Parents as socializers: Maternal and paternal views

To provide data on middle-class mothers' and fathers' conceptions of their child-rearing roles during adolescence, parents of 5th, 8th, and 11th graders were interviewed in their homes. Forty-two families (an equal number of boys and girls at each grade level) participated. Parents described the behaviors that they were currently encouraging or discouraging in their child, as well as the techniques they used to elicit or influence these behaviors. Fathers saw themselves as more actively involved in encouraging instrumental behaviors such as independence and assertiveness, whereas mothers saw themselves as more involved in the training of interpersonal behaviors such as manners and politeness. Fathers reported using more forceful childrearing techniques than did mothers, although parents reported being more punishing and less rewarding with same-sexed children. Parents of girls were more likely to emphasize prosocial behaviors and politeness; parents of boys emphasized selfcare behaviors.     

Lifestyle criminality from a developmental standpoint

A theory which details the development of lifestyle criminality is discussed. The necessary (but not sufficient) early conditions for the development of later criminality involve improper resolution of three early developmental tasks which confront all children (social attachment, stimulus modulation, self-image). A child predisposed to later criminality by weak social bonding, a high need for excitement, and a negative self-image is made even more vulnerable when exposed to such additional influences as low verbal intelligence, a chaotic home environment, or antisocial peers. Despite the importance of these variables, however, it is the lifestyle choices one makes which determine later criminality.     

Literatur

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

COMMENTARY ON “EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:” WHAT NOW?

Replying to the paper by Tippins and Wittmann, this commentary notes that the problems they identify have been recognized for many years, yet this has resulted in little change in the practice of child custody evaluations. Three underlying reasons are offered for the stalemate that frustrates the implementation of standards for an empirically based child custody evaluation practice: (a) the economics of child custody evaluation practice; (b) inconsistencies between proposals to restrict testimony in this area and the lack of similar restrictions in most other areas of forensic practice; and (c) inadequate motivation for researchers who might contribute an empirical base for child custody evaluations. Directions for breaking the stalemate are offered for each of these problems.