To determine extent of vulnerability to nudity and primal scenes, parents were asked two
questions in a face-to-face interview at kid’s age 3: “Does mother (father) go nude in
front of child?” and “Does mother (father) bathe or shower with the child?” The questions
(never) and 5 (daily). At kid’s age 6, parents were asked whether they (i) discouraged
Supported nudity within the family and with others.
Vulnerability to primal scenes was quantified by two items. At child’s age 3, parents were
asked whether their child had ever seen them “have sex.” They were offered a 4-point
Likert response format anchored by 1 (never) and 4 (often). At youngster’s age 6, parents
were again asked if their kid had found them having intercourse, and again offered a
As a result of shifts in the identity of
frequency of dads working outside of the dwelling and being unavailable for interview,
missing data for dads approach unacceptable amounts. Therefore, only mothers’ data were
used for these analyses. Yet, whenever data for fathers existed, correlation with
Mums’ data was generally high (e.g., n = 69, r = .80).
Scores for individual variants were standardized [Mathematical Expression Omitted]
Management variables contained participant kid’s sex, family SES, and family climate
(Distressed/nontroubled status, pronaturalism, sexual liberalism/conservatism). Families
participating in the FLS endeavor differed as to domestic organizations, equilibrium, worth and
beliefs, and degrees of devotion to those values and beliefs. On the foundation of intensive
Case by case evaluation of family life style, a typology of family types was developed
This evaluation assigned 83% of families to the
same type identified qualitatively (Weisner and Wilson Mitchell, 1990).
Kinds was termed “changeable/distressed” in the first FLS reports, and only
“Distressed” in the present study to be used as a management variable. Thirtyone families (16.4%)
were assigned to this group qualitatively. This kind was defined by unstable
family composition (defined as regular changes of moms’ male partners and/or
frequent residential changes); low commitment to whatever were the stated family values;
and commonly disturbed parent relations or alcohol/substance abuse and other pathologies.
At the time of enrollment, parents were evaluated as to common family values. Lots of
items were initially generated regarding child-rearing, the environment, and human
relationships. The construct addressed by these pieces was termed “pronaturalism” by FLS
Varimax rotation was used to derive three factors
with high loads and good commonalities (Weisner, 1986). These factors described
belief in the use of natural materials, medications, and food; a de-emphasis on materialism
and properties; a “warm and emotionally expressive” style highlighting truthfulness,
intimacy, emotionality, and physical heat and closeness; belief in “natural”
Kid-rearing practices for example breastfeeding and close parent-baby contact; a free,
Laid back family fashion highlighting low conflict, little punishment and aggression,
Adjusting parenting style to the disposition of the kid, and belief in the
wholesomeness of sensed fashions of pre-industrial individuals who are supposed to be more
“naturally human.” (For http://crazypublic.com of the fallacy of the “naturally human”
Supposition, see Buss, 1994, p. 17.) The construct “pronaturalism” was measured at
child’s age 3, 6, and 17-18 years and then averaged.
“Sexual liberalism/conservatism” was measured through aggregate evaluation by FLS staff
interviewer of mommy’s responses to a series of items related to attitudes toward sexuality.
This measure was administered at http://termx.net . “Conservative” approaches included low
Toleration for childhood masturbation and sex play, restrictive approaches toward nudity in
the home (independent of actual presence of nudity in the dwelling), exceptionally negative
attitudes about children seeing parental sexual intercourse (independent of children actually
Seeing sexual intercourse), an unwillingness to acquaint kids with the “facts of life,” and
“Conventional” beliefs about the view of gender equality. “Liberal” approaches comprised
Toleration for masturbation, sex play, and family nudity; more permissive attitudes about
Kids seeing sexual intercourse; a readiness to impart sex education; and “progressive”
attitudes about gender equality.