Child-care quality, family structure, and maternal expectations: Relationship to preschool children's peer relations

JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY | Or 281-298 (1989)

Child-Care Quality, Family Structure, and Maternal Expectations: Relationship to Preschool Children's Peer Relations SUSAN D. HOLLOWAY M A R I N A RE1CHHART-ERICKSON

University of Maryland

The relationship of preschool children's social competence to child-care quality, family structure, and mothers' expectations regarding the development of social and cognitive skills was examined. Fifty-five 4-year-old children from 15 programs participated along with their mothers and caregivers. Measures of social competence included caregiver rating of sociability, frequency of positive peer interaction during free play, and prosocial reasoning regarding hypothetical sharing incidents. Results indicated that the mothers of socially competent children expected earlier acquisition of developmental skills. Socially competent children attended programs with smaller classes and higher quality caregiver-child interactions. Relationships were found between the two settings: Mothers who expected early acquisition of developmental skills, and those of higher socioeconomic status, tended to place their children in higher quality child-care settings. Group size and caregiver-child interaction contributed independently to children's social competence after controlling on home variables. Maternal expectations and birth order contributed to children's social competence after controlling on child-care variables. For prosocial reasoning, an interaction between the two settings was found: High quality caregiver-child interactions were positively related to prosocial reasoning primarily for children whose mothers held early expectations.

M o r e than h a l f o f all w o m e n with children under age 6 w o r k outside the h o m e ( O ' C o n n e l l & B l o o m , 1987). Paralleling the increasing n u m b e r o f preschool children in o u t - o f - h o m e care has been an increasing interest in investigating the effects o f these e x p e r i e n c e s on children. Early studies o f day-care effects focused on c o m p a r i s o n s o f h o m e - r e a r e d children with those placed in day-care centers. A

We thank Lori Berner and Susan Kershner for their help in collecting the data, and Bruce Fuller for reviewing previous versions of this article. Arlene Kasper provided valuable assistance in reviewing the literature. This work was supported through a grant from University of Maryland's Graduate Research Board. Funds for data analysis were provided by the Computer Science Center at the University of Maryland. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Susan D. Holloway, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

281

282

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

second wave of studies examined the relationship of children's social and intellectual competence to social structural characteristics of day-care settings (e.g., staff: child ratio; group size) and other dimensions of quality such as caregiverchild interaction (Belsky, 1984). In a recent third wave of studies, characteristics of both the home and school have been considered in relation to various child outcomes (e.g., Howes & Olenick, 1986; Howes & Stewart, 1987; Kontos, 1987; Phillips, McCartney, & Scarr, 1987). One major objective has been attained by the third wave of studies. By partialing out the effect of home characteristics, investigators have been able to offset confounding of family characteristics and day-care characteristics arising from parental selection of centers. These studies have thus yielded some notion of the relative contribution of family and day-care settings to child developmental outcomes. However, the family characteristics examined have often been global and without specific substantive relevance to the developmental outcome measures. The family characteristics themselves have rarely been a focus of theoretical interest. (For exceptions see Clarke-Stewart, 1987a; Howes & Olenick, 1986.) The objective of the present study was to examine more carefully how characteristics of the home setting contribute to the development of peer relations in conjunction with aspects of the child-care setting. In contrast to studies in which the home variables serve primarily as control variables, the focus here was to examine how elements of the home and child-care setting interact in predicting child development. This investigation of the home and child-care settings took the form of several questions. First, it was asked whether certain characteristics of families (i.e., family size, birth order, maternal education and occupation, and maternal expectations concerning the development of social and intellectual skills) and childcare settings (i.e., quality of interaction with caregiver, caregiver-child ratio, and group size) were significantly related to children's competence in interacting with peers. Regarding families, number of children and birth order have often been identified as important predictors of children's social competence. The tendency for firstborn children to be generous and helpful toward peers has frequently been observed (e.g., Knight, 1982; Staub, 1971 a, 1971 b). Maternal expectations have often been related to children's cognitive development (Goodnow, Cashmore, Cotton, & Knight, 1984; Hess, Kashiwagi, Azuma, Price, & Dickson, 1980) but little is known about their relationship to social competence. In the present study, mothers' expectations regarding the age at which their children might master skills in the areas of social relations, obedience, independence, and cognition were examined. Expectations in these areas may serve as internal guidelines for parents' behavior; a parent who expects early development of social skills may be more likely to facilitate and reward a child's interaction with peers. In Japan, where social competence and group harmony is highly valued (Lewis, 1984), mothers of preschoolers hold earlier expectations than do mothers in the U.S. for

HOME AND CHILD-CARECORRELATESOF PEERRELATIONS

283

the development of emotional maturity, obedience, and social courtesy (Hess et al., 1980). In this study, it was expected that mothers with earlier expectations regarding development would have children who showed more social competence in interacting with peers. Regarding nonfamilial child care, three dimensions of quality were focused upon: caregiver-child interaction, caregiver-child ratio, and group size. Numerous studies have shown that socially competent children are likely to have encountered caregivers who are friendly, courteous, and responsive (Clarke-Stewart, 1987a; Prescott, Jones, & Kritchevsky, 1972; Rubinstein & Howes, 1979). Structural characteristics of the child-care environment, including class size and caregiver-child ratio, have also been related to peer relations (Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Vandell & Powers, 1983). In this study, it was expected that in highquality centers, children would evidence greater social competence than in lowquality centers. In addition to relating familial and child-care variables to social competence, a second goal of the study was to examine the association between the two settings was examined. Previous work has demonstrated that children who are in high-quality centers also experience more favorable conditions at home. For example, Howes and Olenick (1986) have reported that families using highquality centers (defined in terms of adult-child ratio, caregiver continuity, and teacher training) are less often characterized by stressful situations such as frequent business travel, split work schedules, and marital separation or divorce. Howes and Stewart (1987) studied quality issues in family day-care settings. In their study, quality was defined in terms of adult-child ratio, group size, and rating on the Harms and Clifford Family Day-Care Rating Scale. They found that more nurturing and socially supported families used higher-quality child care, while restrictive and stressed families used lower-quality child care. It was anticipated that mothers who expected early development of social and cognitive skills would be more likely to place their children in centers where social competence was nurtured through opportunities for frequent and appropriate interactions with staff. A third question concerned the unique contribution of home and child-care characteristics to the socialization of peer relations. Specifically, it was asked what effect child-care quality may have after the influence of the home environment has been taken into account. McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, Grajek, and Schwartz (1982) found significant effects for day-care quality after family values were statistically controlled. Howes and Stewart (1987) also obtained effects for day-care quality on toddlers' sophistication in play with adults, peers, and objects after partialling out a composite measure of stress, social contact, social stability, social support, nurturant child rearing, and restrictive child rearing. A significant contribution by center quality to social development, but not intellectual and language development, was found by Kontos (1987) after controlling on maternal education, access to a Title XX subsidy, and value placed on social

284

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

skills. Clarke-Stewart and Gruber (1984) found no day-care quality effects on social or intellectual competence after partialing out family socioeconomic status. Thus, there is some evidence that day-care quality is related to children's social competence, although the proportion of variance accounted for is substantially reduced when the effects of home characteristics are carefully removed. In some of this previous work, the failure of the child-care quality variables to account for more of the variance in child development may be attributed in part to limitations of the outcome measures, particularly in the assessment of social competence. Typically, social competence has been assessed via ratings by caregivers (however, see Howes & Olenick, 1986 and Howes & Stewart, 1987 for studies using behavioral measures of social competence). Caregivers who are insensitive or inadequate in their interactions with children may not be good judges of their behavior. Concerns over marked differences between ratings of parents and those of caregivers have been raised (Phillips et al., 1987). In the present study, a range of indicators of social competence was obtained, including behavioral observations at the child-care setting, assessment of social problemsolving reasoning, and caregiver rating of peer relations. We hypothesized that children in high-quality child-care settings evidence greater social competence than those in inferior settings, even after controlling on the home variables. A fourth question concerned interactions between aspects of the home and child-care settings. To date, investigation of such interactions has focused on the way in which the effects of day care may vary depending on the mother's attitude toward the likely effects of day care oil children's development. Everson, Sarnat, and Ambron (1984) found that children in day care whose mothers were reluctant to put them there, and home-reared children whose mothers were uncomfortable with day care, were less tolerant of frustration than children whose mothers' attitudes were consistent with their choice of day-care arrangements. While findings from a second assessment, 10 months later, suggested that maternal attitude alone was the more significant predictor of children's behavior, this study indicates that the experience of day care may be filtered through parental feelings about appropriate socialization practices. Everson et al. (1984) argue that the failure of some previous studies to find day-care effects may be due to the fact that day-care characteristics may interact with home characteristics or characteristics of the child to produce an effect on child behavior. A similar argument may be made regarding the day-care quality literature. Day-care quality effects may manifest themselves only in the presence of certain home conditions. Clarke-Stewart (1987b) has suggested that the effects of high-quality care on cognitive competence may be particularly strong when families provide little educational stimulation. Alternatively, it is possible that the effects of high-quality care are stronger when children's parents encourage the early development of social skills, and caregivers then build upon the skills and attitudes tbstered in the family. Because evidence concerning interactive

HOME AND CHILD-CARECORRELATESOF PEERRELATIONS

285

effects between children's experiences at home and in child care is so sparse (Clarke-Stewart, 1987b), no finn hypotheses were formed concerning interactions in this study.

METHOD Sample Fifty-five children participated, of whom 32 were boys. The average age was 53 months, ranging from 48 to 59 months. Two of the children were black, one was Asian-American, and the rest were Caucasian. Mothers averaged 15.90 years of school (SD = 2.38). Fathers averaged 16.62 years of school (SD = 2.60). All but 6 of the mothers were employed at least part-time outside the home. In 5 of the families the father was not present because of death or divorce. Mothers' and fathers' occupations were rated using the Hollingshead scale. The two lowest categories--representing unemployed workers, domestic servants, heavy labor, and semi-skilled laborers--were collapsed into a single category because of the middle-class nature of the sample. Mean occupational status on the 6-point scale was 3.86 for mothers (SD = .77) and 4.08 for fathers (SD = 1.24). A rating of 4 represented the category of "minor responsibility for business policy; low level executives; supervision of white-collar workers; variants of the major licensed professions" (Hollingshead, 1975). All of the children attended a preschool or day-care center. Fifteen child-care settings were represented. Four of the settings were traditional preschools, offering a morning program several days a week. Seventeen of the children in the sample were in this type of setting. The remaining 11 programs were day-care centers. Of the 38 children attending one of these centers, 29 attended full-time, while 9 attended for several hours two or three times a week. The sample was recruited by selecting 15 programs at random from a list of early childhood programs serving 4-year-old children in the metropolitan area. Preschools and full-time day-care centers were included; other studies have found little difference in curriculum or caregiver characteristics between preschools and full-time day-care programs (Clarke-Stewart, 1987a). The boundary between program types was indistinct in this sample; some of the preschools offered an extended program (approximately 5 hours a day) as well as a short morning program, and most of the day-care centers offered a morning program as well as full-day care. Parents who select preschools may differ from those who select day-care centers in some way that is relevant to social competence. This possibility was examined in analyses to be described subsequently. Program directors were contacted and asked to distribute fliers describing the study to the Caucasian parents with 4-year-old children in the program. Parents who were interested in participating contacted the principal investigator, who then determined eligibility and arranged to interview the mother if appropriate.

286

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

Procedure Data on the families were obtained during an interview with the mother. Mothers were interviewed in their homes by the principal investigator, or one of two trained graduate assistants. During the interview, mothers' expectations were assessed, and information was obtained concerning birth order of focal child, number of children in the family, and mothers' education and occupation. Three measures were obtained of children's competence in peer relations: a social problem-solving task, classroom observations, and teacher ratings.

Mother's Expectations. Mothers were asked to state the age (in years) at which they expected their children to attain 15 developmental skills. This instrument is an adaptation of a scale developed by Hess et al. (1980). The items are listed in Appendix A, with means and standard deviations obtained with this sample. To facilitate interpretation of findings, scores were converted to months by multiplying parental estimates by 12. A total score was derived by calculating the mean of the 15 items. Coefficient ct for the expectations composite was .82. Child Interview. Children were interviewed in order to evaluate their social problem-solving skills. An adaptation of Spivack and Shure's (1974) procedure was used. The reliability and validity of this instrument have been established in several studies; in one validation study involving a group of "inner-city" 4-yearolds, those judged as better adjusted by their teachers were able to conceptualize a greater number and a wider range of alternative solutions to real-life problems than their less well-adjusted peers (Spivack & Shure, 1974). In this study, the procedure entailed showing each child a line drawing of two children and pictures of six common objects. For each object, the interview said, "Johnny/Kathy has been playing with (object name) for a long time, and now Steve/ Linda wants to play with it. What can Steve/Linda do so that he/she can play with the (object name)?" When the child said he/she couldn't think of anything else, the interviewer moved to the next object. Responses were coded using Rubin's (1981) categories. Rubin identifies seven categories within the prosocial group (e.g., asking, using polite terms, waiting) and four within the antisocial or antagonistic group (e.g., unqualified command, grab, physical attack). In the present study, the categories were then collapsed to form the total number of prosocial responses and total number of antisocial responses. Percent agreement between the two coders calculated on five cases (involving a total of 93 utterances) was 80%. Observation of Peer Interaction. In order to assess the child's interactions with peers, he or she was observed in the classroom for two 20-minute sessions of free play on different mornings. Observations were arranged to occur during the longest free-play period in the morning; the time of this period varied from program to program. Using a time-sampling procedure, children's behavior was

HOME AND CHILD-CARECORRELATESOF PEERRELATIONS

287

observed for 10 seconds, followed by a 5-second break in which the observer coded the behavior as involving positive interaction with another child, negative peer interaction, or activity not including peers (e.g., solitary play, daydreaming). Positive interaction with peers was scored during intervals characterized by amicable conversation or play with peers (e.g., building with blocks, talking about an experience, chasing each other on the playground). Negative peer interaction was scored during intervals characterized by hostile or aggressive conversation or play (e.g., destroying another child'¢, property, teasing, hitting). Scores for each category were derived by dividing tl~e number of instances of behavior in that category by the total number of intervals scored during the two observation periods. Interobserver reliability was established among the three raters by having each rater observe and code five nonexperimental children (approximately 320 intervals) with a second rater. Percent agreement for the two pairs was 95% in the case of positive peer interaction. Negative peer interaction did not occur in any of the intervals coded for reliability purposes. For this reason, and because of its low rate of occurrence in the actual data, it was not included in further analyses.

Teacher Rating. Teachers were asked to rate the social competence of the child. Using a 6-point scale (from "never true or almost never true" to "always or almost always true"), they rated the following characteristics: "plays well with other children," "seems to understand how others are feeling," "enjoys participating in group activities," and "is liked by other children." These items were combined into a single composite with high internal consistency (coefficient ct = .86). Day-Care Quality. Three measures of day-care quality were obtained: childcaregiver ratio, number of children in the classroom, and quality of caregiverchild interaction. Quality of interaction was rated using the caregiver-child and child-child interaction scales from the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Scale (ECCOS) (Bredekamp, 1985, 1986). The caregiver-child interaction scale contains items assessing the frequency of the caregiver's interaction with children, as well as the extent to which interactions are friendly, courteous, respectful, and encouraging of independence. The child-child interaction scale contains items which also reflect caregiver behaviors, primarily the extent to which caregivers encourage prosocial behavior in children, and hold appropriate expectations concerning social behavior. The ECCOS was selected because it contains a number of items which focus directly on caregiver-child interaction (see Appendix B). The scale was developed to assess how well a center satisfies the criteria for accreditation by the National Association for the Education on Young Children (NAEYC). The reliability and construct validity of the ECCOS have been examined by Bredekamp ( 1985, 1986). In that study, data were collected in 131 classrooms; ratings

288

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

were completed by teachers, directors and validators (professionals trained by NAEYC staff to conduct on-site visits as part of the overall field test of the instrument). Item analysis indicated adequate internal consistency; the coefficient ~x for the total scale was .70. Factor analysis of the items resulted in three major factors; curriculum, quality of child-caregiver interaction, and variety of activities provided. These factor structures were stable across caregivers, directors and validators. Another popular rating scale, the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980), was not used because items do not separate caregiver behaviors from other aspects of the setting. For example, an item on diapering and toileting assesses both the adequacy of the facilities (e.g., sanitary, child-sized, well-organized) and the way in which the caregiver interacts with children during toileting (e.g., whether adult-child interactions are "pleasant" and whether diapering is "used as a time to talk to and relate warmly to the child"). Because of the focus in the present study on caregiver-child interaction, the ECERS was not appropriate. Minor wording modifications were made to tailor the items in the ECCOS to the objectives of the study. Also, a 4-point rather than a 3-point response scale was used. Each characteristic was rated as being " a little true," "somewhat true," "mostly true," or "definitely true." Each classroom was visited at least three times for a period of 1 hour or more per visit. During each visit, the rater observed both free play and structured activities. All observations were conducted during the morning to ensure that the children would be awake. The head teacher was selected as the focus of the observation; some classrooms made use of aides or parent volunteers but these adults often held a peripheral role in classroom activities, were available only part of the day, and/or worked fewer than 5 days a week and so were not necessarily important socialization figures. Ratings were conducted by the two authors. During an initial training period, trial ratings were conducted in three centers by both raters and differences in ratings were discussed. Midway through data collection, a formal assessment of interobserver reliability was conducted on five classrooms selected at random. Agreement was obtained 92% of the time (average across items), with a range of 80% to 100% on individual items. Items from the two scales (staff-child and child-child) were highly intercorrelated, with correlation coefficients ranging from .72 to 1.00. Item scores were combined into a composite with a coefficient et of .93. Group size and child-caregiver ratio were computed based on the number of children and staff present on the final day of observation in the center. ANALYSIS A number of t-tests were computed to determine whether differences in family background were associated with type of program (preschool versus day-care

HOME AND CHILD-CARE CORRELATES OF PEER RELATIONS

289

center) or length of daily attendance (fewer than 20 hours per week versus more than 20 hours per week). Children attending preschool programs did not differ from those attending day-care centers on any of the following variables: mother's education, father's education, father's occupation, mother's occupation, number of children in family, and maternal expectations. A significant difference was found regarding birth order; children attending preschool programs tended to be earlier borns (t(52) = 2.71, p < .01). When children attending part-time were compared with those attending full-time on the same variables, significant differences emerged only for birth order, with early born children often found in the part-time group (t(37) = 2.72, p < .01). Strategies for dealing with this confounding of family and school characteristics are described as each analysis is presented. Additionally, t-tests were conducted to compare day-care children and preschool children on the three outcome variables. A significant difference was found between children attending day-care centers and those attending preschools on caregiver rating of social competence (t(50) = - 2 . 2 8 , p < .05); children attending preschools were rated as more sociable by caregivers. No differences were found on the outcome measures between children who attended part-time versus full-time. Means and standard deviations for all variables are presented in Table 1, along with Pearson product moment correlations of children's social competence with the home and program variables. (Pearson product moment correlations computed among the three outcome measures revealed no significant relationships.) None of the social competence measures was related to mother's education level or occupational status. The number of children in the family was

TABLE 1 Association of Family and Child-Care Variables to Children's Social Competence

Family and Child-Care Variables Mothers' education Mothers' occupation Birth order Number of children Mothers' expectations High child-staff ratio Large class size High-quality staffchild interaction

M

(SD)

Caregiver Rating

15.89 3.86 1.44 1.87 40.51 7.44 14.69 33.22

(2.38) (0.77) (0,79) (0.88) (6.89) (1.43) (2.21) (8.64)

.04 -.07 -.21 -.16 -.32" -.09 -.28* -.15

Observed Positive Interaction

N Prosocial Responses

-.06 .01 .15 .09 .14 .07 .18 -.14

.19 .17 -.30" -.08 -.36"* -.08 -.05 .26*

Note Pearson product m o m e n t correlations reported; n = 52-55 * p < .05 * * p < .01

290

HOLLOWAY A N D REICHHART-ERICKSON

not related to any of the outcomes; earlier born children tended to give more prosocial responses. The developmental expectations variable was generally associated with social competence. Children rated as socially competent by caregivers were expected by mothers to show early mastery of developmental skills. Children who gave more prosocial responses were also subjected to earlier maternal expectations. Regarding the child-care center variables, no relationships were found between child-caregiver ratio and any of the outcomes. Children in larger classes received lower caregiver ratings. Children whose caregivers were rated higher on the ECCOS subscales gave more prosocial responses on the social problemsolving task. Pearson product moment correlations were conducted to examine the relationship between home characteristics and indicators of child-care quality (see Table 2). Mothers who placed their children in higher quality care, as indicated by one of the three characteristics of quality (child-caregiver ratio, quality of child-caregiver interaction, or class size) were of higher educational and occupational status, and, unexpectedly, had a larger number of children. These mothers also stated earlier expectations concerning developmental skills. To determine the unique contribution of the child-care variables and those of the home, two sets of multiple regressions were run for each of the three dependent variables. The independent measures consisted of three variables from the home context and two from the child-care setting. Home variables included mother's education, child's birth order, and the maternal expectations composite. The two child-care variables were quality of interaction with the caregiver and class size. Caregiver-child ratio was not selected because it was not correlated with any of the outcome measures. For the first set of analyses, the home variables were forced to enter as the first step in a hierarchical multiple regression; the child-care variables were allowed to enter in subsequent steps. In the second set, the child-care variables were entered first, followed by the home measures. TABLE 2 Association Between Home Characteristics and Child-Care Quality Indicators

Family Characteristics

High ChildStaff Ratio

High-Quality Staff-Child Interaction

Large Class Size

Mothers' education Mothers' occupation Birth order N u m b e r of children Mothers' expectations

- . 12 -.07 .06 -.12 .33**

.36"* .41 * * .18 .30" -.09

- . 10 -.03 .08 .01 .23

Note. Pearson product m o m e n t correlations reported; n = 52-55 * p < .05

* * p < .01

HOME AND CHILD-CARE CORRELATES OF PEER RELATIONS

291

When entered first, the home variables accounted for 13% of the variance in caregiver rating of social competence, and 22% of the variance in number of prosocial responses. The equation for observed positive interaction with peers was not significant, When child-care variables were added, the r-square increased 12% for caregiver rating of social competence and 9% for number of prosocial responses. The r-square increase for teacher rating is significant (F (2,49) = 3.92, p < .05). For prosocial responses, the r-square increase bordered on significance F(2,49) = 3.15, p < .10). As Table 3 indicates, significant predictors of caregiver ratings after controlling on home factors included lowquality interaction with caregivers (p < .05) and small class size (p < .05). For number of prosocial responses, both school factors remained significant after controlling on home factors (high-quality interaction with caregivers: p < .05; large class size: p < . 15). When the child-care variables were entered first, they explained 15% of the variance in caregiver rating of social competence and 9% of the variance in number of prosocial responses. The equation for observed positive interaction with peers was not significant. Addition of the home variables boosted the rsquare 7% for caregiver rating and 21% for number of prosocial responses. The r-square increase was significant in the case of prosocial reasoning (F(3,49) = 4.90, p < .05) but not caregiver rating (F(3,49) = 1.47, n.s.). After controlling on child-care variables, mothers' early expectations remained a significant pre-

TABLE 3 Multivariate Association of Home and Child-Care Characteristics to Social Competence Family and Day-care Characteristics ChUd-cere variables (controlling on family variables 1) Caregiver-child interaction Class size F for 5 variable equation

Caregiver Rating

Prosocial Responses

-.33*

.34**

-.31 *

.20 + 4.22*

2.94*

Family variables (controlling on child-care variables 2) Mothers' education Birth order Mothers' expectations F for 5 variable equation

n.s. n.s. -.26" 4.50**

n.s.

-.34** -.27* 5.21"**

Note. Standardized 13reported; n = 52-55; entry criterion set at p < .15. 1Mothers' education, birth order, and mothers' expectations 2Caregiver-child interaction and class size +p < .10 * p < .05 * * p < .01 * * * p < .001

292

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

dictor of caregiver rating of social competence (p < .05). For number of prosocial responses, birth order (p < .01) and maternal expectations (p < .05) remained significant after controlling on child-care factors. Additional regression analyses were run to address the confounding of birth order with type of program (preschool versus day-care center) and time spent per day in nonfamilial care (full-time versus part-time). First, for each of the three dependent measures, the child-care variables were entered into a hierarchical multiple regression along with type of program; subsequently the home variables were allowed to enter. Type of program did not make a significant contribution to the variance in any of the outcome measures. The home variables which were significant in the initial equations remained so (p < . 10 or better). Next, a set of regressions was run in which time spent per day in nonfamilial care was added in the first step along with the other child-care variables. Time spent per day did not enter significantly in any of the three equations, and the home variables which were significant in the initial equations remained so (p < .05 or better). These results indicate that the significant contribution of birth order and early expectations to prosocial responses is probably not attributable to program type or amount of time spent in nonfamilial care. A final set of analyses was conducted in order to explore the interaction between the home and child-care domains. Mothers' expectations and the quality of caregiver-child interaction, plus the product of the two variables, were entered as predictors for each of the three outcome measures. The models for the caregiver rating outcome and positive interactions were not significant. For prosocial responses, the model was significant (F(3,47) = 5.93, p < .01) and explained 27% of the variance. All three predictors were significant: early expectations (standardized 13 = - . 3 6 , p < .01), high quality caregiver-child interaction (standardized 13 = .36, p < .01) and the interaction term (standardized 13 = .32, p < .05). To assist in interpretation of the finding concerning the interactive influence of expectations and caregiver-child interaction on prosocial responses, the relationship is presented graphically in Figure 1. For easier visual interpretation, median splits were conducted on the two predictors, creating four groups (high day-care quality/early expectations; high day-care quality/late expectations; low day-care quality/early expectations; low day-care quality/late expectations). The mean value on the prosocial reasoning variable was plotted for each of the four groups. The graph reveals that only when mothers expected early development was quality of caregiver-child interaction highly related to prosocial reasoning. When maternal expectations were early, children attending high-quality centers were particularly likely to give prosocial responses. DISCUSSION The results of the study indicate that mothers' expectations regarding social and intellectual skills are related to the development of children's social competence.

HOME AND CHILD-CARE CORRELATESOF PEER RELATIONS

293

131211109O~ ttO m m

876-

0 0

5-

e

4-

a.

3-

i

E Earb/maternal expectations | L Late maternal expectations

2-

I

1I High Quality

I Low Quality

Day-care quality FIG. 1. The relationship between maternal expectations and children's prosocial reasoning for children in high- and low-quality child-care centers.

Support was also found for an association between social competence and certain characteristics of the classroom, namely group size and quality of caregiverchild interaction. Small class size predicted caregiver rating of social competence after mother's education, child's birth order, and maternal expectations were controlled for. Contrary to prediction, low-quality caregiver-child interaction was related to caregiver rating of social competence after controlling on the home variables. As hypothesized, high-quality caregiver-child interaction was associated with a number of prosocial responses, but also, unexpectedly, with larger class size. The unexpected relationship between low-quality caregiver-child interaction and high ratings by caregivers of social competence, highlights problems which may arise when the source of the independent and dependent variables are one and the same. It is tempting to hypothesize that caregivers who interact infrequently or insensitively with children have less opportunity to observe and reflect on individual variation in social competence, and hence may be less aware of children who are having problems in their social relations. Rather than accurately

294

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

indicating the presence of socially competent children, the high ratings given by less talented caregivers may reflect the social desirability of having socially competent children in one's classroom. The lack of association between caregivers' ratings and children's free-play behavior and prosocial reasoning is also troubling, and may reflect error in one or more of the measures. The amount of variance contributed by child-care quality to number of prosocial responses after controlling on home factors was modest. Although small, this finding is noteworthy in light of the variability in types of programs and amount of time spent in care by these children. Subsequent studies investigating classrooms may obtain more dramatic findings, if a greater range of quality is obtained (Kontos & Fiene, 1987). The contribution of caregiver-child interaction to social competence indicates the usefulness of pinpointing more specifically the aspects of day care which may be expected to enhance or undermine development in particular areas. In most studies, process aspects of quality have been assessed with comprehensive measures such as the ECERS (Harms & Clifford, 1980). While significant relationships have been found in some studies (e.g., Phillips et al., 1987), particularly when very low-quality centers are represented, other studies have found little association or negative relations with developmental outcomes (e.g., Bjorkman, Poteat, & Snow, 1986; Goelman & Pence, 1987; Kontos & Fiene, 1987). One reason for these inconsistent findings is that global scores contain some items, such as details pertaining to food preparation, that have little direct connection to child outcome measures. Future studies should identify features of day-care quality that are causally linked to social and cognitive outcomes, paralleling the precision being introduced into the research on school quality in the primary grades (Fuller, 1986). Our findings also indicate that the two contexts are closely linked. Children of mothers who are highly educated, or who have higher occupational status, or hold earlier expectations for development, attend early childhood programs with higher quality staff. These findings can help in interpreting previous findings of significant differences between mothers and caregivers on such variables as behavioral expectations and control strategies (Alston, 1982; Rubenstein & Howes, 1979). While mean differences may exist between these two groups, it appears that mothers select programs which complement their child-rearing beliefs. Thus, studies examining mean group differences may be overestimating the extent of caregiver-child discrepancies for a particular child. In spite of the correlations between the characteristics of home and school, the effects of these two settings tend to build on each other, with each setting contributing independently to the socialization of social relations. In addition to the independent effects of home and school, we found limited evidence of an interaction effect. For one aspect of peer relations--prosocial reasoning--the effects of child-care quality were stronger when the child's mother held early expectations for development. This interaction between home and child-care

HOME AND CHILD-CARE CORRELATES OF PEER RELATIONS

295

characteristics m a y at first seem counterintuitive; studies of compensatory programs for children from l o w - i n c o m e families indicate that experiences in highquality programs m a y offset disadvantageous conditions in the home or c o m m u nity (Lazar & Darlington, 1982; Lee, B r o o k s - G u n n , & Schnur, 1988). Yet, even in these settings, interactions between home and program experience m a y well occur, with gains being strongest in children whose families are relatively well prepared to provide school-relevant experiences. It is also possible that childcare quality is related to prosocial reasoning in a curvilinear fashion, with maxi m u m impact occuring w h e n home conditions are particularly disadvantageous and w h e n they are particularly advantageous. In the present study, o n l y a small aspect of maternal beliefs was investigated; with a more comprehensive picture of the home setting, a better understanding of these relationships could be achieved.

REFERENCES Alston, L. (1982). Parent vs. teacher reactions to problematic behavior of Head Start children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3. 155-165. Belsky, J. (1984). Two waves of day-care research: Developmental effects and conditions of quality. In R. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the day-care setting: Qualitative variations and development (pp. 1-34). New York: Praeger. Bjorkman, S., Poteat, M., & Snow, C.W. (1986). Environmental ratings and children's social behavior: Implications for the assessment of day-care quality. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 271-277. Bredekamp, S. (1985). The reliability of the instruments and procedures of a national accreditation system for early childhood programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Bredekamp, S. (1986). The reliability and validity of the Early Childhood Classroom Observation Scale for accrediting early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 103-118. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1987a). Predicting child development from child-care forms and features: The Chicago study. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 21-41). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1987b). In search of consistencies in child-care research. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Quali~ in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 105-120). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Clarke-Stewart, A., & Grnber, C.P. (1984). Day-care forms and features. In R. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the day-care setting: Qualitative variations and development (pp. 35-62). New York: Praeger. Everson, M.D., Samat, L., & Ambron, S.R. (1984). Day care and early socialization: The role of maternal attitude. In R. Ainslie (Ed.), The child and the day-care setting: Qualitative variations and development (pp. 63-97). New York: Praeger. Fuller, B. (1986). Defining school quality. In J. Hannaway & M.B. Lockheed (Ed.), The contributions of the social sciences to educational policy and practice: 1965-1985 (pp. 33-69). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing. Goelman, H., & Pence, A. (1987). Effects of child care, family, and individual characteristics on children's language development: The Victoria Day Care Research Project. In D.A. Phillips

296

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

(Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 89-104). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Goodnow, J.J., Cashmore, J., Cotton, S., & Knight, R. (1984). Mothers' developmental timetables in two cultural groups. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 193-205. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. (1980). The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Hess, R.D., Kashiwagi, K., Azuma, H., Price, G.G., & Dickson, W.P. (1980). Maternal expectations for mastery of developmental tasks in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 15, 259-271. Hollingshead, A. (1975). The Four-Factor Index of Social Status. Unpublished manuscript. Howes, C., & Olenick, M. (1986). Family and child-care influences on toddler's compliance. Child Development, 57, 202-216. Howes, C., & Rubinstein, J.L. (1985). Determinants of toddler's experience in day care: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarterly, 14, 140-151. Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23, 423-430. Knight, G.P. (1982). Cooperative-competitive social orientation: Interaction of birth order with sex and economic class. Child Development, 53, 664-667. Kontos, S.J. (1987, April). Day-care quality, family background, and children's development. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD. Kontos, S., & Fiene, R. (1987). Child-care quality, compliance with regulations, and children's development: The Pennsylvania study. In D.A. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? (pp. 57-80). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Lazar, 1., & Darlington, R. (1982). Lasting effects of early childhood education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47 (2-3, Serial No. 195). Lee, V.E., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Schnur, E. (1988). Does Head Start work: A l-year follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and other preschool programs. Developmental Psychology, 24, 210-222. Lewis, C. (1984). Cooperation and control in Japanese nursery schools. Comparative Education Review, 28, 69-84. McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwartz, J.C. (1982). Environmental differences among day-care centers and their effects on children's development. In E. Zigler & E,W. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues. (pp. 126-151). Boston, MA: Auburn House. O'Connell, M., & Blum, D.E. (1987). Juggling jobs and babies: America's child-care challenge. Occasional paper on Population Trends and Public Policy, No. 12. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau, Inc. Phillips, D., McCartney, K., & Scarr, S. (1987). Child-care quality and children's social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537-543. Prescott, E., Jones, E., Kritchevsky, S., Milich, C., & Haselhoe, E. (1975). Assessment of childrearing environments. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Rubenstein, J., & Howes, C. (1979). Caregiving and infant behavior in daycare and in homes. Developmental Psychology, 15, 1-24. Rubin, K.H. ( 1981). Coding manual for the Social Problem-Solving Test. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Spivack, G., & Shure, M.B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children: A cognitive approach to solving real-life problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

HOME AND CHILD-CARE CORRELATESOF PEERRELATIONS

297

Staub, E. (1971a). A child in distress: The influence of nurturance and modeling on children's attempts to help. Developmental Psychology, 5, 124-132. Staub, E. (1971b). Use of role playing and induction in training of prosocial behavior. Child Development, 42, 805-816. VandeU, D., & Powers, C. (1983). Day-carequality and children's free-play activities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 493-500.

APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENTAL EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (Means and Standard Deviations (months); n = 55) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Give help to others when needed (40.91; 13.26) Participate in group activities (36.38; 10.39) Use polite phrases, like "Thank you" (31.74; 10.24) Not interrupt when others are speaking (55.53; 15.84) Greet family members appropriately ("Good morning") (40.91; 16.66) Become close friends with another child (42.00; 14.83) Understand how others are feeling (50.51; 16.88) Sit at table and eat without help (33.71; 14.11) Entertain self alone for half an hour (36.60; 13.08) Select clothes and dress self in the morning (47.67; 12.35) Complete a 10-piece inset wood puzzle (36.44; 9.86) State own preference when asked (33.27; 8.70) Stand up for own rights with others (39.27; 11.12) Retell story from a favorite storybook (42.98; 9.78) Follow a two-part command ("Put your coat away and bring me your book") (39.71; 10.67)

APPENDIX B EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSROOM OBSERVATION I N S T R U M E N T (REVISED) Staff-Child Interaction 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Staff interact frequently with children showing affection and support. Staff are responsive to children. Staff speak with children in a friendly, courteous manner. Staff encourage independence in children, as they are ready. Staff use positive approaches to help children behave constructively. Staff do not use physical punishment or other negative discipline methods which frighten or humiliate children. The overall sound of the group in pleasant most of the time.

298

HOLLOWAY AND REICHHART-ERICKSON

Child-Child Interaction 8. 9. 10. 11.

Children are generally comfortable, relaxed, happy, and involved in play and other activities. Staff encourage prosocial behaviors in children such as cooperation, helping, taking turns, talking to solve problems. Staff expectations of children's social behavior are developmentally appropriate. Children are encouraged to talk about feeling instead of solving problems with force.