College Students' Attitudes Toward Children's ...

College Students’ Attitudes Toward Children’s Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights1 MICHELE PETERSON-BADALI2

MARTIN D. RUCK

Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

The Graduate Center City University of New York

ELIZABETH RIDLEY University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Increasing attention is being paid to children’s rights issues in policy and law. However, there is little recent research examining adults’ attitudes toward children’s rights. This is an important question given that children’s rights are unlikely to be fulfilled if they are not supported by the adults involved in their lives. Attitudes toward nurturance and self-determination rights were examined in 461 undergraduate students from the United States and Canada. Students were asked to think of a “target child” (8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 years) when answering the questions. Students strongly endorsed nurturance rights, but were generally unsupportive of children’s rights to self-determination. Canadians showed greater support for self-determination than did Americans. In both groups, endorsement increased significantly with the age of the target child. Commenting on factors they considered when responding to the items, participants perceived children’s rights as dependent on personal, interpersonal, and societal factors.

Children’s rights have been an important social policy issue in Europe and North America over the last century. As the concept of childhood has evolved, so too has Western society’s concern with the rights of children, as well as the obligations of those responsible for children’s care, development, and well-being to ensure that those rights are upheld. The 19th century saw the emergence of a 1 This research was supported by Grant #410-98-1514 to the first and second authors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors thank Florence Broder, Jennifer Crosbie, Mitchelle Johnson, Rommel Robertson, and Janis Wolfe for their assistance with data collection and analysis; Charles Helwig for his helpful comments regarding the manuscript; and the students who participated in the study. 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Peterson-Badali, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

730 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2003, 33, 4, pp. 730-755. Copyright 2003 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

ATTITUDES TOWARD CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

731

collective concern for nurturance rights—children’s rights to basic care and to protection from harm and exploitation—that contributed to legislative change, such as the establishment of universal free education and limitations on child labor. In the last half of the 20th century, the focus shifted to rights of self-determination, based on the assertion that children are not property of their parents or the state, but are legal persons who are entitled to many of the same rights as adults. It resulted in a number of landmark court decisions that acknowledged children’s constitutional rights, as well as changes to statutes that gave children increased participation in decisions affecting their lives. Extreme views advocating children’s rights to self-determination equal to that of adults emerged in the writing of several scholars (e.g., Farson, 1974; Holt, 1974) in the 1970s. However, a “kiddie liberation” movement failed to take hold in North America, and most recently there has been an emphasis on balancing the entitlements stemming from children’s need for nurturance and children’s right to self-determination. The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) reflects this balance, both in its content and in two fundamental tenets that underpin it: the best interests of the child, and the evolving capacities of the child. The UN Convention has been ratified in Canada, but not in the United States (indeed, the United States is one of only two signatories to the Convention that has not done so). However, children’s rights issues have formed the basis for much lively social and political debate in North America, both with respect to children’s entitlements to nurturance (e.g., in the areas of health care, education, child protection, and youth justice) and their rights to self-determination or participation (e.g., the debate regarding minors’ right to independently consent to abortion and access to civil liberties such as freedom of speech and religion). As in the aforementioned discussion, rights are often defined in terms of the laws and regulations within a particular jurisdiction. However, as Flekkoy and Kaufman (1997) pointed out, “Human rights encompass more than the legal rights adopted in each country. In addition to legal rights, human rights can be based on moral, ethical, and ‘natural’ reasoning” (p. 8). Thus, although the rights might not be fulfilled in a particular place or time, they still “belong” to individuals as a result of their inherent worth as human beings. However, they serve their intended function—to protect individuals from harm and to promote their wellbeing—only to the extent that they are recognized as rights by those who exercise or fulfill them. Assessing people’s conceptions and beliefs about children’s rights is important, therefore, in order to ascertain which rights are likely to be supported or implemented. In this regard, an examination of the views of children and of adults, who are more often in a position of power than children to ensure that children’s rights are realized, is necessary. Research examining adults’ attitudes toward children’s rights has compared attitudes toward nurturance and self-determination rights and has examined

732

PETERSON-BADALI ET AL.

demographic factors accounting for variation in support of children’s rights. Studies comparing adults’ support for nurturance and self-determination rights are few, but the results are consistent. Rogers and Wrightsman (1978) administered a broad-based attitude scale to undergraduates, high school students, and adults in continuing education courses. Using a 6-point scale, participants indicated extent of agreement or disagreement with 300 items (e.g., “Children should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want, regardless of the weather”). Across groups, nurturance was supported to a significantly greater extent than was self-determination. Ruck, Peterson-Badali, and Day (2002) reported similar findings in a study in which parents of 11-, 13-, and 15-year-old children responded to several hypothetical stories involving nurturance and self-determination rights (e.g., protection from excessive household responsibility, keeping a private diary). Parents of the younger groups endorsed nurturance rights to a greater extent than self-determination rights, though both types of rights received high levels of endorsement for the oldest group. Studies addressing the impact of the age of the child in question on adults’ support for children’s rights suggest that the effect of age depends on the type of right in question. With respect to self-determination, there is consistent evidence that support for rights increases with the age of the child. For example, Bohrnstedt, Freeman, and Smith (1981) presented 1,002 adult Los Angeles residents with a series of brief vignettes depicting parent–child conflicts around 10to 17-year-old children’s self-determination rights. Respondents were more likely to support self-determination for older children than for younger ones. Similarly, Morton and Dubanoski (1980) found that self-determination rights were more likely to be endorsed for older children than for younger children, and Ruck et al. (2002) reported that mothers of 15-year-old children were more likely than were mothers of 11- or 13-year-old children to support an age-matched hypothetical child’s right to self-determination. Finally, Helwig (1997) found that college students were less likely to support an 8-year-old’s rights to freedom of speech and religion than those of an adult. The impact of age on support for nurturance rights is somewhat different. While adults in the Morton and Dubanoski (1980) study showed strong endorsement of nurturance rights, regardless of the child’s age, Ruck et al. (2002) reported that mothers of 15-year-old children were less supportive of nurturance rights than were mothers of 11- or 13-year-old children. However, it should be noted that support for nurturance rights was still quite strong, even for the oldest group. Thus, whether support for children’s rights to nurturance wanes as they approach young adulthood or remains high regardless of age is unclear. Respondent characteristics also have been examined in relation to support for children’s rights. Participant age has been found to be negatively related to support for self-determination rights (Bohrnstedt et al., 1981; Rogers & Wrightsman, 1978). There is mixed evidence with respect to the presence of gender differences


733

in children’s rights attitudes. Rogers and Wrightsman reported that while women were more supportive of children’s nurturance rights than were men, there were no differences in support of self-determination rights. Ruck et al. (2002) reported similar results in a sample of parents, but only with respect to their youngest (6th grade) group. No gender differences emerged for parents of older (8th and 10th grade) children. The impact of education on attitudes toward children’s rights has received little study. While Bohrnstedt et al. (1981) reported that education was associated positively with support for children’s self-determination rights in their sample of adults, Zimmerman, Temple, Peterson-Badali, Ruck, and Day (1999) found no relationship between mothers’ education and support for nurturance rights in 6th, 8th, and 10th graders, though maternal education was related positively to support for self-determination in one of four hypothetical vignettes (freedom to publish a critical editorial in a school newspaper). Finally, variables that can be described broadly as cultural have been examined in relation to children’s rights attitudes. Bohrnstedt et al. (1981) examined race/ethnicity and religious affiliation in relation to support for children’s selfdetermination rights. African American and Hispanic respondents were significantly less supportive of children’s rights to self-determination than were White and Asian American participants; and respondents who identified themselves as Catholic or Protestant were less supportive than were Jewish participants or those who professed no religious affiliation. The authors speculated that these effects (as well as the age differences reported earlier), reflect a broader attitudinal construct of liberalism–conservatism, with African American and Hispanic participants (who were more likely to espouse a Christian religious identification) as well as older respondents holding more traditional conservative views with respect to children’s autonomy rights. Morton, Dubanoski, and Blaine (1982) also found support for the existence of cultural differences in perceptions of children’s rights in a study in which the attitudes of European Americans, Japanese Americans, and Pacific Islanders to children’s nurturance and self-determination rights were compared. Significant group differences were found on 12 of 14 statements and were interpreted as consistent with the social organization and values of the cultural groups (e.g., Pacific Islanders’ greater reliance on the family compared to larger societal institutions for the socialization of children). Overall, the two American groups had more in common than either had with the Pacific Islander group, which was seen as less concerned with children’s rights than children’s needs. Though the authors cautioned regarding the generalizability of their findings, they concluded that their results “support the assertion that cultures do vary on attitudes and values pertinent to children’s rights” (p. 157). Another variable that is captured under the rubric of culture but that has not received empirical attention in previous studies of adults’ attitudes toward

734


children’s rights is nationality. There is some evidence that children’s endorsement of children’s rights varies with nationality. For example, Melton and Limber (1992) found that Norwegian children showed particular concerns about nurturance rights, while less than 10% of American children mentioned such rights in response to an open-ended question about what rights children should have or do have. In contrast, American children focused on self-determination: “the ability to make choices, ‘do things,’ or express oneself” (p. 178). However, in a study of American, Canadian, and Swiss children’s endorsement of children’s rights in the context of hypothetical vignettes, Cherney and Perry (1996) found no group differences on 8 of 12 scenarios presented. In sum, the available research indicates that there is significant variability in support for children’s rights depending on the age of the child, the type of right in question (i.e., nurturance or self-determination), and respondents’ demographic characteristics. However, many of the studies in this small literature are now over 20 years old, predate the signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and might not reflect the current social climate. In North America, the last decades of the 20th century saw significant changes to social institutions concerned with youth. While some policy changes extended nurturance protection for young people, others represent a retreat from the position that youth require special protections. For example, there has been significant legislative and policy reform designed to guarantee all children the right to receive appropriate educational services, regardless of their exceptionalities. In contrast, during the same period, there has been an erosion of special juvenile justice protections traditionally given youth as a result of their developmental status, and the age at which young people can be transferred to adult criminal court has been lowered in many states. With respect to self-determination, there has been no general shift in the direction of increased support for young people’s autonomy, though there have been statutory trends as well as key court decisions that have recognized children’s autonomy interests (Walker, Brooks, & Wrightsman, 1999). For example, in Ontario, Canada, children are presumed capable of providing informed consent for health care (Health Care Consent Act, 1996). In many states, minors may independently consent to treatment, but only if they can demonstrate sufficient maturity (Redding, 1995). This variability with respect to trends in support for children’s rights might also be evident in broader social attitudes. For example, Miller and Nakamura (1997) reported that in the period from 1972 to 1990, American social attitudes shifted toward conservatism in relation to moral issues and crime, while attitudes in relation to civil liberties and women’s rights became more liberal. The purpose of the present study is to re-examine attitudes toward children’s nurturance and self-determination rights from both descriptive and comparative standpoints. First, we intended to survey young adults’ support for children’s nurturance and self-determination rights using a broad-based attitude measure. A


735

second goal is to examine whether attitudes toward children’s rights vary as a function of demographic factors such as gender, educational level, ethnicity, and the age of the child in question (as has been found in previous research), as well as nationality, which has not been studied. Third, we aim to describe what factors participants report considering in making their choices about children’s rights and to ascertain whether these factors are in fact related to their attitudes toward nurturance or self-determination rights. To this end, American and Canadian undergraduates were administered a revised version of Rogers and Wrightsman’s (1978) Children’s Rights Attitude scale and were asked to focus on a target child of either 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 years of age as they made their decisions. After completing the questionnaire, respondents reflected on the factors they had considered in choosing their responses. Based on the literature reviewed earlier, the following hypotheses are generated: Hypothesis 1. Respondents will show greater support for nurturance rights than for self-determination rights. Hypothesis 2. Education (defined in this study in terms of maternal education)3 will be associated positively with support for selfdetermination rights, but support for nurturance will not necessarily vary as a function of education. Hypothesis 3. Support for self-determination rights will increase with the age of the child in question, but age will not necessarily be a factor in attitudes toward nurturance rights. Given the mixed results of previous studies, it is unclear whether women and men will differ in their support for children’s nurturance rights. In terms of effects of culture on children’s rights attitudes, previous research (e.g., Bohrnstedt et al., 1981) has suggested that ethnic background influences respondents’ support for children’s rights, with African American and Hispanic participants demonstrating less support for self-determination than White and Asian American respondents. As mentioned, the effect of nationality (American vs. Canadian) has not been explored with adults. As the United States is a nation that places “primary value on the autonomy of the individual member” (Cherney & Perry, 1996, p. 242), one might expect Americans to show greater support for children’s self-determination than Canadians. On the other hand, as residents of a more politically and socially liberal nation (Lightman, 1986), Canadians might 3 Because all participants were university undergraduates, education in this study is defined as the mother’s highest attained education in order to provide sufficient variability for analysis.

736


Table 1 Demographic Variables by Country Canada (n = 253)

United States (n = 208)

31.2 68.8

30.3 69.7

19.5 1.5

19.2 1.6

47.2 4.8 1.2 35.9 8.9 2.0

44.2 23.9 14.2 7.1 1.0 9.6

Some high school or less

16.6

17.8

High school graduate/some university or college University/college graduate or higher

36.8

48.6

46.6

33.7

Descriptor Gender (%) Male Female Age (years) M SD Race/ethnicity (%) White Black Hispanic/Latino Asian South Asian Other Socioeconomic status (maternal education; %)

show greater support for children’s rights to self-determination than Americans (cf. Bohrnstedt et al., 1981). Method Participants Participants were recruited from Canada and from the United States: 253 from a university in Toronto and 208 from a public university in the New York City area, for a total of 461 participants. All participants were enrolled in undergraduate introductory psychology classes and received extra course credit for volunteering to take part in the study. Demographic characteristics of the sample by country are presented in Table 1. The overall sample was 31% male (N = 142) and 69% female (N = 319). As Table 1 shows, there were differences in ethnicity between the American and Canadian samples, 2(5, N = 445) = 120.52, p < .0001.


737

There were significantly more Black and Hispanic/Latino participants in the American sample than in the Canadian sample, whereas the reverse was true for Asian participants. With respect to maternal education, Table 1 also indicates that more American participants than Canadian respondents reported high school/ some college as their mothers’ highest level of education, while the reverse was true for college/university completion, 2(2, N = 461) = 8.59, p < .05. Participants were between 17 and 25 years of age, with a mean age of 19.3 years. The age difference between the American (M = 19.2 years) and Canadian (M = 19.5 years) samples, though small, was significant, t(459) = 1.97, p = .05. Procedure and Measures Data were obtained by means of two anonymous individual questionnaires that were administered to small groups of participants by researchers and research assistants. The demographic information described was obtained through a background information questionnaire. To assess attitudes toward children’s rights, respondents were asked to rate 100 items dealing with potential children’s rights, adapted from the Children’s Rights Attitude scale (CRA; Rogers & Wrightsman, 1978). In the instructions and on each page of the questionnaire, participants were reminded to think of child of a specific age (either 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 years of age) when responding to the items. This yielded five versions of the questionnaire that differed only in terms of the age of the target child specified in the instructions. Each group received the same version of the questionnaire. The adapted CRA questionnaire was comprised of 83 items from Wrightsman, Rogers, and Percy’s (1975) 100-item version of the CRA questionnaire, 8 items from Rogers and Wrightsman’s (1978) 300-item version, and 9 new items that were based on several of the hypothetical vignettes used in previous studies (e.g., Ruck, Abramovitch, & Keating, 1998; Ruck et al., 2002). Items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 6 (strongly disagree); 45 of the items corresponded to children’s nurturance rights, while 55 corresponded to self-determination rights. Nurturance rights typically deal with children’s entitlements to care or opportunities, and self-determination rights generally concern children’s independent decision making. As in Rogers and Wrightsman’s (1978) original scale, items covered five domains: health, economic, safety/care, education/information, and legal/judicial. In order to avoid response bias, both positive items (i.e., those supporting the child’s right) and negative items (those denying the child’s right) were included. Order of administration of the items was fixed and was based on an initial random assignment. Sample questionnaire items are provided in Table 2.4 4A

copy of the questionnaire is available from the first author upon request.

738


Table 2 Sample Items From the Children’s Rights Attitude Questionnaire Type of right Domain Health

Care/safety

Education/ information

Economic

Legal

Nurturance

Self-determination

All children should have the Decisions about a child’s right to regular physical medical treatment should examinations. be made by the child even Dental care should be if his/her life is at stake. provided to children only Children should have the when their parents can pay right to choose their own for it. doctors. All children should have the Children should have the right to live in housing of right to wear whatever good quality. clothing they want, Adequate clothing for regardless of the weather. children may be a goal of It is up to parents to decide our society, but it should what sports and games are not be a right for every too rough for children to child. play. School authorities should Parents, rather than children, have the right to expel a should decide which school child for whatever reason a child will attend. they feel is sufficient. Children should have the Society should have the right to see their medical obligation to ensure that all records. children, even if they are poor, receive equal educational opportunities. Society should be required to Children should have the create more jobs suitable right to buy and sell for children. property with nobody else’s Children should not have the permission. right to be paid the same Children should have to wages as adults, even for obtain permission from the same work. parents before taking a job. Every child should be Children should have the provided with a lawyer right to get married if they when involved in a court want to. case. Children should not have the Society has no obligation to right to decide whether they provide a lawyer for a child need a lawyer. who has been arrested.


739

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to comment in writing on what factors they took into consideration when deciding on their responses to the items in the adapted CRA questionnaire. Based on a content analysis, these open-ended responses were coded into 10 nonmutually exclusive categories as follows: Family: Child’s current family environment—social and economic, parents’ attitudes and treatment of the child, parent–child relationship (e.g., “Depends on the circumstances of their environment at home”). Society: Religious, political, social, or cultural customs or issues (e.g., “Cultural tradition—Chinese tradition—that emphasizes the parental authority”). Child competence: Age, intelligence, maturity (e.g., “The expected mentality of an 8-year-old child and how it applies to his or her ability to make certain decisions”). Child welfare: The needs and interests of children (e.g., “What is in the best interests of the child?”). Child opportunities: Opportunities or experiences available to children (e.g., “The opportunities provided for them . . . in terms of education, food, clothing, shelter”). Child desires: Including children’s wishes, attitudes and values (e.g., “What the child wants, the child’s values in the situation”). Child rights: The notion that, as persons, children have an inherent entitlement (e.g., “They are people and have a right to be heard”). Legal: Laws, legal rights of children (e.g., “Legal rights for 16-year-olds; for example, the Young Offenders Act”). Issue: The notion that responses depend on the particular question under consideration (e.g., “Some situations call for decisions of maturity and wisdom and discipline, while other situations do not”). Other: Responses not captured by the other foregoing categories. A second rater coded 90 of the protocols. Interrater reliability5 was calculated separately for each of the 10 content categories and ranged from 75% to 99% across categories, with a mean of 89%. 5 Interrater reliability was calculated using percentage agreement, rather than Cohen’s kappa, because some cells had very low frequencies.

740


Results Data Analysis Preliminary analyses involved factor analysis of the adapted CRA questionnaire in order to ascertain whether the theoretically derived constructs of nurturance and self-determination were supported empirically. For the purposes of the data presented here, it is important to note that two factors emerged, corresponding to the a priori nurturance and self-determination scales (Table 3). However, while 51 of the original 55 items on the self-determination scale loaded on the factor labeled self-determination, only 27 of the original 45 nurturance items loaded on the nurturance factor. The internal consistency of the nurturance and self-determination factor scores was excellent, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .86 and .94, respectively. The empirically derived nurturance and self-determination factor scores were then examined using ANOVA, with respondents’ gender, country, maternal educational level, ethnicity, and age of the target child in the questionnaire as independent variables. Because of the lack of association between nurturance and self-determination scores (r = -.07, p > .10), these two dependent measures were analyzed in separate ANOVAs, rather than with MANOVA. Because of the partial confound between nationality and ethnicity described in the Method section, ANOVAs were performed both on the total sample and on the White participants alone in order to tease apart the contribution of ethnicity to any effects of nationality that might emerge in the analyses. Further, because ethnicity was so differently distributed across the American and Canadian samples, this variable was not examined in the initial analyses with the entire sample, but was included in ANOVAs run separately by country. For the American sample, the ethnicity variable was divided into White, Black, and Hispanic/Latino; and for the Canadian sample, White participants were compared to Asian respondents. Respondents from other ethnic groups were dropped because of small sample sizes. Thus, eight ANOVAs were run in total: total sample, White only, American, and Canadian analyses for each of the nurturance and self-determination scores. To control for Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was applied, thus requiring a probability (p) level of .006 for significance. Categories of reasons given by participants when asked to comment on the factors that underpinned their questionnaire responses were analyzed using chi square. Categories were examined against participants’ gender and nationality, as well as the age of the target child to whom they responded in the rights questionnaire. Point biserial correlations were used to determine whether attitudes toward nurturance and self-determination rights varied according to whether participants mentioned the various categories. Because of the number of tests performed in each case, the significance cutoff was set at .01.


741

Table 3 Factor Loadings of Items on the Children’s Rights Attitude Questionnaire

Item Children should not have the right to read what they want when parents consider the reading material unsuitable. (R) Decisions about a child’s medical treatment should be made by the child, even if the child’s life is at stake. Children should have the right to vote to ensure that their interests will be represented in government policy. Children should have the right to buy and sell property with no one else’s permission. Children should have the right to see their own medical records. Children should have the right to leave home and live wherever they want. Parents should be able to keep their children from seeing movies dealing with content they consider inappropriate. (R) Children should decide when and how often they wash. Children not should have the right to decide whether they need a lawyer. (R) Children should be able to choose whether or not to participate in psychological research studies without having to obtain permission of their parents. Children should be able to decide whether or not to follow what adults think of as being good health habits. Children should have no right to sleep outside if the parents consider it dangerous. (R)

Factor 1: SelfFactor 2: determination Nurturance

.49

-.06

.38

-.01

.38

.15

.41

-.15

.48

.14

.55

-.10

.50

-.13

.56

-.10

.37

.16

.54

-.01

.42

-.03

.49

-.09 (table continues)

742


Table 3 (Continued)

Item Children should have the right to wear whatever clothing they want, regardless of the weather. Children should have the right to obtain credit (credit cards, bank loans, time payment plans, etc.) just like anyone else. Parents, rather than children, should decide which school a child will attend. (R) Children should have to get permission from their parents before taking a job. (R) Children should be completely free to pick which school subjects they take. Children should have the right to obtain loans from banks and other sources without having to have an adult co-sign for them. Children should have the right to get married if they want to. Parents should have a right to full knowledge of every aspect of their child’s physical or mental health, even if the child would prefer that they did not know. (R) Children should not be refused employment simply because of their age. Children should have the right to work as many hours a week as they want. Children should have the right to eat whatever they want. Children should have the right to keep a checking account in their own name. Children should not have the right to decide where they are going to live. (R) Sometimes it is necessary to maintain records on children which they themselves should have no right to see. (R)

Factor 1: SelfFactor 2: determination Nurturance .59

-.18

.38

-.01

.52

.11

.62

-.09

.44

-.05

.40

-.06

.50

-.15

.48

-.02

.52

.12

.58

-.18

.59

-.12

.51

-.01

.38

.18

.41

.18 (table continues)


743

Table 3 (Continued)

Item Children should not have the right to work full time even if they want to. (R) Parents should not have the right to enter a child’s room without the child’s permission. Children should be forced to attend school even if they don’t want to go. (R) Children should be free to follow or reject doctors’ orders. Routine decisions about a child’s medical treatment should be made by the child. Adults, rather than children, should decide how often children need physical examinations. (R) Children should have the right to decide at what time they will go to bed. Children should have the right to sue others for damages whenever they wish. It is up to parents to decide what games and sports are too rough or dangerous for their children. (R) A child should have the right to choose his or her own lawyer. Children should be able to see whatever movie they want, regardless of content. School authorities should not have the right to enter a child’s locker without the child’s permission. Children ought to be able to receive birth control devices without permission from their parents. Adults, rather than children, should have the right to decide when and where a child can ride a bicycle on the streets. (R) Children should be able to get any sexual information they want.


-.15

.35

.11

.38

-.19

.53

-.15

.61

-.02

.50

-.05

.67

-.04

.47

.03

.51

-.07

.56

.09

.73

-.09

.33

.08

.62

.03

.58

-.15

.54


744


Table 3 (Continued)

Item Contracts with children should not be binding unless the children’s parents also sign. (R) Children should have the right to read whatever they want. Parents should have the right to decide whether their child can have a savings account. (R) Children should have the right to refuse to wear eyeglasses even if a doctor feels they need them. Children should have the right to choose their own doctors. An adult, rather than the child, should decide whether the child needs counseling for mental problems. (R) Adults, rather than children, should make all decisions about the child’s health care. (R) Parents should have the right to decide what religious training and experiences their children will be exposed to. (R) A child should have the right to decide whether information concerning his or her health— physical or mental—should be released to others (parents, school officials, etc.). Children should be prevented from engaging in any activities that parents believe might harm them. (R) There should be “children’s legal advocates” who defend children from parents who treat them unjustly or cruelly. All children should have the right to be protected from neglect or abandonment. Even if an adult is extremely busy, they should always make themselves available to talk with their child if the child has a problem.


-.04

.60

-.05

.52

.07

.41

-.18

.58

.08

.44

.06

.61

.06

.46

-.06

.56

.05

.55

-.13

-.10

.35

-.11

.34

-.05



745

Table 3 (Continued)

Item


It is unnecessary to provide “children’s legal advocates” who defend children from parents who treat them unjustly or cruelly. (R)

-.02

.40

All children should have the right to live in housing of good quality.

-.07

.56

Society should have an obligation to ensure that all children live in clean, safe neighborhoods.

-.01

.60

Schools should have no responsibility to provide textbooks that accurately reflect the history of ethnic and racial minority groups. (R)

-.00

.39

Schools have no obligation to provide breakfasts for children who don’t get adequate breakfasts at home. (R)

-.09

.44

All children who need eyeglasses should receive them, even if they can’t afford to pay for them.

.04

.47

Adequate clothing may be a goal of our society, but it should not be a right for every child. (R)

-.02

.45

Even if a child’s family cannot afford to provide lunch money, a school lunch should be provided for the child.

-.17

.50

Some school systems will always be better than others, and we shouldn’t try to do anything about this fact. (R)

-.02

.44

Society should have no obligation to ensure that all children receive adequate nutrition. (R)

-.15

.58

All children should have the right to receive mental health care whether their parents can afford it or not.

.01

.46

School libraries should have no obligation to provide materials representing differing viewpoints on politics, religion, or other issues. (R)

.06


746


Table 3 (Continued)

Item


All children should have the right to have regular physical examinations.

.00

.54

Society should have the obligation to ensure that all children, even if they are poor, receive equal educational opportunities.

.04

.33

Every child should be provided with a lawyer when involved in a court case.

.06

.32

Dental care should be provided to children only when their parents can pay for it. (R)

-.06

.47

Teachers should not have to make themselves available for extra help or counseling to any particular child. (R)

-.03

.32

Schools should provide the widest possible variety of opportunitiesso that the educational needs and interests of all children are met.

.02

.45

Society should have no obligation to ensure that all children receive the medicine prescribed for them by a doctor. (R)

-.06

.48

Every child should be provided clean, warm, adequate clothing.

-.07

.52

Society should not be obliged to help parents provide an adequate home environment for children. (R)

-.01

.48

.02

.54

.05

.40

.01

.51

Society should have no obligation to ensure that children in poor neighborhoods receive an education equal in quality to that given children in wealthier neighborhoods. (R) Schools should have to provide facilities and training so that all children can develop their musical and artistic skills. All children should have the right to dental treatment whenever necessary.

Note. R = reverse scoring. Italicized loadings indicate the factor to which the item was allocated.


747

Support for Nurturance and Self-Determination Overall, support for nurturance rights was very high (M = 5.3 out of 6, corresponding to agree somewhat) and was significantly higher than support for children’s rights to self-determination (M = 2.8, corresponding to disagree slightly), t(460) = 55.64, p < .0001. With respect to support for nurturance rights, the ANOVA with the total sample yielded only one significant effect: Women (M = 5.4) showed greater support for children’s nurturance than did men (M = 5.2), F(1, 402) = 11.63, p = .001. Although statistically significant, the gender difference yielded an effect size estimate of .40, which, according to Cohen (1969), is small in size. There were significant effects of both nationality, F(1, 402) = 12.98, p < .0001, and the age of the target child, F(4, 402) = 23.26, p < .0001, on respondents’ self-determination scores. Canadian participants (M = 3.0) were more supportive of children’s rights to self-determination than were their American counterparts (M = 2.7), yielding a moderate effect size estimate of .51 (Cohen, 1969). As Table 2 shows, both Americans and Canadians showed greater support for self-determination as the age of the target child increased, and this variable yielded an effect size that was extremely large (1.5; Cohen, 1969). Scheffé post hoc tests indicate significant pairwise differences between all non-adjacent pairs of means, as well as between the 12- and 14-year-olds (see Total column in Table 2). Looking at the data from a slightly different perspective, when the selfdetermination scores were dichotomized into the agree (i.e., endorse) and disagree sides of the Likert scale, only 8 of the 240 American participants’ responses fell into the agree category, compared to 32 of the Canadian respondents. Within the Canadian sample, the vast majority of agree responses appeared in the 14- and 16-year-old conditions. Analyses with the White participants only paralleled those of the total sample, with a significant gender effect for support of nurturance rights, F(1, 154) = 9.08, p = .003; and significant effects of nationality, F(1, 154) = 15.54, p < .0001, and age of target child, F(4, 154) = 15.74, p < .0001, for support of self-determination. As mentioned, separate ANOVAs were run on the American and Canadian groups in order to examine the effect of ethnicity, together with the other independent variables, on nurturance and self-determination scores. No ethnicity effects emerged in any of the analyses. Within the American sample, the effect of gender, F(1, 103) = 9.34, p = .003, was again significant with respect to nurturance scores, but was modified by a significant Gender Condition interaction, F(4, 103) = 5.70, p < .0001. Simple effects tests indicate that the gender difference in nurturance scores was significant only for the 12-year-old (p < .01) and 16-year-old (p < .0001) target groups. In both cases, women showed higher support for nurturance than did men. There were no significant effects in the Canadian sample.

748


Table 4 American and Canadian Participants’ Mean Self-Determination Scores by Age of Target Child Participants’ nationality American Age of target child 8 years 10 years 12 years 14 years 16 years

Canadian

Total

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

2.25a 2.38a 2.41a 2.97b 3.19b

0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.17

2.55a 2.54a 2.98ab 3.36bc 3.67c

0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12

2.41a 2.43ab 2.71b 3.21c 3.40c

0.67 0.59 0.73 0.69 0.65

Note. Within columns, conditions with identical subscripts do not differ significantly from one another.

An ANOVA on American participants’ self-determination scores replicates the age of target child effect found in the total sample, F(4, 103) = 5.42, p = .001; as does the Canadian ANOVA, F(4, 153) = 15.69, p < .0001 (Table 2). Post hoc tests for the American sample indicate that target ages 8, 10, and 12 were not viewed differently from one another in terms of granting self-determination rights, but received significantly lower self-determination scores than did the 14and 16-year-old target groups, who did not differ from one another. The Canadian sample results were similar: Self-determination scores for target ages 8, 10, and 12 were not significantly different, but all were lower than the score for age 16. Scores for ages 8 and 10 were also significantly lower than the age 14 score. Rationale for Support of Nurturance and Self-Determination As mentioned, at the end of the CRA questionnaire, participants were asked to describe the factors that they had taken into consideration when responding to the questionnaire items, and their open-ended responses were coded into 10 nonmutually exclusive categories. The considerations most frequently mentioned by participants related to family issues (54%), which included the child’s current social and economic circumstances, as well as the parent–child relationship. Participants also frequently mentioned factors related to the child’s competence (52%), including maturity, experience, and intelligence. Societal (including cultural, social, governmental) considerations were mentioned by 20% of participants. Of the participants, 10% indicated that children’s rights are inherent and


749

should not depend on any external considerations, while fewer mentioned the child’s welfare or needs (6%), the child’s desires (5%), the child’s opportunities for access to entitlements (7%), or laws relating to rights (3%). Some 20% of participants indicated that the factors to be considered depend on the specific issue at hand, and 20% mentioned factors that did not fall into the other nine categories. Frequency of use of the categories did not vary significantly by participants’ gender or the age of the target child. However, Canadians were more likely than were Americans to mention that children’s rights are inherent (14% vs. 5%, respectively), 2(1, N = 454) = 8.40, p < .01, and to include child welfare considerations in their responses (9% vs. 2%, respectively), 2(1, N = 454) = 7.84, p < .01. Point biserial correlations were computed in order to examine whether the factors mentioned by participants were related to their overall endorsement of the nurturance and self-determination rights in the CRA questionnaire. The only significant correlation was a negative relationship between the family factors category and support for self-determination rights, which emerged both in the American (r = -.22, p = .001) and the Canadian (r = -.18, p < .01) groups. Discussion The present study examined rights attitudes in American and Canadian university students using a modified version of the broad-based CRA scale developed by Rogers and Wrightsman (1978). Attitudes toward nurturance and selfdetermination rights were compared, and demographic and developmental factors were explored as potential predictors of support for both types of rights. The overall pattern of support for nurturance and self-determination rights in the present study was similar to that reported by Rogers and Wrightsman (1978); that is, greater support for nurturance rights than for children’s rights to selfdetermination. It is interesting that while our data yielded similar levels of support for nurturance to those reported by Rogers and Wrightsman (i.e., mean scores of over 5 on the 6-point scale, or somewhat agree), there was less support for self-determination in the current sample. Respondents in the present study actually disagreed slightly with children’s self-determination rights on the whole, while Rogers and Wrightsman’s sample scored in the agree slightly range. It is important to point out that the items used in the two studies are not identical, and Rogers and Wrightsman’s 300-item questionnaire sampled a broader range of rights issues. It is also important to note that this undergraduate sample is not representative of the population of late adolescents or young adults in the United States and Canada. However, previous research (e.g., Bohrnstedt et al., 1981) has suggested that, if anything, we would expect this sample to be more supportive of children’s rights to self-determination than less educated respondents.

750


It is tempting to speculate that views with respect to children’s rights to selfdetermination have, in fact, become more conservative over the last quarter century, which is consistent with attitudes in other political and social domains (e.g., moral issues, crime; Miller & Nakamura, 1997). The findings are particularly interesting when we consider that this group of young adults is the next generation of parents. Whether their current attitudes will predict parenting practices and what the developmental outcomes will be for their children are empirical questions that deserve further study. With respect to the factors that predict attitudes toward nurturance and selfdetermination rights, the largest effect in this study was of the age of the target child on attitudes toward self-determination, which yielded substantial differences between groups. These results parallel earlier findings (Bohrnstedt et al., 1981; Morton & Dubanoski, 1980; Ruck et al., 2001), indicating that support for autonomy rights increased with the age of the child. The pattern of means suggests that early adolescence is a watershed in young adults’ support for children’s self-determination rights. While only 3% of participants who responded to a target child age 12 or under fell into the agree category with respect to their selfdetermination rights, the figures increased to 14% for 14-year-olds and to 19% for 16-year-olds. These results are consistent with a developmentally based perspective on children’s autonomy rights that argues for extending rights on the basis of the developing capacities of the child (Baumrind & Thompson, 2002). Indeed, many participants mentioned the child’s competence as a factor underlying their decisions with respect to endorsement of the rights items. Despite the increases with age, the general lack of support for self-determination rights, even for adolescents, is striking. Again, it might be that more general political and social liberal–conservative views underlie respondents’ attitudes about children’s rights to self-determination. Although we did not measure these constructs directly, the cross-national comparison might help to shed some light on this issue, as Canada is acknowledged to be a more socially and politically liberal country than the United States (Lightman, 1991). The fact that Canadians were more likely to support self-determination rights than were Americans, despite equivalent support for nurturance, is consistent with the argument that rights attitudes are related to broader social and political attitudes. It should be noted that this nationality effect was not a result of ethnic differences in the American and Canadian samples, since nationality remained significant for the analysis involving the subsample of White participants. Bohrnstedt et al. (1981) interpreted their effects of ethnicity and religious identification on support for children’s autonomy rights similarly, noting that “It seems reasonable to suggest that views on children’s rights are rooted in more general liberal–conservative postures, and the secular trends in liberalism and conservatism may have important effects on the ways adults feel about children’s rights” (p. 459). However, the observed nationality differences in support for self-determination


751

rights were much smaller in size than the overall difference between support for nurturance rights, which was very high, and support for self-determination, which was quite low. Thus, any hypothesized effects of social or political attitudes on support for children’s rights cannot entirely account for the difference in attitudes toward nurturance and self-determination. Clearly, further empirical examination of this issue is necessary. Turning to the effects of the other demographic variables on support for children’s rights, women were more likely to support children’s rights to nurturance than were men. However, the magnitude of this effect was small and somewhat transient, disappearing entirely in the Canadian analysis and emerging only in some age conditions in the American analysis. This result parallels the mixed results with respect to gender evident in previous studies. Similarly, effects of education and race/ethnicity that had been reported in earlier research did not emerge in the present study. It should be noted that in order to obtain variability in our undergraduate sample, the measure of education used in our study was mother’s highest level of education. However, it is reasonable to argue that any effects of maternal education as a measure of the social climate of the respondents’ home environment would not continue to hold in participants who are already young adults themselves (and who presumably have established a degree of autonomy in their social perspectives). It will be important for future studies to identify and measure directly the social attitudes and environments hypothesized to predict attitudes toward children’s rights. As mentioned, direct exploration of young people’s social and political attitudes might be fruitful in this respect. In the present study, participants also were asked to reflect on what factors they considered in responding to children’s rights attitude items. Over half of the respondents mentioned family factors, and 20% included societal issues (e.g., social, cultural, religious, economic), suggesting that for many young people, children’s rights are perceived as existing in a particular interpersonal or sociocultural context that impacts on whether rights should be supported. Consistent with this, 20% of respondents indicated that whether they supported a potential right would depend on the particular issues at play in a situation, and a small minority mentioned that opportunities for access (within the family or in society at large) would determine whether a potential right should be supported. Respondents also saw the personal context in which rights are exercised as relevant in that a majority discussed the child’s capacity to make rights decisions as a factor underlying the granting of that right. Thus, the vast majority of young people’s responses reflect a relativistic, contextualized perception of children’s rights: the notion that extending rights to children depends on personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors. Only a small minority articulated the notion that rights are inherent principles that do not depend on external factors such as these.

752


These findings reflect Flekkoy and Kaufman’s (1997) point that while all children might have certain rights in principle, it is only in their implementation that rights have their impact on children. Implementation—a decision about whether or not to support a specific instance of a right—is influenced by a whole host of contextual factors and is not seen as simply the application of an abstract principle in a specific situation. These results are consistent with studies reporting that support for civil liberties is stronger when framed in terms of abstract principles (e.g., “I believe in free speech for all”) than when placed in a specific context (e.g., free speech for the Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klan; Helwig, 1995; McCloskey & Brill, 1983) and with vignette research indicating that support for rights is highly situation specific and varies even within the same category of right (e.g., protection of privacy; Ruck et al., 1998). Participants’ lay perceptions of rights are also consistent with the position of a number of scholars (e.g., Baumrind & Thompson, 2002; Freeman, 1992; Hart, 1991; Walker et al., 1999) who conceptualize children’s rights “not as absolute entitlements to self-determination or autonomy, but rather as rights that develop in concert with children’s growing capacities to exercise mature judgment” (Baumrind & Thompson, 2002, p. 4). For both the American and Canadian groups, there was a negative relationship between consideration of family factors and support for self-determination. This is an intriguing finding suggesting that the child’s bid for self-determination might compete with the rights, needs, or desires of parents or other family members and that, indeed, such family considerations often trump children’s autonomy rights. Indeed, this position has been argued by parents’ rights groups who “charge that the emphasis on children’s self-determination rights violates the legitimate rights and responsibilities of parents to discipline and shape their children’s character and behavior” (Baumrind & Thompson, 2002, p. 6). Those promoting a developmentally based children’s rights framework argue that this apparent conflict between family (i.e., parent) and child rights can be resolved, or at least more meaningfully addressed, by considering children’s rights to nurturance as well as self-determination (Baumrind & Thompson, 2002; Hart, 1991) within the broader context of reciprocal rights and responsibilities in the parent– child relationship (Baumrind, 1978; Baumrind & Thompson, 2002). One reviewer of this paper raised the interesting point that, in fact, nurturance might be perceived not so much as a children’s rights issue but rather as an inherent definer of what it means to be a child and a parent in a family. While we argue that the present data cannot address this issue, the reviewer’s point is well taken and bears further investigation. Indeed, several studies in our current research program are focusing on how parents and children construct nurturance issues and whether those issues are perceived in terms of rights. Several limitations to the study must be noted. Participants in this study were all university students, and both groups were recruited from large urban centers.


753

As such, the respondents are not representative of the broader population of young people in the United States and Canada, and caution must be used in generalizing the findings beyond the characteristics of the present sample. In addition, in common with much of the research on attitudes, the present study did not explore the relationship between participants’ views about children’s rights and actual behavior in situations involving potential children’s rights. Currently, there is very little known about the relationship between adults’ attitudes toward these issues and their actual parenting practices with children. It would be of value to examine such relationships concurrently or prospectively as young people make significant transitions (e.g., becoming parents) that are likely to impact their attitudes and behavior with respect to children’s nurturance and self-determination rights. Attitudes toward children’s rights do not appear to be static across time, race/ ethnicity, or nationality. Accordingly, discussion regarding children’s rights should not rest solely on research from the past—another political and cultural climate—but rather on research describing current attitudes toward children’s rights. The present study updated previous research on children’s rights by examining variables considered in past studies (e.g., gender, educational level, race/ ethnicity, age of the child) as well as nationality, which has not been examined in adults, in relation to attitudes toward a broad range of both nurturance and selfdetermination rights. In addition, by examining the factors that participants reported considering in making their choices, we sought to expand the past research agenda by delineating specific areas of concern regarding children’s rights. These concerns should be a useful guide for future research in this area. These research findings also provide policy makers with a contemporary reference to consult when seeking information on people’s attitudes toward the rights of children. References Baumrind, D. (1978). Reciprocal rights and responsibilities in parent–child relations. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 179-196. Baumrind, D., & Thompson, R. A. (2002). The ethics of parenting. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), The handbook of parenting (2nd ed., pp. 3-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bohrnstedt, G. W., Freeman, H. E., & Smith, T. (1981). Adult perspectives on children’s autonomy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 443-462. Cherney, I., & Perry, N. (1996). Children’s attitudes toward their rights: An international perspective. In E. Verhellen (Ed.), Monitoring children’s rights (pp. 241-250). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.

754


Farson, R. (1974). Birthrights. New York, NY: Macmillan. Flekkoy, M. G., & Kaufman, N. H. (1997). The participation rights of the child: Rights and responsibilities in family and society. London, UK: Jessica Kinglsey. Freeman, M. (1992). The limits of children’s rights. In M. Freeman & P. Veerman (Eds.), The ideologies of children’s rights (pp. 29-46). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Hart, S. N. (1991). From property to person status: Historical perspective on children’s rights. American Psychologist, 46, 53-59. Health Care Consent Act. (1996). Statutes of Ontario 1990, c.2, Sched. A. Helwig, C. C. (1995). Adolescents and young adults’ conceptions of civil liberties: Freedom of speech and religion. Child Development, 66, 152-166. Helwig, C. C. (1997). The role of agent and social context in judgments of speech and religion. Child Development, 68, 484-495. Holt, J. (1974). Escape from childhood: The needs and rights of children. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton. Lightman, E. (1991). Support for social welfare in Canada and the United States. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 28, 9-44. McCloskey, H., & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Melton, G. B., & Limber, S. P. (1992). What rights mean to children: Children’s own views. In M. Freeman & P. Veerman (Eds.), Ideologies of children’s rights (pp. 167-187). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Miller, A. S., & Nakamura, T. (1997). Trends in American public opinion: A cohort analysis of shifting attitudes from 1972-1990. Behaviormetrika, 24, 179-191. Morton, T. L., & Dubanoski, R. A. (1980). Children’s rights: Attitudes and perceptions. Educational Perspectives, 19, 24-27. Morton, T. L., Dubanoski, R. A., & Blaine, D. D. (1982). Cross-cultural perceptions of children’s rights. In J. S. Henning (Ed.), The rights of children: Legal and psychological perspectives (pp 141-160). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Redding, R. (1995). Children’s competence to provide informed consent for mental health treatment. Washington and Lee Law Review, 50, 695-753. Rogers, C. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1978). Attitudes towards children’s rights: Nurturance or self-determination. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 59-68. Ruck, M. D., Abramovitch, R., & Keating, D. P. (1998). The development of children’s understanding of rights: Balancing nurturance and self-determination. Child Development, 64, 404-417. Ruck, M. D., Peterson-Badali, M., & Day, D. (2002). Adolescents’ and mothers’ understanding of children’s rights in the home. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 373-398.


755

United Nations (UN) General Assembly. (1989, November 17). Adoption of a convention on the rights of the child. New York, NY: Author. Walker, N. E., Brooks, C. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1999). Children’s rights in the United States: In search of a national policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wrightsman, L. S., Rogers, C. M., & Percy, J. (1975). Conceptualization and measurement of attitudes towards children’s rights (Report No. PS-008-360). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED118262) Zimmerman, S., Temple, M., Peterson-Badali, M., Ruck, M. D., & Day, D. (1999, April). Maternal influences on children’s and adolescents’ thinking about rights. Poster presented at the biennial conference of the Society for Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.