A comparison of the child-rearing environment of upper-lower and very low-lower class families.

Abstract

Normal personality development, even without intellectual stimulation, per mits children from stable upper-lower class homes to adjust and learn in first grade. In contrast, retardation and deviation in personality development studied in children of disorganized "multi-problem" families, interfere seri ously with learning. Enrichment programs are alerted to broad range of pre paredness in lower-class children.

On the inter-relationship of cognition and affect: Fantasies of deaf children

“…Thus the deaf children studied seem to show a vulnerability of cognitive style to affective dysfunction similar to that of the socially disadvantaged child. Studies indicate that the conditions of life to which socially disadvantaged children are exposed, both pre-and post-natally can have significant and unfavorable influences on all phases of their development and functioning [17,18]. The presence of early profound deafness would appear, in the children studied, to be equivalent in the results imposed.…”

Early development of Negro and White babies

“…For example, a more permissive attitude towards child rearing has been suggested (Knobloch and Pasamanick, 1958;Williams and Scott, 1953); and Ainsworth (1967), commenting upon the findings of Geber and Dean (1964), suggested close physical contact between mother and child; lower socioeconomic class has been indicated (Williams and Scott, 1953;Pavenstedt 1965). We think that the evidence is against these explanations.…”

Language Development in Socially Disadvantaged Children

“…While it might appear likely that the lower class child begins to grasp meanings in advance of any opportunity he has for verbalizing them, even here a lack of differ-REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH entiation among mental abilities based on lower verbal meaning and lower fluency scores was found to be characteristic of low status children compared with high status children studied by Mitchell (1956). Pavenstedt (1965) described children from low class families as frequently not attending to instructions and needing to rely on concrete demonstrations to translate instructions into action, a conclusion which could, however, reflect short attention span rather than comprehension difficulties. The language models to which impoverished children are exposed are often not only meager, restricted, and incorrect grammatically but also punitive, according to Gray and Klaus (1963) and Bernstein (1961), limiting divergence and elaboration in children's thinking, and thereby inhibiting the development of their ability to comprehend.…”

“…She stated that according to her extensive data children of the lower socioeconomic group take about a year longer to reach essentially mature articulation than do those of the upper group. Pavenstedt (1965) said children from very low class families form their words so poorly as to make it almost impossible to understand them at three and four years of age.…”