| Literature DB >> 23986740 |
Jeanette Ziehm1, Gisela Trommsdorff, Tobias Heikamp, Seong-Yeon Park.
Abstract
This study contributes to a differentiated understanding of maternal sensitivity in cultural and situational context. We investigated differences and similarities in German and Korean mothers' maternal sensitivity. We interviewed 92 German and 100 Korean mothers of first graders about their preference for proactive (anticipating children's needs) or reactive sensitivity (responding to children's direct cues) in different scenarios. Related parenting beliefs were assessed by asking the mothers to explain the reasons why they would prefer specific parenting behaviors. Results revealed significant cultural differences in reactive vs. proactive sensitivity preferences. Overall, German mothers were more likely to indicate that a mother should respond reactively and less likely to report that a mother should act proactively than were Korean mothers. Korean mothers gave preference to both reactive and proactive sensitivity depending on the scenario. With regard to parenting beliefs, analyses revealed that German and Korean mothers who preferred reactive sensitivity mainly explained their choices as attempts to encourage children's development of independence. In contrast, Korean and German mothers with a preference for proactive sensitivity were more likely to report that mothers would assist their children due to their immaturity in dealing with emotional distress. Results are discussed in the framework of the different meanings and functions of maternal sensitivity for socialization in different cultural contexts.Entities:
Keywords: Germany; South Korea; culture; parenting; sensitivity; socialization
Year: 2013 PMID: 23986740 PMCID: PMC3753558 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00561
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Relative frequencies of mothers' responses to forced-choice questions of the Caregiver Sensitivity Interview (.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting sensitivity in Scenario One.
| Culture | −1.05 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 7.43 |
| Mothers' age | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.99 | 0.09 |
| Number of children | −0.05 | 0.18 | 0.95 | 0.08 |
| Working status | 0.58 | 0.33 | 1.78 | 3.03 |
p < 0.10,
p < 0.01. Proactive sensitivity (always observe a child carefully) = 0; reactive sensitivity (wait until the child requests help) = 1, reference group = Germany.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting sensitivity in Scenario Two.
| Culture | −2.33 | 0.79 | 0.10 | 8.60 |
| Mothers' age | 0.13 | 0.07 | 1.14 | 3.82 |
| Number of children | 0.71 | 0.42 | 2.03 | 2.85 |
| Working status | −0.56 | 0.46 | 0.54 | 1.43 |
p < 0.10,
p < 0.01. Proactive sensitivity (come and comfort) = 0; reactive sensitivity (wait until the child starts crying) = 1, reference group = Germany.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting sensitivity in Scenario Three.
| Culture | −0.08 | 0.37 | 0.93 | 0.04 |
| Mothers' age | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.49 |
| Number of children | −0.09 | 0.18 | 0.91 | 0.25 |
| Working status | −0.36 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 1.22 |
Proactive sensitivity (sit close and talk) = 0; reactive sensitivity (let the child know he/she can approach) = 1, reference group = Germany.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting sensitivity in Scenario Four.
| Culture | −18.11 | 4134.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mothers' age | 0.02 | 0.13 | 1.02 | 0.02 |
| Number of children | −0.19 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.05 |
| Working status | −0.92 | 1.12 | 0.40 | 0.68 |
Proactive sensitivity (child should wait for mother) = 0; reactive sensitivity (child should ask for help) = 1, reference group = Germany.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting sensitivity in Scenario Five.
| Culture | −2.21 | 0.50 | 0.11 | 19.29 |
| Mothers' age | −0.05 | 0.05 | 0.95 | 1.13 |
| Number of children | −0.11 | 0.23 | 0.90 | 0.22 |
| Working status | −0.01 | 0.37 | 0.99 | 0.00 |
p < 0.001. Proactive sensitivity (anticipate child's needs) = 0; reactive sensitivity (attend to child's explicit requests) = 1, reference group = Germany.
Figure 2Relative frequencies of five most frequent parenting beliefs related to reactive sensitivity (.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting parenting beliefs related to reactive sensitivity.
| Culture | −1.04 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 7.33 |
| Mothers' age | −0.03 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.75 |
| Number of children | −0.04 | 0.18 | 0.96 | 0.06 |
| Working status | 0.28 | 0.33 | 1.33 | 0.74 |
| Culture | −0.33 | 0.44 | 0.72 | 0.56 |
| Mothers' age | 0.06 | 0.04 | 1.06 | 1.57 |
| Number of children | 0.12 | 0.19 | 1.12 | 0.36 |
| Working status | −0.34 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 0.79 |
| Culture | 0.15 | 0.38 | 1.16 | 0.15 |
| Mothers' age | 0.07 | 0.04 | 1.07 | 3.13 |
| Number of children | −0.14 | 0.18 | 0.87 | 0.55 |
| Working status | −0.15 | 0.33 | 0.86 | 0.21 |
| Culture | 0.69 | 0.41 | 1.99 | 2.76 |
| Mothers' age | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.99 | 0.08 |
| Number of children | 0.11 | 0.20 | 1.12 | 0.32 |
| Working status | −0.34 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.95 |
| Culture | −1.09 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 8.01 |
| Mothers' age | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.04 | 0.94 |
| Number of children | 0.18 | 0.19 | 1.19 | 0.88 |
| Working status | −0.06 | 0.34 | 0.94 | 0.03 |
p < 0.10,
p < 0.01. Category did not occur = 0, category occurred = 1, reference group = Germany.
Figure 3Relative frequencies of five most frequent parenting beliefs related to proactive sensitivity (.
Summary of binary logistic regression predicting parenting beliefs related to proactive sensitivity.
| Culture | 0.38 | 0.52 | 1.46 | 0.53 |
| Mothers' age | −0.08 | 0.06 | 0.93 | 1.96 |
| Number of children | −0.64 | 0.34 | 0.53 | 3.63 |
| Working status | −0.36 | 0.45 | 0.70 | 0.64 |
| Culture | 1.07 | 0.55 | 2.92 | 3.74 |
| Mothers' age | 0.01 | 0.06 | 1.01 | 0.05 |
| Number of children | 0.32 | 0.24 | 1.38 | 1.74 |
| Working status | −0.01 | 0.44 | 0.99 | 0.00 |
| Culture | −1.02 | 0.49 | 0.36 | 4.34 |
| Mothers' age | 0.01 | 0.05 | 1.01 | 0.04 |
| Number of children | 0.08 | 0.21 | 1.09 | 0.16 |
| Working status | 0.36 | 0.41 | 1.43 | 0.76 |
| Culture | 1.57 | 0.58 | 4.80 | 7.22 |
| Mothers' age | −0.02 | 0.06 | 0.98 | 0.16 |
| Number of children | 0.43 | 0.25 | 1.53 | 2.88 |
| Working status | −0.30 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.47 |
| Culture | −1.63 | 0.59 | 0.20 | 7.61 |
| Mothers' age | −0.01 | 0.05 | 0.88 | 0.02 |
| Number of children | −0.22 | 0.26 | 0.80 | 0.77 |
| Working status | 0.10 | 0.48 | 1.11 | 0.05 |
p < 0.10.
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01. Category did not occur = 0, category occurred = 1, reference group = Germany.