Sex-role of nonparental caregivers and its influence on the relationship with boys and girls

Sex-Role of Nonparental Caregivers and its Influence on the Relationship with Boys and Girls

Marije Kok

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Studentnummer: 10193243 Masterscriptie

Begeleider: dhr. prof. dr. R.G. Ruben Fukkink 20 Mei, 2016

Table of Contents Page Abstract 3 Introduction 5 Method 9 Results 13 Discussion 19 References 23

Abstract

After school care is often referred to as a ‘woman’s world’. Due to this skewed distribution and the shift in norms regarding social roles, this study aimed to assess the predictive value of sex-roles. In this study fifty male and fifty female nonparental caregivers completed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale. Next, fifty boys and fifty girls (ages 4 to 9) completed the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support. Results indicate that femininity and androgyny are predictors for more proximity in the relationship; androgyny was associated with more conflict; an undifferentiated sex-role was associated with less dependency. Gender of children was also a significant predictor: nonparental caregivers experienced less dependency in their relationship with boys and boys experienced more conflict. There was also more conflict in a relationship when there was a gender match between male caregivers and boys, and less conflict between female caregivers and girls. This study has provided more insight in the sex-roles of nonparental caregivers as a predictor in the relationship with children. These results are useful for job applications in childcare and can be used to determine the suitability of the applicants.

Keywords: childcare, sex-roles, BSRI, STRS, Y-CATS

Abstract

Buitenschoolse opvang wordt vaak gezien als een vrouwenwereld. Vanwege deze scheve verdeling en de verandering in normen wat betreft sociale rollen, heeft dit onderzoek zich gericht op de voorspellende waarde van gender. In dit onderzoek hebben vijftig vrouwelijke en vijftig mannelijke pedagogisch medewerkers de Bem Sex-Role Inventory en de Leerkracht Leerling Relatie Vragenlijst ingevuld. Daarnaast is er bij vijftig jongens en vijftig meisjes (leeftijd 4 tot 9) de Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support afgenomen. Resultaten laten zien dat femininiteit en androgynie voorspellers waren voor nabijheid in de relatie; androgynie was geassocieerd met meer conflict; ongedifferentieerd was geassocieerd met minder afhankelijkheid. Het geslacht van kinderen was ook een significante voorspeller: pedagogisch medewerkers ervoeren minder afhankelijkheid in hun relatie met jongens en jongens ervoeren meer conflict. Er was ook meer conflict in een relatie wanneer er een geslachtsmatch was tussen mannelijke pedagogisch medewerkers en jongens en minder conflict bij een geslachtsmatch tussen vrouwen en meisjes. Dit onderzoek

heeft ons meer inzicht gegeven in gender van pedagogisch medewerkers als voorspeller voor relaties met kinderen. Deze resultaten zijn bruikbaar voor sollicitaties in de kinderopvang en kunnen gebruikt worden om de geschiktheid van de sollicitanten te bepalen.

1. Introduction

The Dutch law of childcare uses four primary goals for after-school care: physical and emotional security; encouraging personal competence; encouraging social competence and socialisation through transferring common values (Riksen-Walraven, 2004). These goals are central when assessing the quality of afterschool care, as described in scientific literature. First, there has to be a stimulating environment for children, so they can learn new skills and explore their possibilities (Collins, Madsen, & Susman-Stillman, 2002; Eccles, 1999). Next, afterschool care ought to provide possibilities for positive interactions between children (Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell, 1999) and the nonparental caregivers need to provide emotional support and guidance (Eccles, 1999; Pierce, Bolt, & Vandell, 2010; Pierce et al., 1999; Vandell & Shurnow, 1999). Warmth, support and respect for autonomy are of essential importance in the interaction between children and nonparental caregivers (Fukkink & Boogaard, 2016).

In the Netherlands there are approximately 402.000 children in after-school care (CBS, 2014). Many of these children will only interact with female nonparental caregivers. Of the nonparental caregivers who work in day care, only ten percent is male (CBS, 2016). Therefore, childcare is often referred to as a ‘woman’s world’. Research shows that these male and female nonparental caregivers differ from each other in their interaction and play with children, and in the care they provide for the children (Borghouts, 2010; Haverkort, 2011; Jensen, 1996). Male nonparental caregivers tend to undertake more masculine activities with children. They play outside more often, they play fight, and interact more roughly with children. Female nonparental caregivers do this too, but because they are often more feminine, it does not come naturally. During these activities, they are therefore less emotionally involved, they find it less fun to do, and they tend to do it with less persuasiveness than their male colleagues (Koch & Rohrmann, 2010). In addition, male nonparental caregivers interact more positively with children then their female colleagues. They give more positive comments and physical affection to both boys and girls (Fagot, 1981). Male nonparental caregivers are also more permissive and less punitive towards children then females (Aigner, Huber, Traxl, Poscheschni, & Burkhardt, 2012). An early study of Perdue and Connor (1978) also revealed that nonparental caregivers have more physical contact with children of the same sex. Next, a study with male and female preschool teachers showed that male teachers give boys more

leadership positions than girls (Lee & Wolinsky, 1973) and male teachers gave twice as many reinforcements for masculine behaviour of children as their female colleagues (Etaugh, Collins, & Gerson, 1975). Other studies however, did not find any significant differences between male and female nonparental caregivers and their relationship with boys and girls (Polanen, Colonnesi, Tavecchio, Blokhuis, & Fukkink, 2014; Robinson, 1981; Robinson, Skeen, & Flake-Hobson, 1980).

1.1 Sex-role of nonparental caregivers

Not just biological sex, but also sex-role can be an influence on the relationship with children. An early study revealed that, regardless of their biological sex, masculine individuals were less nurturant toward babies than feminine and androgynous individuals (Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1978). The study of Robinson (1982) revealed that the sex-role of nonparental caregivers also influences their perception of children. Masculine nonparental caregivers preferred masculine traits in children, like courage and independency. Feminine nonparental caregivers showed a preference for feminine traits in children, such as sensitivity en gentleness. With regard to sex-role, Bem (1978) distinguishes four different types of individuals: masculine, feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated. To determine the sex-role of individuals, Bem developed the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1978). The BSRI consists of stereotypical traits. Femininity is measured by traits considered more socially desired for women, such as ‘understanding of others’ and ‘gentle’. Socially desired traits for men, such as ‘assertive’ and ‘independent’, are used to measure the amount of masculinity (Bem, 1978). Alongside femininity and masculinity, Bem (1978) distinguishes a third and fourth sex-role: androgynous and undifferentiated. Androgynous individuals are individuals who are high in both masculinity as in femininity, and undifferentiated individuals are low in both of these characteristics.

The BSRI was developed almost forty years ago. During this period of time, there has been a shift in norms regarding social roles (Donnelly & Twenge, 2016). Compared to forty years ago, more women are engaged in paid employment (Donnelly et al., 2016), and the number of stay-at-home fathers has almost doubled since 1989 (Livingston, 2014). An early study of Twenge (1997) has revealed that over the period of 1973-1994, the score on masculinity has increased significantly for women and men score significantly higher on both masculinity and femininity. The

score of men and women have become more similar. This shift has been stable for the last 20 years (Donnelly & Twenge, 2016).

The aim of this study is to examine whether there is a relation between the sex-role of nonparental caregivers and their perception of boys and girls in after-school care. An additional aim is to examine whether there is a relation between the sex-role of nonparental caregivers and the perception of boys and girls on the relationship with these caregivers. This will be compared to the influence of the biological sex of the nonparental caregivers on the relationship with boys and girls. So far, no other studies explored the influence of biological sex and sex-role on the perception of the relationship between nonparental caregivers and boys and girls.

1.2 The relationship between nonparental caregivers and children

Koomen, Verschueren and Pianta (2007) distinguish three characteristics when describing and assessing the relationship between nonparental caregivers and children: proximity, conflict and dependency. Proximity refers to warmth, affection and open communication between the nonparental caregiver and child. The term conflict is used when the relationship is characterised by negative and conflicted interactions. The relationship between the nonparental caregiver and child can be described as dependent when the child reacts strongly to a separation with the nonparental caregiver and is frequently asking for help when unnecessary.

In these relationships, children seek proximity and reassurance from their nonparental caregivers when they are distressed (Ahnert, Pinquart, & Lamb, 2006). In studies using the Strange Situation to investigate this attachment-like phenomenon, some researchers found that children were as likely to develop secure attachments to nonparental caregivers as to parents and that the security of these relationships was often concordant (Ainslie, 1990; Goossens & van IJzendoorn, 1990). In studies where the attachment relationship between nonparental caregivers and children is explored, boys seem to be at a disadvantage. In a meta-analysis of Ahnert et al. (2006) the Strange Situation (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) as well as the Attachment Q-sort (Waters, 1995; Waters & Deane, 1985) was used to investigate the child – nonparental caregiver attachment. Both instruments revealed that girls were more likely to develop secure relationships with their caregivers than boys (Ahnert et al., 2006). The study of Aigner et al. (2012), which focused on the characteristics proximity, conflict and dependency, shows similar results. In their study, using the

Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS), both male and female nonparental caregivers described their relationship with girls more positively than their relationship with boys. In the study of Winer and Phillips (2012), girls are once again better off. In their study with only female caregivers, boys received interactions of poorer quality than girls. The same results are found for the relationship between primary school teachers and children (Spilt, Koomen, & Jak, 2012). Their study, in which they used the STRS as well, revealed that both male and female primary school teachers reported more conflictual relationships with boys than with girls.

Apart from the ability to develop secure attachments, children also see their nonparental caregivers as role models and imitate them to learn important skills (Losin, Iacoboni, Martin, & Dapretto, 2012). When people imitate others there is often a ‘similarity bias’, they tend to imitate individuals who are self-similar (Bandura, 1977; Henrich & McElreath, 2003). One of those similarity biases is the own-gender bias. According to Bussey and Bundura (1984), the own-gender bias plays an important role in the acquisition of gender roles. Bandura and his colleagues have investigated this own-gender bias in a series of studies. They found that a variety of behaviours were more easily transmitted when imitating someone with the same gender than imitating other gender models (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961; Bussey & Bandura, 1984). They also found that a preference for imitating someone with the same gender is already present in children before their gender identity is fully formed. This suggests that own-gender imitation is not only an effect, but also a cause of gender identity development (Bussey & Bandura, 1984). This preference for own-gender imitation is not limited to parents, but has also been documented for role models such as teachers, peers, and celebrities (Losin et al., 2012).

Despite the dyadic nature of the relationship between children and their nonparental caregivers, only a few studies take the perception of the children into account. The study of Mantzicopoulos and Neuharth-Pritchett (2003) using the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS) revealed that boys experience more conflictual relationships with teachers compared to girls. This result was not found for warm and autonomous relationships. Other studies have found similar results where boys reported to have more conflictual relationships with teachers than girls, and girls rated their relationship with teachers with more warmth (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Howes, Phillipsen, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2000; Kesner, 2000; Pianta, Steinberg, & Rollins, 1995). However, another study of Mantzicopolous (2005)

performed with the Y-CATS, showed that the biological sex of the child was not significantly related to teacher-child conflict. This shows that scientific research focussing on the perception of children has not yet come to an agreement.

1.3 Present study

This first aim of this study is to examine the perception of the nonparental caregivers on their relationship with boys and girls and whether their sex-role is a predictor for this relationship. The second aim is to examine the perception of children and whether the sex-role of their nonparental caregivers is a predictor for this relationship. When the relationship between children and their nonparental caregivers is evaluated, most studies only use the caregivers as informant, giving an incomplete representation of the relationship. This study explores the perception of the children as well, providing information from two perspectives of the relationship. In line with previous findings, it is expected that the nonparental caregivers who score high on masculinity will perceive their relationship with boys as more positive, and that the nonparental caregivers who score high on femininity will perceive their relationship with girls as more positive. The same effect is expected when looking at the perception of the children. Girls will perceive their relationship with feminine nonparental caregivers as more positive, and boys their relationship with masculine nonparental caregivers. These outcomes will be compared to the results of the biological sex of the nonparental caregivers as a predictor for their relationship with boys and girls.

2. Method 2.1 Participants

In total there were 200 participants, of which 50 male nonparental caregivers, 50 female nonparental caregivers and 100 children (50 boys and 50 girls) from 50 after school care groups throughout the Netherlands. Eight students of the University of Amsterdam recruited these participants via e-mail and/or telephone. The nonparental caregivers had to meet three criteria. First, they had to be part of the permanent staff (nonparental caregivers following an internship were excluded from this study). Second, participating caregivers worked on the day care group for a minimum of three months. Third, the female and male caregiver worked at the same day care group. The female caregivers were aged between 21 and 61 years (M = 34.2, SD = 10.8) and an average working experience in childcare of 98 months (SD = 78.3). The

male caregivers were aged between 21 and 59 years (M = 32.4, SD = 9.3) and had an average of 73 months working experience in childcare (SD = 61.8). The women in this study had significantly more working experience in childcare, t(198) = 2.51, p < .05. The difference in age was not significant, t(198) = 1.28. p = .20.

In each day care group one girl and one boy between the age of 4 and 9 were randomly selected. The boys and girls in this study were aged between 52 and 110 months (M = 81.1, SD = 15.8; M = 80.1, SD = 16.5). The participating children were selected based on the number of days they were present on the group and they had to be on the concerning group for a minimum of three months.

2.2 Procedure

The managers of the after school care centres received an invitation for participation via e-mail, including information regarding the goal and procedure of the study, and information about the anonymity of the participating caregivers. Once the male caregivers gave their permission for participation they asked one of their direct female colleagues to participate in this study as well. No reward was given to the participating caregivers.

Next, the parents of the children who met the criteria were given a passive consent form. Based on the consent of the parents, one boy and one girl with approximately the same age were selected for participation. The male and female caregivers were asked to fill out an online questionnaire about these two children. This questionnaire consisted of three separate questionnaires: the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI), the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), of which the last one will not be used in this study and will therefore not be further discussed.

Next, the experimenter visited each after school care group to conduct the Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS) twice from every boy and girl, once about the male caregiver and once about the female caregiver. When administering the Y-CATS, the child and the experimenter were in a closed room. The child was asked about whom he/she wanted to talk about first (the male or female caregiver). The task took around ten minutes. Afterwards, the children were rewarded with a sticker of their choosing.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam (registration number 2013-CDE-3290).

2.3 Instruments

Bem Sex-Role Inventory. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) was used to assess the sex-role of the nonparental caregivers. This study used the short version of the BSRI and excluded the filler questions, due to the length of the total online questionnaire. The BSRI consist of twenty items, ten of which measured masculinity (e.g., independent and aggressive; α = .77) and ten measured femininity (e,g., warm and affectionate; α = .85; Bem, 1978). Each item had to be scored on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 being ‘Never or almost never true’ and 7 ‘Always or almost always true’. The minimum score for both scales was 10 and the maximum score 70. Findings from a summary report of 23 validation studies suggest that masculinity and femininity have not been adequately operationalized in the long version of the BSRI and that the structure of these sex-roles may be more complex (Choi & Fuqua, 2003). However, the short version of the BSRI (used in this study) seems to have more desirable properties. A validation study of Choi, Fuqua and Newman (2009) explored a three-factor structural model: femininity, personal masculinity and social masculinity. This structural model is consistent with general patterns in literature investigating the BSRI. This model proved to be invariant across two different samples (college students and accountants) and gender groups, supporting the validity. These findings further support the potential utility of the short version of the BSRI due to its practical advantages.

Teacher Relationship Scale. The Dutch version of the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) was used to assess the perception of the nonparental caregivers of their relationship with a child (Koomen et al., 2007). The questionnaire consists of 28 items (α = .81), which can be subdivided in three domains: proximity (11 items; e.g.: ‘I have a warm relationship with this child’; α = .85), conflict (11 items; e.g.: ‘This child and I seem to be in a constant battle with each other’: α = .89) and dependency (6 items; e.g.: ‘This child is very focussed on me during the entire day’; α = .78). The items are scored on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being ‘Definitely not applicable’ and 5 ‘Definitely applicable’. The domains

‘proximity’ and ‘conflict’ have a total minimum score of 11 and a maximum score of 55. The domain ‘dependency’ has a total minimum score of 6 and a maximum score of 30. Previous studies have provided evidence for the validity of the STRS by confirming the assumed three-dimensional structure of the questionnaire (Doumen, Koomen, Buyse, Wouters, & Verschueren, 2011; Koomen, Verschueren, van Schooten, Jak, & Pianta 2012).

Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support. The Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support (Y-CATS) was used to assess the children’s perception of their relationship with their nonparental caregiver (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). The questionnaire consists of 27 items (α = .82) and measures three domains: warmth/support (11 items; e.g.: ‘my teacher likes me’; α = .82), negative interactions/conflict (10 items; e.g.: ‘my teacher gets angry with me’; α = .80) and autonomy (6 items; e.g.: ‘my teacher allows me to do activities that I want to do’; α = .68). During the task the word ‘teacher’ was replaced by the name of the nonparental caregiver. Every item is printed on a separate card and is read out by the researcher. The child has to decide whether he/she wants to put the card in the treasure chest (true) or in the trashcan (not true). The study of Mantzicopoulos and Neuharth-Pritchett (2003) has provided psychometric support for the Y-CATS by supporting a three-factor solution along hypothesised dimensions.

2.4 Statistical Analysis

The aim of this study is to investigate whether the sex-role of nonparental caregivers is a predictor for their relationship with children. This study used a multiple regression for statistical analysis, with the STRS and Y-CATS as dependent variables, and the sex-role of nonparental caregivers (BSRI) as predictor. The items that measured masculinity and the items that measured femininity were split at the median to create the sex-role variables. A score above the median on the masculinity subscale was considered a masculine sex-role and a score above the median on the femininity subscale a feminine sex-role. A score above the median on both subscales was considered an androgynous sex-role, whereas a score under the median on both subscales was considered an undifferentiated sex-role. This analytical approach was chosen due to the specific population of this study (childcare), which was expected to be more feminine.

2.5 Preliminary analysis

A sequential regression was performed to determine whether the sex-role of nonparental caregivers is a predictor for their relationship with children. Analysis was preformed using IBM SPSS REGRESSION for evaluation of the hypotheses. Assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals were investigated. The assumption of normality was not met, therefore a log transformation was applied to the total scores of the subscales dependency and conflict of the STRS. The assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals appear tenable. There were no outliers detected and collinearity diagnostics were satisfactory (VIF < 3.00). Due to the significant difference in work experience between the male and female nonparental caregivers, work experience was added as a covariate.

3. Results

3.1 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics of the boys and girls are presented in Table 1 and the descriptive statistics of the nonparental caregivers are presented in Table 2. Table 2 also displays the distribution of male and female nonparental caregivers for each sex-role.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics Boys and Girls Boys N = 50 Girls N = 50 Instruments M SD M SD d STRS Proximity 38.57 5.41 40.02 5.37 -.27 Conflict 16.90 7.17 15.45 5.43 .23 Dependency 8.46 2.91 9.43 3.33 -.31 Y-CATS Warmth/support 9.33 1.87 9.39 2.05 -.03 Negative interactions/conflict 2.10 2.03 1.02 1.44 .61 Autonomy 4.90 1.14 5.10 1.05 -.18

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics Male and Female Nonparental Caregivers

Men Women N = 50 N = 50 M SD M SD d Masculinity 46.08 5.79 45.44 6.63 .10 Femininity 53.72 6.58 56.56 5.27 -.48 Percentage Percentage Masculinity 52.00 48.00 Femininity 40.38 59.62 Androgyny 36.67 63.33 Undifferentiated 50.00 50.00

Note. d: Cohen’s value (effect size): .2 = small, .5 = moderate, .8 large.

3.2 Sex-Roles and Perception of nonparental caregivers (STRS)

From the perspective of the nonparental caregivers (STRS), gender of children was a significant predictor for dependency in the relationship with their nonparental caregivers, F(1, 192) = 4.43, p = .04, CI 95% = [-0.20; -0.01]. Boys had lower dependency scores in comparison with girls (ß = -0.10). The model with only gender as predictor for dependency explained 2,6 percent of the total variance. The masculine (Fchange = 1.45, p = .23), feminine (Fchange = 2.13, p = .15), androgynous (Fchange = 2.63, p = .11), and undifferentiated (Fchange = 1.72, p = .19) sex-role of the nonparental caregivers was not a significant predictor for dependency in the relationship.

When analysing proximity in the relationship, gender of children was not a significant predictor, F(1, 192) = 3.50, p = .06, CI 95% = [-2.98; 0.08]. However, when adding the sex-role of nonparental caregivers to the model, feminine, Fchange = 7.99, p = .01, CI 95% = [0.66; 3.71], androgynous, Fchange = 5.19, p = .02, CI 95% = [0.26; 3.54], and undifferentiated sex-roles, Fchange = 6.89, p = .01, CI 95% = [3.99; -0.57] were significant predictors for proximity in the relationship. The model with femininity as predictor for proximity explained 5.8 percent of the total variance, the model with androgyny as a predictor explained 4.4 percent of the total variance, and the model with undifferentiated as a predictor explained 5.2 percent of the total variance. Masculinity was no significant predictor for proximity in the relationship. Neither gender of children nor sex-role of nonparental caregivers, were significant predictors for conflict in the relationship.

To conclude, gender of children appeared to be a significant predictor for dependency in the relationship. The sex-role of nonparental caregivers was no

significant predictor for dependency. Next, a feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated sex-role was a significant predictor for proximity in the relationship. The gender of children and a masculine sex-role were no significant predictors. As for conflict, neither gender of children nor sex-role of the nonparental caregivers, were significant predictors for conflict in the relationship. Results are displayed in Table 3, 4 and 6.

3.3 Sex-Roles and the Perception of children (Y-CATS)

Seen from the perspective of the children (Y-CATS), gender of children was a significant predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship with their nonparental caregivers, F (1, 193) = 18.57, p < .001, CI 95% = [0.59; 1.58]. Boys had higher dependency scores in comparison with girls (ß = 1.08). The model with only gender as predictor for negative interactions/conflict explained 9.2 percent of the total variance. When sex-role of nonparental caregivers was added to the model, androgyny appeared a significant predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship, Fchange = 4.74, p = .03, CI 95% = [0.06; 1.12] and explained 11.4 percent of the total variance. This result was not found for femininity (Fchange = 2.07, p = .15), masculinity (Fchange = 0.68, p = .41), and undifferentiated (Fchange = 0.16, p = .69).

When analysing warmth/support in the relationship, the covariate work experience was a significant predictor, F(1, 194) = 7.89, p = .01, CI 95% = [0.01; -0.00] and explained 3.9 percent of the total variance. Gender of children (Fchange = 0.05, p = .83), and the masculine (Fchange = 0.00, p = .97), feminine (Fchange = 0.41, p = .53), androgynous (Fchange = 0.41, p = .52), and undifferentiated (Fchange = 0.00, p = .99) sex-role of the nonparental caregivers were no significant predictors for warmth/support in the relationship. Work experience, gender of children, and sex-role of nonparental caregivers were no significant predictors for autonomy in the relationship.

To summarize, gender of children and an androgynous sex-role appeared significant predictors for negative interaction/conflict in the relationship. The other sex-roles were no significant predictors. Next, work experience of the nonparental caregivers was a significant predictor for warmth/support in the relationship. Gender of children and sex-role of the nonparental caregivers were no significant predictors. As for autonomy, work experience, gender of children and sex-role of nonparental

caregivers appeared no significant predictors. Results are displayed in Table 3, 4 and 6.

Table 3

Masculinity and Femininity as Predictors for the Relationship Between Nonparental Caregivers and Children

Note. β = Beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Table 4

Androgyny and Undifferentiated as Predictors for the Relationship Between Nonparental Caregivers and Children

Note. β = Beta; SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

* p < .05. ** p < .01

3.4 Gender Match and the Perception of nonparental caregivers (STRS)

When analysing warmth, dependency and proximity in the relationship as seen from the perspective of nonparental caregivers (STRS), neither the gender match between male nonparental caregivers and boys, nor the gender match between female

Masculinity Femininity Instruments β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI STRS Conflict .04 .05 .44 [-0.05, 0.13] -.00 .05 .94 [-0.09, 0.09] Proximity 1.25 .77 .11 [-0.28, 2.77] 2.19 .77 .01** [0.66, 3.71] Dependency .06 .05 .23 [-0.04, 0.15] .07 .05 .15 [-0.03, 0.17] Y-CATS Warmth/support -.01 .28 .97 [-0.56, 0.54] .18 .28 .53 [-0.37, 0.73] Negative interactions/conflict .19 .25 .45 [-0.30, 0.69] .41 .25 .11 [-0.09, 0.91] Autonomy -.04 .16 .82 [-0.34, 0.27] .27 .16 .09 [-0.04, 0.58] Androgyny Undifferentiated Instruments β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI STRS Conflict .05 .05 .35 [-0.05, 0.14] .01 .05 .86 [-0.09, 0.11] Proximity 1.90 .83 .02* [0.26, 3.54] -2.28 .87 .01** [-3.99, -0.57] Dependency .09 .05 .11 [-0.02, 0.19] -.07 .06 .19 [-0.18, 0.04] Y-CATS Warmth/support .19 .30 .52 [-0.40, 0.78] -.00 .31 .99 [-0.61, 0.61] Negative interactions/conflict .58 .27 .03* [0.06, 1.12] -.11 .28 .69 [-0.66, 0.44] Autonomy .10 .17 .56 [-0.23, 0.43] -.18 .17 .31 [-0.52, 0.17]

nonparental caregivers and girls, were significant predictors for the relationship. Results are displayed in Table 5.

3.5 Gender Match and Perception of children (Y-CATS)

From the perspective of the children (Y-CATS), the gender match between male nonparental caregivers and boys, was a significant predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship, F(1, 193) = 5.42, p = .02, CI 95% = [0.11; 1.29]. When there was a gender match, there was a .70 increase in conflict in the relationship, compared to no gender match. The model with gender match as a predictor explained 3.2 percent of the total variance.

The gender match between female nonparental caregivers and girls appeared a significant predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship, F(1, 193) = 5.86, p = .02, CI 95% = [-1.32; -0.14]. The gender match resulted in a .73 decrease in negative interactions/conflict, compared to no gender match. The model with gender match as a predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship explained 3.4 percent of the total variance.

When analysing warmth/support in the relationship, the covariate work experience was a significant predictor, F(1, 194) = 7.89, p = .01, CI 95% = [-0.73; 0.53]. More work experience resulted in a .01 decrease in warmth/support and explained 3.9 percent of the total variance. Neither the gender match between male nonparental caregivers and boys (Fchange = 0.10, p = .76), nor the gender match between female nonparental caregivers and girls (Fchange = 1.37, p = .24) were significant predictors for warmth/support in the relationship. Work experience and gender match were no significant predictors for autonomy in the relationship.

To conclude, both gender matches appeared to be a significant predictor for negative interactions/conflict in the relationship. Next, work experience was a significant predictor for warmth/support in the relationship. Gender match was no significant predictor for warmth/support. As for autonomy, neither work experience nor gender match, were significant predictors. Results are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5

Gender Match as Predictor for the Relationship Between Nonparental Caregivers and Children

Work experience Gender match male and boy Gender match female and girl

Instruments β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI β SE p 95% CI STRS Conflict .00 .00 .10 [0.00, 0.00] .09 .90 .92 [-1.69, 1.87] 1.02 .91 .27 [-0.78, 2.81] Proximity .00 .01 .85 [-0.01, 0.01] .03 .05 .57 [-0.07, 0.13] .04 .05 .43 [-0.06, 0.15] Dependency .00 .00 .41 [0.00, 0.00] -.04 .06 .54 [-0.15, -0.08] .08 .06 .17 [-0.03, 0.19] Y-CATS Warmth/support -.01 .00 .01** [-0.01, -0.00] -.10 .32 .76 [-0.73, 0.53] .37 .32 .24 [-0.26, 1.00] Negative interactions/conflict -.00 .00 .33 [-0.01, 0.00] .70 .30 .02* [0.11, 1.29] -.73 .30 .02* [-1.32, -0.14] Autonomy -.00 .00 .11 [-0.00, 0.00] .00 .18 .99 [-0.36, 0.36] .27 .18 .13 [-0.08, 0.63] * p < .05. ** p < .01 Table 6

Work Experience, Gender of Children and Sex-Role of Nonparental Caregivers as Predictors for the Relationship

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Instruments F p R2 95% CI Fchange pchange R

2

change 95% CI Fchange pchange R

2 change 95% CI STRS Conflict .10 .10 .01 [0.00, 0.00] .12 .10 .03 [-0.12, 0.16] .64 .86 .04 [-0.12, 0.14] Proximity .85 .85 .00 [-0.01, 0.01] .06 .06 .02 [-2.98, 0.08] .02 .28 .07 [-3.43, 0.98] Dependency .41 .41 .00 [0.00, 0.00] .04 .04* .03 [-0.20, -0.01] .37 .62 .04 [-0.18, 0.10] Y-CATS Warmth/support .01 .01** .04 [-0.01, -0.00] .83 .83 .03 [-0.61, 0.48] .85 .57 .02 [-0.58, 1.05] Negative interactions/conflict .33 .33 .01 [-0.01, 0.00] .00 .00** .09 [0.59, 1.58] .13 .36 .12 [-0.40, 1.01] Autonomy .11 .11 .01 [-0.00, 0.00] .19 .19 .02 [-0.51, 0.10] .35 .87 .04 [-0.42, 0.50]

Note. Model 1 = work experience nonparental caregiver in months; Model 2 = gender childen (0 = girl, 1 = boy); Model 3 = sex-role nonparental caregiver. * p < .05. ** p < .01

4. Discussion

This study examined the sex-role of nonparental caregivers as a predictor in their relationship with children. Findings of this study indicate that feminine, androgynous and undifferentiated sex-roles were significant predictors for proximity in the relationship as experienced by the nonparental caregivers. A feminine and androgynous sex-role was associated with more proximity in the relationship, whereas an undifferentiated sex-role was associated with less proximity in the relationship. These results were not found for a masculine sex-role. This result was expected, as proximity refers to warmth and affection in the relationship, characteristics that are more prominent in feminine traits (Bem, 1978). Furthermore, an androgynous sex-role was associated with more conflict in the relationship, as experienced by children. A surprising result, considering that an androgynous individual might be more likely to display effective sex-role adaptability across situations, than either feminine or masculine individuals (Bem & Lewis, 1975). A possible explanation might be that this adaptability across situations causes confusion for children, resulting in experiencing more conflict in the relationship.

The gender of children appeared a significant predictor in the relationship as well. As experienced by the nonparental caregivers, boys were less dependent in the relationship than girls. Furthermore, boys experienced more conflict in the relationship than girls. This is in line with previous findings where boys experienced their relationship with teachers as more conflictual than girls (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). For autonomy (experienced by children) and conflict in the relationship (experienced by nonparental caregivers), neither gender of children, nor sex role of the nonparental caregivers appeared to be significant predictors.

This study also examined whether a gender match was a predictor in the relationship between nonparental caregivers and children. The gender match appeared to be a predictor for conflict in the relationship, as experienced by children. The gender match between a male nonparental caregiver and a boy resulted in more conflict in the relationship. This is in line with the study of Spilt et al. (2012), where both male and female teachers defined their relationship with boys as more conflictual than with girls. A gender match between a female nonparental caregiver and a girl resulted in less conflict. A gender match was no significant predictor for the relationship as experienced by the nonparental caregivers.

Work experience of the nonparental caregivers was a surprising predictor. The covariate work experience of the nonparental caregivers appeared to be a predictor for warmth/support in the relationship (experienced by children). More work experience, resulted in less warmth/support in the relationship. A possible explanation might be that the more experienced nonparental caregivers, were also of an older age, creating a bigger age gap between the children and the nonparental caregivers. Next, nonparental caregivers with more work experience could be dealing with more fatigue. Which could result in more difficulty in maintaining a warm and supportive relationship with children.

4.1 Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of limitations. First, the instrument used to determine the sex-role of the nonparental caregivers is out-dated. The BSRI was developed over forty years ago. In this time period, the norms regarding social roles has shifted. The traits considered socially desired for men/women forty years ago, differ from those considered socially desired now. In future studies, we should relinquish from these sex-roles and focus on specific traits as ‘understanding of others’, ‘gentle’, ‘assertive’ and ‘independent’, without connecting them to stereotypical sex-roles. This can give us more information about which specific traits are important in the relationship between nonparental caregivers and children. Ultimately, this insight can lead to a questionnaire like the BSRI as a tool to determine the suitability of applicants in childcare.

Second, work experience appeared to be a significant predictor and was associated with less warmth/support in the relationship. In this study, work experience was measured by the amount of months the nonparental caregivers have worked in childcare. However, this study did not take into account the possible differences in commissions. More work experience in months, does not necessarily mean more work experience overall, due to differences in working hours per week. Future research should take these differences in commissions into account.

Finally, this study assessed the relationship between nonparental caregivers and children using subjective questionnaires. However, as mentioned before, the quality of the afterschool care group and especially the interaction skills of the nonparental caregiver is also an important factor in the relationship. Fukkink en Boogaard (2016) developed an instrument to assess the quality of afterschool care

groups, including the skills of the nonparental caregivers. This instrument might be valuable in future research.

Despite these limitations, this study has provided more insight in the sex-roles of nonparental caregivers as a predictor in their relationship with children and the importance of feminine traits. A feminine and androgynous sex-role was associated with more proximity in the relationship. An androgynous sex-role was also surprisingly associated with more conflict in the relationship. Next, boys experienced more conflict than girls and were viewed by the nonparental caregivers as less dependent. A gender match between a male nonparental caregiver and a boy also resulted in more conflict. Whereas a gender match between a female nonparental caregiver and a girl was associated with less conflict in the relationship. Future research should focus on specific traits without necessarily connecting them to sex-roles. Next, to include objective observations, future research should take the quality of the day-care group into account. Finally, due to work experience as a surprising predictor for less warmth in the relationship, work experience should be further explored in future research.

This study shows the importance of a feminine sex-role. This study also revealed the distribution of male and female caregivers between this sex-role. Of the nonparental caregivers with a feminine sex-role, 40 percent is male and 60 percent is female. This supports the importance of a mixed gender team of nonparental caregivers (Fukkink & Boogaard, 2016; Tavecchio & van Polanen, 2013). Next, these results are useful for job applications in childcare and can be used to determine the suitability of the applicants. An instrument such as the BSRI, can function as a tool to determine whether an applicant possesses important and valuable skills for working in afterschool care.

References

Ahnert, L., Pinquart, M., & Lamb, M. (2006). Security of children’s relationships with nonparental care providers: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 74(3), 664-679. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00896.x

Aigner, J. C., Huber, J., Traxl, B., Poscheschnik, G., & Burkhardt, L. (2012, August). Similarities and differences in interactions of male and female ECE workers with children. Paper presented at the 22nd EECERA annual conference, University of Innsbruck, Austria. Retrieved from http://www

.koordinationmaennerinkitas.de/uploads/media/EECERA_2012_Huber _Traxl.pdf

Ainslie, R. C. (1990). Family and center contributions to the adjustment of infants in full‐ time day care. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1990(49), 39-52. doi:10.1002/cd.23219904905

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of

attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575–582. Retrieved from http://graphics.tx.ovid.com/ovftpdfs

/FPDDNCMCNENPFM00/fs046/ovft/live/gv023/00032378/00032378 -196111000-00015.pdf

Bem, S. L. (1978). Bem sex role inventory manual/sampler set manual: Instrument and scoring guide. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Bem, S. L., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of

psychological androgyny. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 31(4), 634-643. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0077098

Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 34(5), 1016-1023. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org

/psycinfo/1977-10174-001

Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the

teacher–child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 934-946. doi:10.1037/0012-1649

Borghouts, S. (2010). De invloed van vaders op de sociale ontwikkeling van kinderen (Bachelorthesis). Universiteit van Amsterdam, afdeling POWL.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1292–1302. Retrieved from http://graphics.tx.ovid.com/ovftpdfs

/FPDDNCMCNENPFM00/fs046/ovft/live/gv023/00005205/00005205 -198412000-00009.pdf

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2014). In twee jaar 72 duizend kinderen minder naar opvang. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2015/42/in -twee-jaar-72-duizend-kinderen-minder-naar-opvang

Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2016) CBS StatLine – Werkzame

Beroepsbevolking; Beroep; Leidsters Kinderopvang. Retrieved from http:/ /statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=82808NED&D1=0 &D2=12&D3=0&D4=6,15&D5=64&HDR=G4,T,G1&STB=G2,G3&VW=T Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory: A

summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 872-887. doi:10.1177/0013164403258235

Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Newman, J. L. (2009). Exploratory and confirmatory studies of the structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory Short Form with two divergent samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(4), 696 -705. doi:10.1177/0013164409332218

Collins, W. A., Madsen, S. D., & Susman-Stillman, A. (2002). Parenting

during middle school. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 3): Being and becoming a parent (pp. 73-101). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2016). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 28(10), 1-10. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y

Donnelly, K., Twenge, J. M., Clark, M. A., Shaikh, S. K., Beiler-May, A., & Carter, N. T. (2016). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 41-54. doi:10.1177/0361684315590774

Teacher and observer views on student-teacher relationships: Convergence across kindergarten and relations with student engagement. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 61-77. doi:10.1016/j. jsp.2011.08.004

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30-44. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1602703 Etaugh, C., Collins, G., & Gerson, A. (1975). Reinforcement of sex-typed behaviors

of two-year-old children in a nursery school setting. Developmental Psychology, 11(2), 255. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev /11/2/255/

Fagot, B. I. (1981). Male and female teachers: Do they treat boys and girls differently? Sex Roles, 7(3), 263-271. doi:10.1007/BF00287541 Fukkink, R. G., & Boogaard, M. (2016). Pedagogische kwaliteit van de

buitenschoolse opvang in Nederland. Pedagogische Studiën, 93, 2-14. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298788887

Goossens, F. A., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1990). Quality of infants' attachments to professional caregivers: Relation to infant-parent attachment and day-care characteristics. Child Development, 61(3), 832-837. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624 .1990.tb02825.x

Haverkort, C. (2010). Seksespecifieke activiteiten in de kinderopvang (Bachelorthesis). Universiteit van Amsterdam, afdeling POWL.

Henrich, J., & McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12(3), 123–135. doi:10.1002/evan.10110

Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of

perceived teacher–child relationships between preschool and kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 113-132. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405

(99)00044-8

Jensen, J. J. (1996). Men as workers in childcare services. A discussion paper. Brussels: European Equal Opportunities Unit.

Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child–teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 133-149. doi:10.1016 /S0022-4405(99)00043-6

Koch, B., & Rohrmann, T. (2010). Male and female co-workers in Austrian childcare institutions: Results of a nationwide research project. Presentation on the XXVI. OMEP World Congress. Göteborg, Sweden, august 2010.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Leerling-Leerkracht Relatie Vragenlijst (LLRV): Handleiding. Student–Teacher Relationship Scale: Manual. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.

Koomen, H. M. Y., Verschueren, K., van Schooten, E., Jak, S., & Pianta, R. C.

(2012). Validating the Student-Teacher Relationship Scale: Testing factor structure and measurement invariance across child gender and age in a Dutch sample. Journal of School Psychology 50(2), 215-234. doi:10.1016/j.jsp. 2011.09.001

Lee, P. C., & Wolinsky, A. L. (1973). Male teachers of young children: A preliminary empirical study. Young Children, 28(6), 342-353. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42721585

Livingston, G. (2014, J). Growing number of dads home with the kids: Biggest

increase among those caring for family. Retrieved from Pew Research Center website: http://www.pewresearch.org

Losin, E. A. R., Iacoboni, M., Martin, A., & Dapretto, M. (2012). Own-gender imitation activates the brain's reward circuitry. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(7), 804-810. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr055

Mantzicopoulos, P. (2005). Conflictual relationships between kindergarten children and their teachers: Associations with child and classroom context variables. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 425-442. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.004 Mantzicopoulos, P., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2003). Development and validation of a

measure to assess head start children’s appraisals of teacher support. Journal of School Psychology, 41(6), 431-451. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.08.002

Perdue, V. P., & Connor, J. M. (1978). Patterns of touching between preschool

children and male and female teachers. Child Development, 49(4), 1258-1262. doi:10.2307/1128774

Pianta, R. C., Steinberg, M. S., & Rollins, K. B. (1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children's classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295-312. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006519

Pierce, K. M., Bolt, D. M., & Vandell, D. L. (2010). Specific features of after‐ school program quality: Associations with children’s functioning in middle childhood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3-4), 381-393. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9304-2

Pierce, K. M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after‐ school programs and children's adjustment in first‐ grade classrooms. Child Development, 70(3), 756-767. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00054

Polanen, M., Colonnesi, C., Tavecchio, L. W. C., Blokhuis, S., & Fukkink, R. G. (2014). Men and women in childcare: Sensitive and stimulating behaviors of caregivers in childcare: Are men different from women? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A. (2004). Pedagogische kwaliteit in de kinderopvang: Doelstellingen en kwaliteitscriteria. In R. van IJzendoorn, L. Tavecchio & M. Riksen-Walraven (Eds.), De kwaliteit van de Nederlandse kinderopvang (pp. 100-123). Amsterdam: Boom.

Robinson, B. E. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal responsiveness of male and female preschool teachers to sex of child and sex-typed child behaviors. Psychological Reports, 48(1), 285-286. doi:10.2466/pr0.1981.48.1.285

Robinson, B. E. (1982). Sex-stereotyped attitudes of male and female preschool

teachers as a function of personality characteristics. Psychological Reports, 50(1), 203-208. doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.50.1.203

Robinson, B. E., Skeen, P., & Flake-Hobson, C. (1980). Sex-stereotyped attitudes of male and female child care workers: Support for androgynous child care. Child Care Quarterly, 9(4), 233-242. doi:10.1007/BF01555182

Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Jak, S. (2012). Are boys better of with male and girls with female teachers? A multilevel investigation of measurement invariance and gender match in teacher–student relationship quality. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 363-378. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.12.002

Tavecchio, L., & van Polanen, M. (2013). Het belang van mannen in de kinderopvang. In C. Gravesteijn & R. Diekstra (Eds.), Jongens & meisjes: Zoek de verschillen?! (pp. 42-55). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Twenge, J. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta- analysis. Sex Roles, 36(5-6), 305–325. doi:10.1007/ BF02766650.

Vandell, D. L., & Shumow, L. (1999). After-school child care programs. The Future of Children, 9(2), 64-80. doi:10.2307/1602707

Waters, E. (1995). The attachment Q-Set (Version 3.0). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2/3), 234-246. doi:10.2307/1166181 Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in

attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in in-fancy and early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1/2), 41-65. doi:10.2307/3333826

Winer, A. C., & Phillips, D. A. (2012). Boys, girls and “two cultures” of child care. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 58(1), 22-49. doi:10.1353/mpq.2012.0004