcome Assessment, 2003).
The BPI-SS, used in the current study, was developed from a portion of the BPIA, and utilizes items from all four of the BPI-A’s subscales including academic
competence, teacher conflict, teacher closeness, and school engagement (Ablow,
Measelle, & The MacArthur Working Group on Outcome Assessment, 2003). I obtained
the BPI-SS to assess school engagement from the University of Oregon-Eugene BPI
training I attended, led by Dr. Jeffrey Measelle. The list of school engagement
statements on the BPI-SS consists of 30 questions. It contains five fewer questions than
the BPI-A, removed from two of the four subscales (teacher closeness and relationship
with the teacher) due to redundancy and reliability issues (Measelle, personal
communication, 2014). The items in the BPI-SS are bi-polar statements such as “I like
57
school/I don’t like school,” “My teacher cares about me/My teacher doesn’t care about
me,” and “I think learning to read is boring/I don’t think learning to read is boring”
(Measelle, 2014).
The Berkeley Puppet Interviews are conducted using two identical tan puppy dog
puppets, one named Iggy and one named Ziggy, voiced by the researcher. The puppets
make opposing statements. After each shares a statement, one puppy says “how about
you, [child’s name]?” For example, Iggy would say “I don’t like school,” and Ziggy
would say “I like school,” and then Ziggy would say “how about you, Jamie?” The child
responds by pointing to or touching the puppet, or verbally by describing themselves or
indicating which puppet they agree with. The conversation between puppets and child
simultaneously directs the child on discussion topics while allowing the child to respond
as he or she prefers, with or without expanding on puppets’ statements. The easy stance
of the puppets promotes an unselfconscious, comfortable dialogue between them. The
negative statements are counterbalanced between the two puppets (Measelle et al., 1998).
To administer the BPI and train other raters for this study, I participated in a
required, intensive 16-hour training. The training included the use of discussion,
manuals, and training videotapes. Emphasis was placed on aspects of administering the
interview: videotaping the interview with the child, maintaining a good rapport with the
child, keeping a smooth and open dialogue going between child and puppets during the
interview, and being familiar enough with the interview coding system to accurately and
consistently prompt children when they give unclear responses. For example, when a
child says “sometimes,” the interviewer must prompt the child with “so would you say
most of the time you do like school or most of the time you don’t like school?” During
58
the 2-day training, I was required to complete practice interviews with peer members of
the training cohort, as well as with several children volunteers. Subsequently, I
videotaped myself conducting a minimum of 10 additional child interviews, and was
provided feedback by the trainer.
In the current study, after the BPI interviews were videotaped, each was coded on
a Likert-type response from 1-7 by two scorers, as recommended in the training
(Measelle, personal communication, 2014). Scoring is 2 if the child agrees with the
negative statement of one puppet, and is 6 if the child agrees with the positive statement
of the other puppet. 1 and 7 are reserved for extreme responses; for example, a 7 might
be “I really like school!” If a child reports they are like both of the puppets, a 4 would be
given. Three and five are reserved for modified responses that are not quite in agreement
with either puppet. For example, a 3 might be “I sort of don’t like school,” and a 5 might
be “I kind of like school.” The responses from all items were summed and averaged to
create an overall score of school engagement for each child. See Appendix E for the BPI
School Scales bi-polar statements used in the current study.
Each of the 66 BPI video recordings was viewed separately by two scorers. Both
scorers coded each of the 30 items comprising the interview. I independently coded all
66 recordings. The first half of the recordings were also independently coded by a
trained colleague (the same person who had coded the MROs), and the second half by
another trained colleague. We compared our scores on each item, and if there were any
differing scores, together we viewed the BPI video again to correct any coder errors.
Usually, when a child agreed with the positive stem in an item, the item would be scored
a 6, whereas agreement with the negative stem would be scored a 2. For example: I like
59
school (score of 6)/I don’t like school (score of 2). A coding error would typically occur
when a child’s agreement with a double negative stem was to be coded a 6, and the other
stem was to be coded a 2. For example, consider this item:

First stem: In the morning, I say to my mom or dad, “I don’t wanna go to school.”
(agreement with this would be a 2 scoring)

Second stem (double negative): In the morning, I don’t say that to my mom or dad.
(agreement with this would be a 6 scoring).
Once all of the coder errors were corrected, the scores of all 30 items were summed and
averaged to create a global BPI score signifying children’s school engagement.
Procedure
Recruiting Participants
Participant recruitment included a number of methods approved through the
Instructional Review Board for the University of Iowa. Information about the study and
an invitation for all kindergarten mother-child dyads to participate was posted in the
“electronic backpack” on the Midwestern school district’s website. The electronic
backpack includes community announcements relevant to children. In addition, flyers
were posted throughout the community, in grocery stores, Target, Walmart, Kmart, in
neighborhood centers, and at daycares. I handed out business cards in informal settings,
such as when I visited the library or went shopping, and posted information on several
Facebook personal, community, and school pages. The information shared summarized
the purpose of the study, the participant requirements, and how to reach the researcher via
email or telephone, if interested in participating. This was a non-controlling way to
recruit participants, as they could think about it, choose to participate on their own terms,
60
and not feel pressured to say yes immediately. Recruitment materials are included in
Appendix F. Incentives for study participation included a 10-dollar gift card to a local
grocery store, as well as Crayola markers and new pencils for the child.
The Observation and Interview Session
I gave any mothers who contacted me an overview of the study and asked them
four questions to determine eligibility. The questions determined the age and grade of
the child, whether the child was delivered at full-term, whether the child was typically
developing, and whether the mother lived with her child at least half of the time in the
same home. If they satisfied the requirements (kindergarten child between the ages of 57, full-term pregnancy, typically developing child, and living with mother at least half the
time), the mother was contacted to set up a meeting time and place. After that, I met the
mother and child at a pre-agreed upon quiet location. Seven sessions took place at a
library, 56 took place in the home of the participants, and 2 were in a park.
I introduced myself, gave an initial introduction to the study, allowed time for the
mother to read and sign the consent form, and gained the assent of the child. Both the
consent and assent documents are included in Appendix G. Next, I explained the four
activities, telling the mother and child each step and encouraging them to do as they
would normally do at home, while I set up the video camera (10 minutes). I then started
video-recording the session. The observation of MRO included providing the mother and
child with four activities in which to participate. First, the mother was busy and the child
played independently. The mother filled out demographic information and the APQ, as
the child played independently with crayons, coloring and activity books, and building
blocks that were provided (10 minutes). Then, the mother and child were invited to
61
together have a snack of goldfish crackers and baby carrots (10 minutes). Next, they
chose a game and played it (20 minutes). Available games were Chutes and Ladders,
Sequence for Kids, and Race to the Treasure. Finally, they cleaned up (5 minutes). This
timing was typically followed, although some variation was allowed to respect the natural
flow and cut-off for each activity.
After the cleanup was completed, I asked the child to participate in the Berkeley
Puppet Interview (10 minutes). Typically, I would sit on a couch or chair across the table
from the child. Sometimes I would sit on the floor next to the child. I introduced my two
puppet friends, Iggy and Ziggy. The puppets then took over the conversation, explaining
they would be talking with the child about things they do and do not like to do at school.
They explained the procedure, and then started with some easy statements to familiarize
the child with the process. For example, one warm-up statement was “I like to play at the
park” and “I don’t like to play at the park.” Once the child seemed comfortable with the
structure of the conversation, the puppets transitioned into the school questions from the
BPI-SS. At the end of the session, I gave the mother and child their incentives: a gift
card for 10 dollars to a local grocery store and school supplies, respectively. The entire
visit typically lasted around an hour and 15 minutes.
62
Data Analysis
The data analysis began with scoring the data. Table 2 summarizes the process of
scoring data gathered by each instrument.
Table 2: Scoring the Data
Variable
Demographics
 Socioeconomic
status (SES)
 Mother education
 Ethnicity of child
 Gender of child
Relatedness
Instrument Used
Demographics Questionnaire
Scoring Process
Assigned numbers for
categorical data.
MRO

Mothers’ School
Valuing
Interest Enjoyment Subscale
from the APQ
Children’s School
Emotional Engagement
BPI-SS
Coded via video-tape
by researcher and
assistant researcher
 Averaged the 4
categories to get an
overall MRO score
for each mother-child
dyad
Averaged the Likert-type
responses in the Interest
Enjoyment subscale to
get an overall mothers’
school valuing score for
each mother
 Coded via videotape
by researcher and
assistant researcher
with Likert-Type
scale for each
question
 Averaged responses
to get an overall BPISS score for each
child
Following the scoring of the three main study variables, the aggregated data were
analyzed. The analyses included descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations,
minimums, maximums, alpha-reliability estimates), correlations among the main study
63
variables, and a multiple regression analysis in which child’s engagement in school was
the dependent variable, and mother-child relatedness and mother’s valuing of school and
their interaction were explanatory variables. Based on the final sample size of 66 and an
alpha level of .05, the power to detect a medium effect represented by a population R2
value of .15 in the overall regression analysis equaled 0.80 (Cohen, 1992). All analyses
were run using Version 23 of SPSS.
64
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The aim of this study was to determine how mothers’ valuing of school and
relatedness with their children are associated with children’s engagement in school.
Mothers’ valuing of school was defined as intrinsic or integrated enjoyment of school as
measured by the Interest Enjoyment subscale from the Activity Perception Questionnaire,
Relatedness in the mother-child relationship represented the quality of the emotional
relationship between mother and child as indexed by Mutually Responsive Orientation
(MRO). Children’s engagement reflected feedback children provided to me concerning
school engagement, relationships with teachers, and self-perceptions of school
competence obtained using the Berkeley Puppet Interview (BPI). Engagement was the
dependent variable in the primary data analyses with valuing and relatedness serving as
independent variables. Results for these data analyses are reported in the following
sections under the headings: descriptive statistics, correlational analyses, and multiple
regression.
Descriptive Statistics
Data for the three main variables of interest in this study (relatedness, mothers’
school valuing, and child school engagement) were derived from 66 mother-child dyads.
Means, standard deviations, minimum, and maximum scores from these measures are
reported in Table 1 on their respective item metrics. In each case, scores are high on
average in relation to the item scale midpoints, and this is especially true for the
independent variable relatedness. Alpha reliability estimates range from 0.74 to 0.91,
demonstrating acceptable reliability for the present uses of scores.
65
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Mean
SD
Min.
Max.
Alpha
Child’s School Engagement
5.21
.69
3.07
6.07
.87
Mother’s Valuing of School
5.73
.92
3.00
7.00
.91
Relatedness
4.58
.51
3.00
5.00
.74
Correlational Analyses
Correlations among scores shown in Table 4 are low in general with only
Engagement and Relatedness yielding a statistically significant association (r = .25, p <
.05). On average, as mother-child relatedness increased, so did school engagement.
Scatterplots between each pair of variables are shown in Figures 6 through 8. These plots
show no obvious departure from linearity or violations of other assumptions for the
multiple regression analyses to follow.
Table 4: Correlations between Study Variables
Child School
Engagement
Relatedness
Mother’s Valuing of
School
Child School
Engagement
Relatedness
1.0
. 245*
Mother’s
Valuing of
School
.178
1.0
-.053
1.0
66
Figure 6: Child School Engagement and Relatedness
Figure 7: Child School Engagement and Mother’s Valuing of School
67
Figure 8: Relatedness and Mother’s Valuing of School
Multiple Regression Analyses
The key research question addressed in this study is repeated below.
Research Question: How is children’s school emotional engagement related to mothers’
values about school and the quality of relatedness in the mother-child relationship?
On the basis of literature reviewed in Chapter 2, I hypothesized that relatedness
acts as a mechanism for a child’s internalization of his or her mother’s valuing of school,
leading to different levels of school engagement in the child, depending both on the
quality of the relationship between mother and the child and the mother’s valuing of
school. In relation to the data analyses conducted here, this hypothesis can be stated as
follows:
Hypothesis: Relatedness moderates the impact of mothers’ valuing of school on
children’s school emotional engagement (see Figure 1 in Chapter 1).
68
Children experiencing high relatedness in mother-child relationships were
expected to be impacted more by mothers’ valuing of school than children with low
relatedness, as depicted in Figure 2 in Chapter 1.
I tested this hypothesis using a multiple regression analysis in which child’s
emotional engagement in school was the dependent variable, and mother-child
relatedness, mother’s valuing of school, and their product were the independent variables.
The independent variables were entered in a hierarchical order with relatedness and
mother’s valuing of school entered together in the first step, and the interaction/product
term entered in the second step. Relatedness (X1) and Valuing (X2) together accounted
for 9.7% of the variance (F(2, 63) = 3.374, p = 0.041) in child school engagement, and
the interaction (X1* X2) accounted for an additional 8.8% (F(1, 62) =6.712, p = 0.012), as
shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Model Summary
Overall Model
R
X1, X2
X1, X2,
R2
F
Increments
df1
R2
df2 p-value
Change
F
df1 df2 p-value
.311
.097 3.374
2
63
.041
.097 3.374
2
63
.041
.430
.185 4.691
3
62
.005
.088 6.712
1
62
.012
X1* X2
The statistically significant interaction lends preliminary support to the hypothesis that
relatedness moderates the relation between mother’s valuing of school and child’s school
engagement. The final regression equation is shown in Table 6.
69
Table 6: Final Regression Equation
Coefficient
Std. Error
t statistic
Sig.
Intercept
-7.663
4.132
-1.855
.068
Relatedness
2.671
.910
2.934
.005
Mother’s Valuing of School
1.945
.700
2.777
.007
Interaction Mother’s
Valuing of School and
Relatedness
-.401
.155
-2.591
.012
To clarify the nature of the interaction, I created three groups based on the
independent variable relatedness. The scores were rank ordered from low to high and
split into 3 equally sized groups, n=22 per group. The scores of relatedness in this study
were high overall, but within this restricted range I created three groups to represent low,
average, and high levels of relatedness. I computed the mean for each group and created
a regression equation showing the relation between mothers’ valuing of school and
children’s school engagement at the three mean levels. The equations were:
Low Relatedness: ŷ=.33x + 3.14
Average Relatedness: ŷ=.07x + 4.92
High Relatedness: ŷ=-.06x + 5.09
where X=Mother’s Valuing of School and the means of the groups are 4.04 for low, 4.71
for average, and 4.98 for high relatedness. The lines for the three groups are plotted in
Figure 9.
70
High
Average
Low
Figure 9: Three Levels of Relatedness
Figure 9 reveals that relatedness moderates the relation between valuing and
engagement but in a different way than hypothesized. For average and high levels of
relatedness, mothers’ valuing of school and children’s school engagement are weakly
related with children showing similar levels of engagement. However, for low
relatedness, mothers’ valuing of school and children’s school engagement are positively
related, with the combination of low relatedness and low mothers’ valuing of school
associated with the lowest levels of children’s school engagement.
71
Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations
Introduction
The aim of this study was to investigate the relations among relatedness between
mother and child, mother’s valuing of school, and child’s school emotional engagement.
Past research supported the notion that the levels of warmth, mutual respect, positive
affect, and responsiveness between mother and child provide a base from which the child
explores the environment, impacting social-emotional development and having a
cascading effect on school engagement and other relationships (Ainsworth & Bowlby,
1991; Henning & Striano, 2011; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Wentzel, 1999).
Additionally, many studies have linked parents’ valuing of school to children’s valuing of
school (Barnett & Taylor, 2009; Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002;
Noack, 2004; Simpkins, Fredricks, & Eccles, 2012). Children’s likeliness to internalize
values from parents has been found to be higher when the sense of relatedness between
child and parent is stronger (Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan & Deci, 2009; Wentzel, 1996;
Wentzel,1999). However, the links between mother-child relatedness, internalization of
mother’s values, and child’s school engagement have not been well-documented or
studied.
In the current study, I explored the links among mother-child relatedness,
mothers’ school valuing, and children’s school emotional engagement in a different way
than other studies. More precisely, I considered the extent to which relatedness between
mother and child might serve as a mechanism for the internalization of mother’s valuing
of school within the child and their effects on the child’s emotional engagement in
school. In other words, does the relation between mothers’ valuing of school and
72
children’s school emotional engagement depend on the level of relatedness present in the
mother-child relationship? Further, I used Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) as a
new approach to operationalize relatedness by observing interactions between mother and
child.
In the following section, I interpret the results of this study through the lens of
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000b) and attachment theory (Bowlby,
1988). Subsequently, I evaluate the methodology of the study and make suggestions for
methods in future research in this area of inquiry. Finally, the implications of this study
are discussed, summarizing possible future directions of research and briefly considering
how the present findings contribute to the body of literature focused on parent-child
relationships, internalization of values, and children’s school emotional engagement.
The Impact of Relatedness on Value Internalization and School Engagement
The process of value internalization was described by Ryan and Deci as a
continuum of self-determination, from less to more integrated with the self, depending on
the fulfillment of psychological needs, including relatedness. As the internalization of
values becomes more integrated, the more self-regulated a person’s actions become
(2000b). If perceived relatedness between child and mother is high, the child will be
more likely to take ownership of values present in the relationship (Wentzel, 1999). In
the present study, the hypothesis was that relatedness would moderate the relation
between mothers’ valuing of school and child’s school emotional engagement.
Specifically, children’s school engagement would be impacted by mothers’ values about
school when relatedness between mother and child was high but not when relatedness
was low.
73
I found that relatedness did moderate the relation between mothers’ valuing of
school and children’s school engagement. However, the direction of the relations was
not as hypothesized. School engagement in children experiencing lower levels of
relatedness with their mothers was impacted by mothers’ school valuing, whereas school
engagement in children experiencing average and high levels of relatedness in motherchild relationships was not. Recall that in this study, the scores of relatedness were
generally high, but within the restricted range I created three groups to represent low,
average, and high levels of relatedness.
The results of this study indicated when mother and child were engaged in a
relationship with a high level of relatedness, the benefits of the relationship may carry
over to the school setting. Attachment theory literature emphasizes the benefits of a
relationship high in relatedness, lending support for these results. Young children with
secure attachments are more willing to explore their environment, and be more positive,
persistent, and effective in solving problems (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978).
Persistence, willingness, a positive attitude, and problem-solving skills are personal
emotional and cognitive skills that increase success in school functioning (Fredricks et
al., 2004; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). Along with these skills, the ability to relate with
others is paramount in the school setting (Wentzel, 1999). Children with secure
attachments develop positive mental models of themselves and how they relate with
others, fostering development of strong rapport with others in the school setting
(Jacobsen & Hoffman, 1997). Children experiencing positive emotionality in general can
lead to an increase in school engagement (Vinik, et al., 2013), whereas children
74
experiencing parental conflict at home can make entry to school much more difficult,
especially at a young age (Sturge-Apple, et al., 2008).
Children who experience positive emotionality and secure relationships in the
home may internalize the values of school mentors and peers more readily, and the
present study proposes this is the case even when taking mothers’ valuing of school into
consideration. Self-Determination Theory may illuminate how high relatedness at home
allows the child to more readily internalize school values, regardless of a mother’s
personal valuing of school. Children experiencing high levels of relatedness with their
mothers may feel a sense of competence, autonomy, and perceived relatedness within
their relationship, which in turn makes them more able to navigate school relationships,
increase perceived relatedness in school, and adopt values in the school environment as
integrated with the self (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2000a; Ryan &
Deci, 2009). That is, engaging in school becomes valued personally by the child (Deci et
al., 1991).
Self-Determination Theory’s process of value integration substantiates how a
child experiencing high relatedness with a mother who does not value school can still be
highly engaged at school. The benefits gained from a secure relationship between mother
and child liberate the child, allowing him or her to internalize values present in other
significant relationships. The child’s high engagement in school may be due to integrated
values from another significant adult in his or her life, at home or in the school setting,
such a father, grandparent, teacher, counselor, or coach (McNeely, 2005; Skinner &
Furrer, 2003; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Wentzel, 2009).
75
While high relatedness between mother and child seemed to encourage integration
of school values by supporting the building of strong interpersonal relationships
regardless of the mother’s personal values about school, low relatedness between mother
and child takes a different pathway altogether. Low relatedness may not promote
integration of school values or support the development of healthy rapport between
children and significant others. The findings of this study revealed when mother-child
relatedness was lower, the child’s engagement varied with the mother’s valuing of
school. Consider that children who do not experience a strong sense of relatedness may
feel a sense of insecurity or fear, or a need for approval from the mother, leading them to
take on the mother’s values to earn love and warmth in the relationship (Kobak et al.,
1993; Kochanska, 2002; Larose & Bernier, 2001.) Or, they could be internalizing the
values of the mother out of fear for what consequences they might receive if they do not.
Internalizing values due to fear, insecurity, and need for approval is referred to as
introjected (Deci et al., 1991; Flor & Knapp, 2001; Grusec, 1997; Lawrence & Valsiner,
1993; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Introjected regulation is not a kind of motivation that brings
about a sense of well-being and intrinsic enjoyment in a task. Instead, introjected
regulation, while internal to the self, is not truly self-determined. It is brought about by a
more controlling relationship of coercion and extrinsic motivation, and values are
transmitted directly from parent to child, rather than a co-construction of ideas that the
child feels are his or her own. Moreover, negative shared affect between mother and
child can contribute to long-lasting cognitive representations about relationships,
adversely affecting future relationships between a child and his or her teacher and school
peers (Bandura, 2004b).
76
Methodology Considerations
In this section, I evaluate the use of the instruments in this study, elucidating
limitations and ways in which improvements could be made in future research studies.
Relatedness – MRO Observation
The findings in the current study provide support for using MRO as a way to
operationalize the construct relatedness, as well as support for past research findings of
positive correlations between levels of relatedness and healthy attachments to
engagement and success in the school setting (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Henning &
Striano, 2011; Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000; Wentzel, 1999). While relatedness has
been correlated with school engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Fredericks,
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Jodl et al., 2001; Morrison, Rimm-Kaufman, & Pianta,
2002), the level of relatedness has typically been measured based on self-report. This
study supports past research findings that relatedness is associated with school
engagement using a measure that is based on observation between mother and child
rather than self-report. Self-report can decrease validity due to threats of participants
answering in ways that they believe are socially desirable rather than truthful, making
observation a potentially more attractive and relevant alternative (McMillan, 2004). The
rubric to measure MRO is a tool that can be of great utility in future research on
relatedness as a more direct measure of the construct rather than using other, more
typical, self-report measures.
It would be helpful in future studies exploring how relatedness impacts the
internalization of mothers’ valuing of school utilizing MRO to include more mother-child
dyads exhibiting below average and poor levels of relatedness. The current study’s
77
results were skewed negatively, creating a ceiling effect in relatedness scores. A more
diverse participant pool that included more variety in mother-child dyad’s relatedness
levels could better reveal differences between children internalizing mothers’ values
within high relatedness relationships and low relatedness relationships, allowing the
impact of that internalization on children’s school engagement to be more fully
interpreted. However, it may be difficult to recruit participants that exhibit more variety
in MRO levels, because mother-child dyads experiencing low levels of relatedness may
be less likely to volunteer for studies of this nature. While it may be that some families
suffering financial adversity experience more stress in interpersonal relationships
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005), the lack of diversity in MRO scores obtained here was more
likely due to self-selection of participants.
Along with consideration of drawing from a more diverse group of participants,
researchers should be sensitive to the possibility of cultural bias in the coding of MRO
scores. It is possible that a rater of MRO may not be attuned to the nuances of a
culturally differing tone and affect and misinterpret them as a part of relationship quality,
rather than unfamiliar cultural practices. For example, in the current study, when
observing a low-income, African-American mother-child dyad, one rater interpreted a
mother’s tone to be unharmonious and inflammatory while another rater interpreted the
tone to be encouraging. As a result, one rater assigned the dyad an MRO score of 2,
while the other gave the dyad a 4.
Through discussion, the raters agreed the scoring was accurate when the dyad was
scored as having moderate MRO (3) rather than scored as having lower (2) or higher (4)
MRO. It is likely that the initial difference in interpretation was due to the difference in
78
rater upbringings. Raters agreed that the difference in their interpretation concerned
different experiences in family culture and that these nuances could not be ignored. The
rater who interpreted the interaction as more encouraging was a black woman, who grew
up in a middle-class home with parents who communicated in a style similar to the
mother she observed in the video of the mother-child dyad. Her perspective on family
culture differed from the other (white) rater, who had not experienced this
communication style as a part of family culture. This does not mean to imply that the
tone and affect present in this dyad would be consistent with all African American
mother-child dyads, or a product of race. It simply serves to illuminate the complexity of
rating interactions between mother and child and the level of awareness needed to attend
to possible family cultural differences and take them into account. Because the majority
of participants in this study were mid-western, middle class, and Caucasian, it would be
important in future research to carefully attend to any uniquely different cultural
backgrounds of the dyads, especially minority ethnicities, nationalities, and classes to be
sure interpretations are valid. As MRO may be used more widely in the future to assess
the emotional quality of relationships, a study of bringing cultural awareness to MRO
analysis is essential.
Mother’s Valuing of School – The Interest Enjoyment Measure
Recall that families participating in this study primarily demonstrated higher
levels of relatedness in the mother-child relationship and gave predominantly positive
reports about school both from mothers and children, producing less variability in results.
While mothers’ valuing of school responses were slightly more varied than the levels of
mother-child relatedness, most participants responded positively about school, creating a
79
ceiling effect. Just as was discussed with levels of relatedness in the current study, it
would be helpful in future studies to recruit a more diverse pool of participants,
potentially drawing mothers with a wider variety of school valuing, to illuminate the
relations between relatedness and mothers’ school valuing and their possible impact on
children’s school engagement.
In addition, the validity of the Interest Enjoyment subscale representing mothers’
valuing of school may be questionable. The measure may not be a valid indicator of the
mother’s current valuing of school or what she wants for her child in school. While
filling out the questionnaire, several mothers in this study asked me if the questionnaire
was referring to early experiences in school or adult schooling experiences. My response
to mothers was that they were to consider their overall feelings about school as a general
concept, but it is unclear exactly what each mother had in mind when responding. Some
mothers may have been thinking about their experiences as a young child, a high school
student, or an adult student in school. As mentioned earlier, self-report can be an
unreliable way to gather information, especially when each individual may have a
different definition or concept of the target variable (McMillan, 2004).
Even if the mother accurately represents her own value system on the Interest and
Enjoyment questionnaire, the value the mother places on school internally may not
capture what values the mother communicates covertly or overtly to the child. For
example, kindergarten children may not be able to conceptualize a mother’s values, but
instead may develop an understanding of the mother’s beliefs based on behaviors the
mother engages in with the child that pertain to school. This issue was explored by
Simpkins et al. (2012) who found that the behavior of mothers was the mediating variable
80
between mothers’ and children’s values. Behaviors included role-modeling,
encouragement and reinforcement, providing materials, and coactivity (mother and child
participating together in activity surrounding the task or subject area). Further, a
mother’s own valuing of school may be different than the values she has for her own
child’s experiences in a school setting. In this study, the children may not have
internalized mothers’ personal values about school; rather, they may have internalized
mothers’ motives, behaviors, and behavior expectations about school (Bandura, 2004b;
Bowlby, 1988; Kochanska, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Using other instruments to
measure parental valuing of school (or mediators such as behavior) in future research
may deepen understanding of relationships among the constructs considered here.
Student Engagement – The Berkley Puppet Interview
Student engagement in school was measured by the Berkeley Puppet Interview
(BPI). However, children’s reports of their own school engagement in the BPI may not
distinguish between different types of self-regulation when engaging in school. In other
words, children who were highly engaged in school because they had integrated school
valuing into their own value system may appear the same as children who were highly
engaged in school because a high value of school had been introjected into their value
system. This is an important distinction that must be made, as children with integrated
regulation experience school differently than children with introjected regulation.
Children who are more integrated stay more engaged with school over time and have
higher achievement. They participate more fully and identify more with the student role,
and act as more collaborative, compliant, and willing members of class (Fredricks,
81
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000; Ladd
& Dinella, 2009).
While kindergarteners with a variety of levels of mother-child relatedness may
have reported high engagement in school, I posit that children with lower levels of
relatedness and introjected school values will likely shift pathways in school over time,
becoming less engaged. Meanwhile, their counterparts with high levels of relatedness
between mother and child will integrate school valuing with the self, and therefore be
more likely to stay consistently engaged in school over time. Utilizing questions on the
BPI that access location of motivation (externally located or internally located) could be
very useful to tease apart children with introjected verses integrated self-regulation.
Implications
A notable finding from this study was the corroboration with past research
espousing the positive effects that strong, healthy mother-child relationships have on
children’s success in the school setting. Further, the study offers assurance that MRO
provides a viable way to operationalize relatedness in future research. The critical result
in this study is the discovery of the interaction between mother-child relatedness and the
child’s internalization of the mother’s values. The moderating effect of mother-child
relatedness on the relation between the mother’s valuing of school and the child’s school
emotional engagement illustrates a very important delineation between experiences of
children with high levels of relatedness between mother and child and those with lower
levels. Those with lower levels are subject to adopting the mother’s valuing of school,
and will be engaged or not engaged accordingly, whereas those fortunate to have high
82
levels of mother-child relatedness will approach school with high engagement regardless
of mothers’ valuing of school.
The analysis of this research suggests several relevant directions for future
research, including other ways to measure mother’s school valuing (in relation to what
she wants and conveys to her child), distinguishing between introjected and integrated
regulation in young children’s responses to the BPI, examining school engagement in
children who have poorer quality mother-child relationships but claim high engagement
in school over an extended time frame, considering how other variables might affect
mother-child relatedness and school engagement, and recruiting a more diverse pool of
dyads in which a wider range of relatedness, school valuing, and school engagement is
exhibited. A key question to investigate is why school engagement in children in lower
relatedness mother-child dyads may be more impacted by parental valuing of school than
their high relatedness dyad counterparts. An essential part of addressing this question
will be how self-regulated the child is in school engagement, and the type of regulation
the child has (introjected or integrated), possibly using different BPI questions developed
to align with Deci and Ryan’s (2000a) continuum of self-determination.
Through the results of the current study as well as future research, parents can be
made aware of how their own valuing of school, the way in which they convey values
about school to their children, and, most importantly, the quality of their relationships
with their children impact children’s engagement in school. Even parents who did not
have successful or meaningful school experiences of their own can be rest assured that if
they have a healthy emotional relationship with their child, their child will have a better
chance of succeeding in a school setting. Such realizations may even bring about new
83
self-understanding for parents, as they reflect on their own early childhood relationships,
and help researchers chart intergenerational trends within family relationships.
Identifying relatedness in parent-child relationships as the mechanism for internalization
of school valuing may be pivotal in child development and provide an entry point for
interventions. Parents who are aware of the impact they have on their child can build a
strong foundation with their child to develop self-regulated motivation in school through
a robust sense of relatedness, fully integrating school values into the self, increasing
ongoing success.
84
Appendix A: Self-Determination Continuum
Reprinted from Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.
L., Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions, 54-67,
2000, with permission from Elsevier.
85
Appendix B: Demographics Survey
Mother’s Name: ________________________
Mother’s Email: _________________________
Mother’s Phone Number: _____________________
Child’s Name: _________________________
Child’s Gender: ☐Male
☐Female
Town in which you and your child live: _____________________
Child’s School: ____________________________________________
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
☐ Did not attend school
☐ Elementary school (K-5th grade)
☐ Middle school (6th-8th grade)
☐ Some high school
☐ High school
☐ GED
☐ Trade school
☐ Some community college
☐ Community college
☐ Some undergraduate coursework
☐ Undergraduate coursework
☐ Some graduate/professional school
86
☐ Graduate/professional school
What is your family’s yearly income?
☐($10,000 - $30,000)
☐($30,000 - $50,000)
☐($50,000 - $80,000)
☐($80,000 - $100,000)
☐($100,000 - $150,000)
☐($150,000+)
What is your ethnicity/race (check all that apply)?
☐American Indian or Alaska Native
☐Asian
☐Black or African American
☐Hispanic or Latino
☐Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
☐Islander
☐White
☐Other: ____________________
What is the birthdate of the child participating in this study with you (mm/dd/year)?
____/_____/________
87
Appendix C: Mutually Responsive Orientation (MRO) Rubric and
Coding
Coded Contexts for each parent
(M = Mother)
Intro to TT (10 min)
M Busy (15 min)
M/C snack (10 min)
M/C Project (10 min)
M/C Cleanup (10 min)
M/C Gift (5 min)
Total coded minutes: 60
The coder watches the entire context, focusing on the dyad rather than on either
individual. Then, for that context, the coder assigns one overall rating, on the scale 1-5:
“This dyad has MRO”
Descriptions of the anchor points
1 Very untrue of dyad; very low MRO, poor relationship.
All or some (but very strong) of the following clearly present, observed often and/or of
high intensity: adversarial, disconnected, unresponsive, hostile, affectively negative.
The following are extremely rare: mutually responsive, coordinated, harmonious, in sync,
attuned to each other, mutually cooperative, affectively positive.
2 Quite/rather untrue of dyad; low level of MRO, not a very good relationship.
One or more of the following can be observed: adversarial, disconnected, unresponsive,
hostile, affectively negative.
88
The following rarely seen: mutually responsive, coordinated, harmonious, in sync,
attuned to each other, mutually cooperative, affectively positive.
3 Dyad fluctuates between low and high MRO or dyad is average (neither high nor low).
4 Quite/rather true of dyad, reasonable MRO, reasonable relationship.
One or more of the following can be observed: mutually responsive, coordinated,
harmonious, in sync, attuned to each other, mutually cooperative, affectively positive.
The following rarely seen: adversarial, disconnected, unresponsive, hostile, affectively
negative.
5 Very true of dyad; very high MRO, excellent relationship.
All or some (but very strong) of the following clearly present, observed often and/or of
high intensity: mutually responsive, coordinated, harmonious, in sync, attuned to each
other, mutually cooperative, affectively positive.
The following extremely rare: adversarial, disconnected, unresponsive, hostile,
affectively negative.
To arrive at the rating, consider the following dimensions and definitions:
Coordinated Routines
Low: Routines are a source of conflict. Seemingly no routines present, or if present, very
choppy and rough.
High: the dyad displays coordinated activity and settles comfortably into routine
activities that become scripted over time. Easy and comfortable coordination reflects
implicit shared procedural expectations.
Harmonious Communication
Low: Dyad participates in very little or no communication.
89
High: Both verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication flow smoothly. Interaction
flows smoothly, is harmonious. Communication flows effortlessly and has a connected
back- and-forth quality. Dialogue and exchanges promote intimacy and connection.
Mutual Cooperation
Low: Dyad is unable to accept roles (e.g., frequent autonomy struggles and/
or resistance). Conflicts escalate, get out of hand.
High: Dyad effectively resolves potential sources of conflict; partners are open to each
other’s influence. Subtle influences are sufficient for cooperation. Mother and child adopt
a receptive, willing stance toward each
other’s influence. Mother and child are psychologically in tune with each other.
Emotional Ambiance
Low: Dyad engages in clear bouts of negative affect. Negative ambiance permeates
interaction. Positive affect is basically absent.
High: Dyad enjoys an emotionally positive atmosphere, indicating clear pleasure in each
other’s company. Dyad effectively addresses occurrences of distress and negative affect.
Overall emotional ambiance is positive and warm. Dyad engages in clear bouts of joy.
There are natural displays of affection. Expressions of affection are a source of pleasure
for both.
- L. Boldt, Lab Coordinator, personal communication, December 5, 2012.
90
Appendix D: Activity Perception Questionnaire
The following items concern your experience with the task. Please answer all items. For
each item, please indicate how true the statement is for you, using the following scale as a
guide:
1
2
3
not at all true
4
5
6
somewhat true
7
very true
1. I believe that going to school is of some value to me.
2. I believe I had some choice about going to school.
3. While I was in school, I would think about how much I enjoyed it.
4. I believe that participating in school is useful for improved concentration.
5. School is fun to do.
6. I think going to school is/was important for my improvement.
7. I enjoyed going to school very much.
8. I really did not have a choice about my schooling.
9. I went to school because I wanted to.
10. I think going to school is important.
11. I felt like I enjoyed school while I was doing it.
12. I thought school was a very boring activity.
13. It is possible that school could improve my work habits.*
14. I felt like I had no choice but to go to school.
15. I thought going to school was very interesting.
16. I am willing to go to school again because I think it is somewhat useful.
17. I would describe school as very enjoyable.
18. I felt like I had to do school.
19. I believe going to school was somewhat beneficial for me.
20. I went to school because I had to.
21. I believe going to school could help me do better in the workplace.*
22. While going to school I felt like I had a choice.
91
23. I would describe school as very fun.
24. I felt like it was not my own choice to go to school.
25. I would be willing to go to school again because it has some value for me.
*Words in items were changed from study habits to work habits and school to workplace,
respectively.
Scoring information. Begin by reverse scoring items # 8, 12, 14, 18, 20, and 24 by
subtracting the item response from 8 and using the result as the item score for that item.
Then calculate subscale scores by averaging the items scores for the items on each
subscale. They are shown below. The (R) after an item number is just a reminder that the
item score is the reverse of the participant’s response on that item.
Interest/enjoyment:
3, 5, 7, 11, 12(R), 15, 17, 23
Value/usefulness:
1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 25
Perceived choice:
2, 8(R), 9, 14(R), 18(R), 20(R), 22, 24(R)
-IMI, (n.d.). In Self Determination Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/
92
Appendix E: Berkeley Puppet Interview- School Scales
Warm Up
(A)
Iggy: I like chocolate.
Ziggy: I don’t like chocolate.
(B)
(C)
1.
Z:
I don’t like to play in the park.
I:
I like to play in the park.
I:
I have one brother and one sister.
Z:
I have one sister.
I have fun with my teacher.
I don’t have fun with my teacher.
2.
It’s hard for me to learn new things.
It’s not hard for me to learn new things.
3.
Other kids are smarter than me.
I’m smarter than other kids.
4.
I’m good at reading.
I’m not good at reading.
5.
* (I’m good at letters.)
(I’m not good at letters.)
I like being in school.
I don’t like being in school.
6.
My teacher gets angry with me.
My teacher doesn’t get angry with me.
93
7.
Schoolwork is easy for me.
Schoolwork is not easy for me.
8.
Other kids learn faster than me.
I learn faster than other kids.
9.
I’m not good at math.
I’m good at math.
10.
* (I’m not good at numbers.)
(I’m good at numbers.)
My teacher doesn’t make me mad.
My teacher makes me mad.
11.
I don’t like it when my teacher pays attention to other kids.
It’s OK with me when my teacher pays attention to other kids.
12.
I’m a smart kid.
I’m not a smart kid.
13.
I hate school.
I don’t hate school.
14.
At school, I do things better than other kids.
At school, other kids do things better than me.
15.
My teacher isn’t nice to me.
My teacher is nice to me.
94
16.
I think learning math is boring.
* (I think learning numbers is
boring.)
I don’t think learning math is boring.
17.
(I don’t think learning numbers is
boring.)
I talk with my teacher about lots of different things.
I don’t talk with my teacher about lots of different things.
18.
My teacher doesn’t yell at me.
My teacher yells at me.
If teacher yells at child, PROBE: What does she yell about?
If teacher doesn’t yell, PROBE: Does she yell at anybody?
If yes: What does she yell about?
19.
In the morning, I say to my mom or dad, “I don’t wanna go to school.”
In the morning, I don’t say that to my mom or dad.
20.
I read better than other kids in my class.
Other kids read better than me.
21.
My teacher doesn’t care about me.
My teacher cares about me.
22.
I’m happy when I’m at school.
I’m not happy when I’m at school.
* (I’m better at letters than other kids
in my class.)
(Other kids are better at letters than
me.)
95
23.
I’m better at math than other kids in my class. *(I’m better at numbers than other
kids in my class.)
Other kids are better at math than me.
(Other kids are better at numbers
than me.)
24.
I get in trouble with my teacher.
I don’t get in trouble with my teacher.
If child gets in trouble, PROBE: What happens when you get in trouble?
If child doesn’t get in trouble, PROBE: Do other kids ever get in trouble with
your teacher? What happens when someone gets in trouble?
25.
Other kids know more than me.
I know more than other kids.
26.
I think school is fun.
I don’t think school is fun.
27.
My teacher puts me in a bad mood.
My teacher doesn’t put me in a bad mood.
28.
I don’t do a good job on my schoolwork.
I do a good job on my schoolwork.
29.
I think learning to read is boring.
I don’t think learning to read is boring.
30.
I ask my mom or dad to let me stay home from school.
I don’t ask my mom or dad to let me stay home from school.
96
* Alternate item wordings (denoted by italics and parentheses) should be used with
kindergartners.
-J. Measelle, BPI training, UO Eugene, December 2014
97
Appendix F: Recruitment Materials*
*All created at vistaprint.com
Business card
98
Poster/Flier
99
Appendix G: Consent and Assent Forms
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT
Project Title: School Engagement Study: The Mother-Child Relationship's Role in
the Internalization of Parental Valuing of School
Principal Investigator: Elizabeth Ackerson
Research Team Contact: Beth Ackerson phone: 331.303.BETH (331.303.2384)
email: [email protected]
This consent form describes the research study to help you decide if you want yourself
and your child to participate. This form provides important information about what you
and your child will be asked to do during the study, about the risks and benefits of the
study, and about your rights as a research subject.
If you have any questions about or do not understand something in this form, you should
ask the research team for more information.
You should discuss your participation with anyone you choose such as family or friends.
Do not agree to participate in this study unless the research team has answered your
questions and you decide that you want to be part of this study.
You are being asked to read and sign this document to consent to your own participation
in this research study, and you are also being asked to read and sign this document to give
your child permission to participate.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY?
This is a research study. We are inviting you and your child to participate in this research
study because you are a mother of a kindergarten-aged child.
The purpose of this research study is to investigate connections between how parents feel
about school, the way the parent and child do things together, and how the child feels
about school.
HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL PARTICIPATE?
Approximately 70 mother-child pairs (or 140 people) will take part in this study at the
University of Iowa.
HOW LONG WILL I BE IN THIS STUDY?
If you agree to take part in this study, your involvement will last for about one hour and
WHAT WILL HAPPEN DURING THIS STUDY?
You will be asked to choose a time and location that is convenient for you and your
kindergarten-aged child to meet with the researcher. At the visit, the researcher will ask
you to fill out some questionnaires: demographic information (your name, email, phone
100
number, your child’s name and gender, the town you live in, your child’s kindergarten
teacher’s name and email, the school your child attends, your educational background,
your income, your ethnicity/race, your marital status, your child’s birthdate, and any
siblings and ages of those siblings), information about your beliefs and valuing of school
(responding to statements like “I believe that going to school is of some value to me”),
and information about your child’s personality characteristics (responding to statements
like “my child is a hard worker”), and emotional engagement in school (questions like “to
what extent does your child seem eager about school?”).
You are free to skip any questions that you would prefer not to answer. During this time,
your child will play nearby, on his/her own. Then the researcher will ask you to have a
snack with your child, do an activity with him/her (such as play a board game or do a
quick art activity), and then clean up together. After that, you will have a little more time
to fill out the questionnaires while the researcher does a brief puppet interview with your
child. The interview will ask questions about your child’s feelings about school.
You will be asked to provide the researcher with the name and school of your child’s
kindergarten teacher, and the teacher will be asked via email to take an on-line survey to
complete 1 questionnaire about your child’s emotional engagement at school, as well as
provide us with your child’s reading achievement score and performance compared to
his/her classmates.
Audio/Video Recording or Photographs
One aspect of this study involves making video recordings of you and your child during
the study visit. The video recordings will be made in order for the research team to
analyze mother-child interactions and to analyze the child’s feelings about school. The
only people with access to these videos are those on the research team. When they are no
longer needed for the study, they will be destroyed.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THIS STUDY?
It could make you uncomfortable if your child displays a behavior that you don’t like
during the visit. We encourage you to interact with your child as you normally would.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THIS STUDY?
We don’t know if you will benefit from being in this study.
However, we hope that in the future, other people might benefit from this study because
if we find that particular qualities of the mother-child relationship are connected to how
much a child internalizes parent values, parents can develop interactions with their child
that can help the child to internalize desired values.
WILL IT COST ME ANYTHING TO BE IN THIS STUDY?
You will not have any costs for being in this research study.
WILL I BE PAID FOR PARTICIPATING?
You will receive a $10 gift certificate to a local grocery store. Your child will receive a
small toy or school supply.
101
WHO IS FUNDING THIS STUDY?
The University and the research team are receiving no payments from other agencies,
organizations, or companies to conduct this research study.
WHAT ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY?
We will keep your participation in this research study confidential to the extent permitted
by law. However, it is possible that other people such as those indicated below may
become aware of your participation in this study and may inspect and copy records
pertaining to this research. Some of these records could contain information that
personally identifies you.
• federal government regulatory agencies,
• auditing departments of the University of Iowa, and
• the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (a committee that reviews and
approves research studies)
To help protect your confidentiality, we will keep all hard copies of information locked in
a file cabinet and all electronic copies of information on a password protected computer
in password protected file folders. Only members of the research team will have access to
any of the data. If we write a report or article about this study or share the study data set
with others, we will do so in such a way that you cannot be directly identified.
IS BEING IN THIS STUDY VOLUNTARY?
Taking part in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to take
part at all. If you decide to be in this study, you may stop participating at any time. If you
decide not to be in this study, or if you stop participating at any time, you and your child
won’t be penalized or lose any benefits for which you otherwise qualify.
WHAT IF I HAVE QUESTIONS?
We encourage you to ask questions. If you have any questions about the research study
itself, please contact: Beth Ackerson at 331.303.BETH (331.303.2384) or at
[email protected]
If you experience a research-related injury, please contact Kathy Schuh at
319.335.5667.
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research subject or
about research related injury, please contact the Human Subjects Office, 105 Hardin
Library for the Health Sciences, 600 Newton Rd, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
52242-1098, (319) 335-6564, or e-mail [email protected]. General information about being
a research subject can be found by clicking “Info for Public” on the Human Subjects
Office web site, http://hso.research.uiowa.edu/. To offer input about your experiences as
a research subject or to speak to someone other than the research staff, call the Human
Subjects Office at the number above.
This Informed Consent Document is not a contract. It is a written explanation of what
102
will happen during the study if you decide to participate. You are not waiving any legal
rights by signing this Informed Consent Document. Your signature indicates that this
research study has been explained to you, that your questions have been answered, and
that you agree to take part in this study and that you give permission to have your child
participate in this study as well. You will receive a copy of this form.
Minor Subject's Name (printed):
_________________________________________________________
Parent/Guardian’s Name and Relationship to Subject:
_________________________________________________________
(Name - printed) (Relationship to Subject - printed)
Do not sign this form if today’s date is on or after EXPIRATION DATE: 05/12/16.
__________________________________________
(Signature of Parent/Guardian) (Date)
Adult Subject's Name (printed):
_________________________________________________________
Do not sign this form if today’s date is on or after EXPIRATION DATE: 05/12/16.
__________________________________________
(Signature of Subject) (Date)
Statement of Person Who Obtained Consent
I have discussed the above points with the subject or, where appropriate, with the
subject’s legally authorized representative. It is my opinion that the subject understands
the risks, benefits, and procedures involved with participation in this research study.
__________________________________________
(Signature of Person who Obtained Consent) (Date)
ASSENT DOCUMENT
Project Title: School Engagement Study
Investigator(s): Elizabeth Ackerson, Educational Psychology, BM, MA
We are doing a research study. A research study is a special way to find out about something.
We are trying to find out about what you do when you spend time with your mom.
If you decide that you want to be in this study, this is what will happen. You will do some
playtime on your own, do a snack with your mom, do a project with her, and then clean up.
Then you will be asked to talk with a couple of my friends, two dog puppets, for a few
minutes. There will be an iPad recording video of all the activities you do during this study.
Your mom and teacher will answer some questions about you, too, about your experience at
school.
We don’t know if being in this research study will help you. But we hope to learn something
that will help other people someday.
103
When we are done with the study, we will write a report about what we found out. We won’t
use your name in the report.
You don’t have to be in this study. It’s up to you. If you say okay now, but you change your
mind later, that’s okay too. All you have to do is tell us.
If you want to be in this study, please tell me now.
104
References
Ablow, J.C., Measelle, J.R., & The MacArthur Working Group on Outcome Assessment
(2003). Manual for the Berkeley Puppet Interview: Symptomatology, Social, and
Academic Modules (BPI 1.0). MacArthur Foundation Research Network on
Psychopathology and Development (David J. Kupfer, Chair), University of
Pittsburgh.
Ainsworth, M. (1969). Individual differences in strange-situational behavior of one-yearolds. In R. Schaffer (Ed.), The Origins of Human Social Relations. (1-38) London:
Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M., & Bell, S. (1979). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by
the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1). 4967.
Ainsworth, M., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality
development. American Psychologist, 46(4). 333-341.
Aksan, N., Kochanska, G., & Ortmann, M. R. (2006). Mutually responsive orientation
between parents and their young children: Toward methodological advances in the
science of relationships. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 833-848. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.833
Bandura, A. (2004a). Swimming against the mainstream: the early years from chilly
tributary to transformative mainstream. Behavior Research and Therapy 42. 613–
630.
Bandura, A. (2004b). Observational Learning. In Byrne (Ed.), Learning and Memory (2nd
Ed.) (482-484). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52. 1–26.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology 2. 21–41.
Barnett, M. A., & Taylor, L. C. (2009). Parental recollections of school experiences and
current kindergarten transition practices. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30. 140–148.
Beebe, B., Sorter, D., Rustin, J., and Knoblauch, S. (2003). A comparison of Meltzoff,
Trevarthen, and Stern. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 13, 777-804.
105
Belsky, J., Booth-LaForce, C., Bradley, R., Brownell, C. A., Burchinal, M., Campbell, S.
B. Natl Inst Child Hlth. (2008). Mothers' and fathers' support for child autonomy and
early school achievement. Developmental Psychology, 44(4) doi: 10.1037/00121649.44.4.895
Benware, C. A., & Deci, E. L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivational set. American Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 755-765. doi:
10.2307/1162999
Bogat, G. A., Jones, J. W., & Jason, L. A. (1980). School transitions: Preventive
intervention following an elementary school closing. Journal of Community
Psychology, 8(4), 343-352. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger.
London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1983). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. Annual Progress in
Child Psychiatry and Child Development. 29-47.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. Basic Books.
Boldt, L. L. C. (2012). In Ackerson E. A. B. (Ed.), MRO coding information.
Bretherton, I. (1991). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28. 759-775.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Ecological systems theory. Making Human Beings Human:
Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. 176-173.
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Di Guinta, L., Panerai, L., & Eisenberg, N. (2009). The
Contribution of Agreeableness and Self-efficacy Beliefs to Prosociality. European
Journal of Personality, 24(1), 36–55. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.739
Caspi, A., & Shiner, R. L. (2006). Personality development. In: Eisenberg N, Damon W,
Lerner RL, editors. Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and
personality development. 6. Vol. 3. (300-365). New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G., (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A
motivational analysis of self-system processes. Minnesota Symposia on Child
Psychology, 23. 43-77.
Daniel, B., Wassell, S., Gilligan, R. (1999) ‘It’s just common sense isn’t it?’ Exploring
ways of putting the theory of resilience into action. Adoption & Fostering, 23(3). 615.
106
Deci, E. L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A selfdetermination theory perspective. The role of interest in learning and development.
(pp. 43-70) Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating internalization:
The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and
education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4).
325-246.
Eisenberg, N., Duckworth, A. L., Spinrad, T. L., & Valiente, C. (2014).
Conscientiousness: Origins in childhood? Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 13311349. doi: 10.1037/a0030977
Essex, M. J., Boyce, W. T., Goldstein, L. H., Armstrong, J. M., Kraemer, H. C., &
Kupfer, D. J. (2002). The confluence of mental, physical, social and academic
difficulties in middle childhood: II. Developing the MacArthur Health and Behavior
Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
41. 588–603.
Flor, D. L., & Knapp, N. F. (2001). Transmission and transaction: Predicting
adolescents' internalization of parental religious values. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15(4). 627-645. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.15.4.627
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential
of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs From
childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains.
Developmental Psychology, 38(4). 519–533. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.519
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The emerging science of
positive psychology is coming to understand why it’s good to feel good. American
Scientist, 91. 330–335.
Frith, S., & Narikawa, D. (1972). Attitude toward school grades K-12. Los Angeles,
California: Instructional Objectives Exchange.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, C. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95. 148–162.
Gilligan, R. (1998). The importance of schools and teachers in child welfare. Child and
Family Social Work, 3. 13-25.
Gilligan, R. (2006). Creating a warm place where children can blossom. Social Policy
Journal of New Zealand, 28. 36-45.
107
Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2012). Mamakind or papakind? [Mom's child or Dad's
child]: Parent-specific patterns in early adolescents' intergenerational academic value
transmission. Learning and Individual Differences, 22. 544–548.
Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the coconstruction of mind. American Educational Research Journal, 36. 647–673.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school
achievement: Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their
parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508-517. doi:10.1037/00220663.83.4.508
Grusec, J. E. (1997). A history of research on parenting strategies and children’s
internalization of values. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and
Children’s Internalization of Values (3-22). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Grusec, J. E., Goodnow, J. J., & Kuczinski, L. (2000). New directions in analyses of
parenting contributions to children’s acquisition of values. Child Development,
71(1). 205–211.
Harwell, M., & LeBeau, B. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure
in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120-131. doi:
10.3102/0013189X10362578
Henning, A. & Striano, T. (2011). Infant and maternal sensitivity to interpersonal timing.
Child Development 82(3), 916–931.
Internal Motivation Inventory (IMI), (n. d.). In Self Determination Theory. Retrieved
from http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/
Jacobsen, T. & Hoffman, V. (1997). Children’s attachment representations: Longitudinal
relations to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 703-710.
Jodl, K. M., Michael, A., Malanchuk, O., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2001). Parents'
roles in shaping early adolescents' occupational aspirations. Child Development,
72(4). 1247–1265. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00345.
Jones, S. (2008). Nature and nurture in the development of social smiling. Philosophical
Psychology, 21(3), 349-357. doi: 10.1080/09515080802190547
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Flemming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993).
Attachment and emotional regulation during mother-teen problem-solving. A control
theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231-245.
Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young
children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11(6) doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00198
108
Kochanska, G., Coy, K., & Murray, K. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the
first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 1091-1111. doi: 10.1111/14678624.00336
Kochanska, G. & Murray, K. T. (2000), Mother – Child mutually responsive orientation
and conscience development: From toddler to early school age. Child Development,
71, 417–431. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00154
Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young
children: Implications for early socialization. Child Development, 68(1). 94-112.
Kochanska, G. (1994). Beyond cognition: Expanding the search for the early roots of
internalization and conscience. Developmental Psychology. 30(1). 20-22.
Ladd, G. W., & Birch, S. H. (1999). Children's Social and Scholastic Lives in
Kindergarten: Related Spheres of Influence?. Child Development, 70(6), 1373.
Ladd, G., Buhs, E. S., & Seid, M. (2000). Children's initial sentiments about
kindergarten: is school liking an antecedent of early classroom participation and
achievement? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 255-279.
Ladd, G. W., & Dinella, L. M. (2009). Continuity and change in early school
engagement: Predictive of children's achievement trajectories from first to eighth
grade? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 190-206. doi: 10.1037/a0013153
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics (33). 159-74.
Larose, S., & Bernier, A. (2001). Social support processes: Mediators of attachment state
of mind and adjustment in later late adolescence. Attachment and Human
Development, 3, 96-120.
Lawrence, J. A., & Valsiner, J. (1993). Conceptual roots of internalization: From
transmission to transformation. Human Development, 36. 150-167.
Maccoby, E. (1999). The uniqueness of the parent-child relationship. Relationships as
Developmental Contexts, 30, 157-175.
Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation
in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and
later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556. doi:10.2307/
1128221
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor
analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60. 48-58.
109
McMillan, 2004. Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer. 4th ed.
Pearson, Inc.
McNeely, 2005. Connection with school. In K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What
Do Children Need to Flourish? Conceptualizing and Measuring Indicators of
Positive Development, Vol. 3., (289-304). New York, New York: Springer
Science+Business Media
Measelle, J. R., Ablow, J. C., Cowan, P. A., & Cowan, C. P. (1998). Assessing young
children’s views of their academic, social, and emotional lives: An evaluation of the
self-perception scales of the Berkeley Puppet Interview. Child Development, 69(6).
1556-1576.
Morrison, E., Rimm-Kauffman, S., & Pianta, R. (2003). A longitudinal study of motherchild interactions at school entry and social and academic outcomes in middle
school. Journal of School Psychology, 41(3), 185-200. doi: 10.1016/S00224405(03)00044-X
Nix, G. A., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of
autonomous and controlled motivation on.. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 35(3), 266.
Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through selfregulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and
vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3). 266-284.
Noack, P. (2004). The family context of preadolescents' orientations toward education:
Effects of maternal orientations and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology,
96(4), 714–722, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.714.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (2006). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp.
429–504). New York, NY: Wiley.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily wellbeing: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419-435. doi:10.1177/0146167200266002
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the
transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5). 491–511.
Rogoff, B., Malkin, C., & Gilbride, K. (1984). Interaction with babies as guidance in
development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 23. 31-44.
doi:10.1002/cd.23219842305
110
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 5467. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci. E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement:
Motivation, learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of Motivation at School (171-198). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report
and projective assessments of individual differences in children's
perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to
teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem.
The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 226-249. doi:
10.1177/027243169401400207
Simpkins, S. D., Fredricks, J. A., Eccles, J. S. (2012). Charting the Eccles’ ExpectancyValue Model from Mothers’ Beliefs in Childhood to Youths’ Activities in
Adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 48(4), 1019–1032. doi:
10.1037/a0027468
Stormark, K. M. and Braarud, H. C. (2004). Infants’ sensitivity to social contingency: a
“double video” study of face-to-face communication between 2 and 4 month-olds
and their mothers. Infant Behavorial Development, 27, 195-203.
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Davies, P. T., Winter, M. A., Cummings, E. M., Schermerhorn, A.
(2008). Interparental conflict and children's school adjustment: the explanatory role
of children's internal representations of interparental and parent--child relationships.
Developmental Psychology, 44 (6). 1678-1690. doi: 10.1037/a0013857
Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (1997). Intrinsic motivations, literacy, and assessment
practices: `That's my grade. That's me.' Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 107.
Thompson, R. A. (1988). Emotion and Self-Regulation, in R. Dienstbier & R. A.
Thompson (Eds.), Socioemotional Development: Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation (367-468). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Trevarthen, C. and Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: research, theory and
111
clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 3-48.
Vinik, J., Johnston, M., Grusec, J. E., & Farrell, R. (2013). Understanding the learning of
values using a domains-of-socialization framework. Journal of Moral Education,
42(4). 475-493. DOI: 10.1080/03057240.2013.817329
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinberg, M. K., & Tronick, E. Z. (1996). Infant affective reactions to the resumption of
maternal interaction after the still-face. Child Development, 67(3), 905-914.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep9704150173
Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social goals and social relationships as motivators of school
adjustment. In J. Juvonen & K. R. Wentzel (Eds.), Social Motivation:
Understanding Children’s School Adjustment (226-247). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:
Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational
Psychology 91(1). 76-97.
Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Students’ relationships with teachers as motivational contexts. In
K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (301-322).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Wertsch, J. V. (1984). The zone of proximal development: Some conceptual issues. New
Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984(23), 7-18.
doi:10.1002/cd.23219842303