Young children’s close relationships outside the family: Parental ethnotheories in four communities in Norway, United States, Turkey, and Korea

Parents, preschools, and schools in different cultures vary greatly in the extent to which children are encouraged to develop long-term relationships with people outside the family circle—peers and teachers. In contemporary societies, parents face complex choices as they bridge children’s transitions to a wider world. This exploratory cross-cultural study used a newly developed questionnaire, Parental Concerns for Preschool Children Survey, to assess parental beliefs, values, and judgments. The sample included 521 parents from four cities: Oslo, Norway; Lincoln (Nebraska), United States; Ankara, Turkey; Seoul, Korea. Strong cultural community differences were found in parental descriptions of their own child’s friendships and beliefs about the needs of young children in general for close and continuing relationships in preschool and primary. The findings suggest the following conclusions, for example: Oslo parents favored the value of long-term continuity with peers and teachers; Lincoln parents had a more academic than relational focus to school and wanted their children to deal successfully with (new) teachers in different settings; Ankara parents (an upwardly mobile sample) were low in reporting their child’s friendships at preschool but valued parent–teacher and child–child relationships there; Seoul parents (oriented to education as a means to economic success) favored their children having quality learning experiences and close peer relationships in preschool. ∗ Published in International Journal of Behavioral Development 2003, 27 (6), 481–494. Copyright © 2003 The International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01650254.html DOI: 10.1080/01650250344000109 YOU N G C H ILD REN’S C LO SE RE LAT IO N SH IP S O U TS IDE THE FAM ILY 2 oung children learn and develop not only in relationships with others, but through and for them (Fogel, 1993). Enduring, close relationships to parents and other family members provide the first context for learning and development (Dunn, 1993; Laursen & Bukowski, 1997; Noam & Fischer, 1996; Sturgess, Dunn, & Davies, 2001). Yet, from the earliest days, children’s attention is also drawn outward beyond the family. Parents mediate children’s first interactions and relationships, guided by cognitive models or ethnotheories framing what children want, need, and their capabilities. These models relate to the parents’ culturally shared conceptions about how best to further general goals promoting child survival and reproductive success, economic prosperity, and personal happiness and selfactualization (LeVine, 1980). In contemporary societies, parents face many complex choices and constraints as they bridge children’s transitions to a wider world, but which strategies they should use to promote their children’s well-being may not be altogether clear to them. How can they best ensure their children’s present and future health, wealth, and life satisfaction? For example, one major dilemma they face concerns how to help their children move out into the community around them. How can and should they help their children learn to deal with neighbors, teachers, and other community members outside the extended family? Should they focus on giving children experiences that help them learn to form and maintain close ties with a few particular people? Or, instead, should they provide experiences that foster a friendly and less intimate style of interaction with a diverse succession of new people? This is a particularly challenging issue for parents in contemporary society (Giddens, 1991). The purpose of this study, conducted in four communities, was to discover whether parents differ by culture in their ethnotheories related to young children’s enduring relationships in childcare, preschool, and primary school. Several concepts have been used in the literature to capture parental ideas about young children. Some approaches have favored the concepts of folk theories (Bruner, 1996) or ethnotheories (Harkness & Super, 1996) when referring to the cognitive models that parents hold regarding child development, socialization, and family interaction. Goodnow and Collins (1990) prefer the concept of parental ideas, questioning the extent to which parental thinking about everyday life can be regarded as a “theory”. Because there is considerable overlap in usage, we shall use the concepts of parental ideas and ethnotheories interchangeably to capture how parents think about young children’s extended relationships. Three closely intertwined subdimensions are distinguished: beliefs (descriptive concepts about children, their communication skills, friendships, attachments, and needs); judgments (decision concepts based on beliefs and underlying choices that parents make for children); and values (evaluative concepts guiding these judgments, for example, concerning what childcare, preschool, and school arrangements are best and why). They are related to D’Andrade’s (1984) four functions of cultural meaning systems: to represent the world, create cultural entities, evoke certain feelings, and direct people to do certain things. Previous research has examined the role of culture in the construction of parental thinking about children’s development, suggesting that parental theories are culturally shared beliefs, values, and practices, constructed within broader cultural belief systems (Goodnow & Collins, 1990; Harkness & Super, 1996; Lightfoot & Valsiner, 1992). Mainstream North-American parents are described as placing greater emphasis on the fostering of personal autonomy and independence in their children than are members of many other cultures, who may place greater value on family or community identification and affiliation (Harkness, Super, & Keefer, 1992; Y V.G. AU KRU S T, C.P . E D WARDS, A. KUM RU, L. KNOCHE, & M. K IM 3 Raeff, 1997). Compared with parents from other societies, American parents stress autonomy and individuality and favor cognitive and linguistic competencies over more social-relational competencies (Aukrust, 2001; Bornstein, Tal, & Tamis-Lemonda, 1991; Harkness et al., 1992; McGillicuddy-De Lisi & Subramanian, 1996; New & Richmann, 1996). In mainstream NorthAmerican culture, relationships inside and outside of the family have been found to be sustained as individuals explicitly express themselves in ways that make their views and goals readily understood. This way of organizing relationships differs from the structuring of relationships in varied non-Western cultures. For example, in some Asian and Latino cultures, relationships are likely to be organized hierarchically, and family relationships heavily prioritized over friendships and other close relationships with non-family persons. In addition, people are expected to fulfill implicit social obligations toward one another through unspoken emotional intimacy, based on long-term relationships, rather than through explicit communication. Anthropological studies have documented that relationships outside of well-defined kinship systems and other institutions differ with respect to cultural groups, and differ in the extent to which such relationships are seen as mainly expressive and emotional versus instrumental (Krappmann, 1998). Even though studies have found that cultures vary in the extent to which they socialize children to independence versus interdependence, cultures also are multifaceted and simultaneously constituted by varied, even contradictory, ideas about relationships. A growing corpus of research has emphasized the need to understand and describe the complexities that exist within cultural systems (Edwards, Gandini, & Giovaninni, 1996; Orr, Assor, & Cairns, 1996; Raeff, 2000, Tudge et al., 1999). Though parental beliefs have been reported to differ by child gender, with higher parental expectations for girls on conformity and for boys on independence in some studies (Antill, 1987; Schneider, Attili, Vermigli, & Younger, 1997), most studies have not found gender-related differences in beliefs (see, for example, Harkness & Super, 1996). Conversely, in several studies parental education has been identified as corresponding strongly with intracultural variation in beliefs and values about children’s learning and development (Cashmore & Goodnow, 1987; Hoff-Ginsberg & Tardif, 1995; LeVine, Miller, Richman, & LeVine, 1996; Tudge, Hogan, Snezhkova, Kulakova, & Etz, 2000; Willemsen & Van de Vijver, 1997), though we are not aware of any study that has researched relations between parental education and parental beliefs about children’s close relationships outside the family. Also, sociologists and educators have found that residential patterns and stability/mobility relate to adult values and child school achievement. For example, a large literature documents the negative correlation between high student mobility/ transience on school achievement, particularly for low-income, less educated families (e.g., Temple & Reynolds, 1999; Tucker, Marx, & Long, 1998). Thus, we predicted that parental education and residential stability would affect parental beliefs and values related to children’s enduring social relationships. Differences in the cultural shaping of human relationships have been captured in former research as varying along dimensions of independence versus interdependence (Greenfield, 1994) or individualism versus collectivism (for review, see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). In their recent meta-analysis of research on individualism and collectivism outside and inside the United States, Oyserman et al. suggested that individualism is commonly associated with valuing personal independence, with facilitating interactions with strangers, and with fostering “a willingness to leave relationships that are not beneficial to the person” (p. 36). Conversely, collectivism implicates obligation and duty to an in-group and “willingness to remain permanently in relationships, even in personally costly ones” (p. 36). They concluded that even YOU N G C H ILD REN’S C LO SE RE LAT IO N SH IP S O U TS IDE THE FAM ILY 4 though the diverse research literature related to this topic does not lend itself to simple summary, individualism seems to promote ease of interacting with strangers while collectivity promotes ingroup preferences in relationships. Americans were found to interact with more people and to do this more easily than did the groups they were compared to, but also to feel obliged to groups, the difference being that these obligations were perceived as voluntary. Parents from four communities participated in this study. Two of these, Oslo (national capital of Norway) and Lincoln (state capital of Nebraska), are typical cities from Western Europe and the United States. The other two communities in our study were Ankara (national capital of Turkey) and Seoul (national capital of South Korea). They provide useful contrasts to the American and Norwegian samples because they diverge from them in different directions. In former research the four countries have been found to differ in degree and type of individualism and collectivism. Oyserman et al. (2002, p. 23) plotted overall individualism and collectivism effect sizes against each other in a graphic representation, in which Americans and Norwegians appeared fairly similar to each other in individualism and collectivism, Koreans appeared less individualistic than Americans and Norwegians (but similar in collectivism), and Turks more collectivistic than Americans and Norwegians (but not less individualistic). Koreans and Turks differed along both dimensions, with Koreans being less individualistic, but also less collectivistic, than Turks. Clearly, such between-country comparisons depend upon how individualism and collectivism are measured. Studies comparing, for example, Korea to United States have concluded that Koreans appear more collectivistic than Americans when the scales focused on social relationships, but less collectivistic when such items were not included. Americans, in general, appear to be low in collectivism based on group harmony and duty to ingroups, but not on aspects of seeking advice and in-group belonging; these latter may be American ways to connect and relate, compatible with individualism (p. 27). Thus, individualism and collectivism (like independence and interdependence) are probably not opposite ends of a single continuum; each is multifaceted. Macro-cultural dimensions such as cultural complexity (Miller, 2002) or level and type of competitiveness in society (Fiske, 2002) may predict certain aspects of individualism and collectivism and not others. For example, the particular type of Scandinavian individualism is associated with low levels of societal competitiveness (Eriksen, 1993) as compared to the competitive individualism of the United States (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Lightfoot & Valsiner, 1992; Oyserman et al., 2002; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). Also, cultures consist of practices and institutions in addition to the worldviews implied in the constructs of individualism and collectivism. Turning from societal values to the principles underlying the social organization of educational institutions (preschools and schools) in our four communities, we find that they fall into two distinct categories. In the United States and South Korea, on the one hand, the preschool and elementary school systems are organized so that children are assigned to new teachers and groups of classmates each year. This system of organization may prepare individuals to get along and succeed in societies oriented to high mobility and rapid adjustment of newcomers. In Norway and Turkey, on the other hand, the preschool and primary school systems require children to stay with the same teachers and classmates for several years, thereby optimizing children’s opportunities for developing multi-year extended relationships with peers and teachers. We assume that such macro features of educational organization (products of history and sociological forces) influence parents’ ideas about how children should learn to deal with people outside the extended family. The Norwegian and Turkish systems, we predict, incline parents to focus on V.G. AU KRU S T, C.P . E D WARDS, A. KUM RU, L. KNOCHE, & M. K IM 5 child experiences that help them learn to form and maintain close ties with a few particular people, to develop a continuing relationship history. The American and South Korean systems, we predict, incline parents to focus on child experiences that foster connecting with a diverse succession of new people. Early childhood programs were common and important in all four communities, but the local history and societal functions of preschool/childcare varied considerably, as did also their curriculum, the number of children in classroom groups, and the teacher–child ratio. In Norway, United States, and South Korea, early childhood programs incorporate 50% or more of all preschool-aged children, but in Turkey, less than 10% of 3to 5-year-old children, most of them living in larger cities, attend preschool (Bo, 1993; Jalongo & Hoot, 1997; Kapci & Guler, 1999; Olmstead, 1989; Ostlyngen, 1983; Shim & Herwig, 1997; Spedding, 1993). Similarly, while preschools in the first three communities rely on long national traditions of educating young children, early childhood programs in Turkey are a relatively new option for working parents, commonly serving children from middle and/or high socioeconomic status (Kapci & Guler, 1999). Recently, a national preschool curriculum has been developed. In Oslo, Norway, parents can place young children in barnehager (preschools), usually offering full-time care and serving most of the children living in the immediate neighborhood. Child group size is typically 9 for children less than 3 years of age and 18 for children above 3, with two or three teachers in each group. The preschools are regulated by national guidelines including a national curriculum, and are supported by a mix of national/local funding based on student enrolment and by parental payment. In Lincoln, Nebraska, parents can place children in childcare centers (offering full-time care) and preschools (offering fulland part-time care). Class sizes are usually less than 15, with two teachers per classroom. Each centre or preschool has its own curriculum and is supported by parental tuition (with government subsidies for some qualifying children). The children do not necessarily live in the same neighborhood but are delivered by parents. In Ankara, Turkey, parents can place young children in kres (private preschools, offering full-time care) and ana okulu (state-supported preschools, offering full-or half-day care). Each classroom group consists of 10–25 children. All the preschools are regulated by national guidelines, but the public preschools are generally more desirable because they are less expensive and of higher quality. In Seoul, Korea, parents can place children in youchiwon (educational part-day preschools, rarely used by working mothers) and ulinijip (full-day childcare centers often used by working mothers). The privately financed preschool and childcare centers usually include 40 children per classroom, while public childcare centers, financed by government money and parental payment, have smaller group sizes of 20 children. All classrooms have one teacher, and children come from the surrounding neighborhood as well as further away. The curriculum in the Korean programs is guided by national standards, the preschools being controlled by the Minister of Education and the childcare centers by the Minister of Health and Social Affairs (Shim & Herwig, 1997). YOU N G C H ILD REN’S C LO SE RE LAT IO N SH IP S O U TS IDE THE FAM ILY 6 Research questions and hypothesis This exploratory cross-cultural study used a newly developed questionnaire to assess parental ideas (beliefs, values, and judgments) about young children’s needs for friendships and attachments outside the home, their social and communication skills, beneficial preschool and school arrangements, and dimensions of quality preschool. Because we were interested in how parents conceptualized relationships outside the family, we focused only on families who had chosen to place their child in preschool or childcare. In this way, we selected samples of parents who had directly observed the concomitants and effects of such out-of-home experiences through their own children. We hypothesized that parents would differ by cultural community in their ideas about young children’s extended relationships outside the home. However, we also realized that parents are not passive recipients of cultural ideas and that most cultures include several cultural messages that parents may attend to selectively. Thus, we also hypothesized that parental education and residential stability would affect parental ideas about children’s extended relationships in school. This study addresses the following specific questions: How do cultural community, parental education, and residential stability (high/low) influence parental ideas regarding: 1. descriptions of their own child’s past and present close relationships outside the family; 2. beliefs about young children’s needs in general for such friendships and attachments, and what social/communication skills they need; 3. judgments related to the importance of relationship continuity within and across educational systems (the advantages and disadvantages of changing a hypothetical child’s preschool and changing teachers and classmates each year of primary school); 4. values about what dimensions of quality are most important for a preschool/childcare program.