College Students' Attitudes Toward Children's Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights1

26
730 Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 2003, 33, 4, pp. 730-755. Copyright 2003 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved. College Students’ Attitudes Toward Children’s Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights 1 MICHELE PETERSON-BADALI 2 MARTIN D. RUCK Department of Human Development The Graduate Center and Applied Psychology City University of New York University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada ELIZABETH RIDLEY University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada Increasing attention is being paid to children’s rights issues in policy and law. However, there is little recent research examining adults’ attitudes toward children’s rights. This is an important question given that children’s rights are unlikely to be fulfilled if they are not supported by the adults involved in their lives. Attitudes toward nurturance and self-deter- mination rights were examined in 461 undergraduate students from the United States and Canada. Students were asked to think of a “target child” (8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 years) when answering the questions. Students strongly endorsed nurturance rights, but were generally unsupportive of children’s rights to self-determination. Canadians showed greater support for self-determination than did Americans. In both groups, endorsement increased signifi- cantly with the age of the target child. Commenting on factors they considered when responding to the items, participants perceived children’s rights as dependent on personal, interpersonal, and societal factors. Children’s rights have been an important social policy issue in Europe and North America over the last century. As the concept of childhood has evolved, so too has Western society’s concern with the rights of children, as well as the obli- gations of those responsible for children’s care, development, and well-being to ensure that those rights are upheld. The 19th century saw the emergence of a 1 This research was supported by Grant #410-98-1514 to the first and second authors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors thank Florence Broder, Jennifer Crosbie, Mitchelle Johnson, Rommel Robertson, and Janis Wolfe for their assistance with data collection and analysis; Charles Helwig for his helpful comments regarding the manuscript; and the students who participated in the study. 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Peterson-Badali, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies in Educa- tion of the University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Transcript of College Students' Attitudes Toward Children's Nurturance and Self-Determination Rights1

730

Journal� of� Applied� Social� Psychology,� 2003,� 33,� 4,� pp.� 730-755.Copyright� � 2003� by� V.� H.� Winston� &� Son,� Inc.� All� rights� reserved.

College� Students’� Attitudes� Toward� Children’s�Nurturance� and� Self-Determination� Rights1

MICHELE� PETERSON-BADALI2 MARTIN� D.� RUCKDepartment� of� Human� Development The� Graduate� Center

and� Applied� Psychology City� University� of� New� YorkUniversity� of� Toronto

Toronto,� Ontario,� Canada

ELIZABETH� RIDLEYUniversity� of� Toronto

Toronto,� Ontario,� Canada

Increasing� attention� is� being� paid� to� children’s� rights� issues� in� policy� and� law.� However,there� is� little� recent� research� examining� adults’� attitudes� toward� children’s� rights.� This� isan� important� question� given� that� children’s� rights� are� unlikely� to� be� fulfilled� if� they� are� notsupported� by� the� adults� involved� in� their� lives.� Attitudes� toward� nurturance� and� self-deter-mination� rights� were� examined� in� 461� undergraduate� students� from� the� United� States� andCanada.� Students� were� asked� to� think� of� a� “target� child”� (8,� 10,� 12,� 14,� or� 16� years)� whenanswering� the� questions.� Students� strongly� endorsed� nurturance� rights,� but� were� generallyunsupportive� of� children’s� rights� to� self-determination.� Canadians� showed� greater� supportfor� self-determination� than� did� Americans.� In� both� groups,� endorsement� increased� signifi-cantly� with� the� age� of� the� target� child.� Commenting� on� factors� they� considered� whenresponding� to� the� items,� participants� perceived� children’s� rights� as� dependent� on� personal,interpersonal,� and� societal� factors.

Children’s� rights� have� been� an� important� social� policy� issue� in� Europe� andNorth� America� over� the� last� century.� As� the� concept� of� childhood� has� evolved,� sotoo� has� Western� society’s� concern� with� the� rights� of� children,� as� well� as� the� obli-gations� of� those� responsible� for� children’s� care,� development,� and� well-being� toensure� that� those� rights� are� upheld.� The� 19th� century� saw� the� emergence� of� a

1This� research� was� supported� by� Grant� #410-98-1514� to� the� first� and� second� authors� from� theSocial� Sciences� and� Humanities� Research� Council� of� Canada.� The� authors� thank� Florence� Broder,Jennifer� Crosbie,� Mitchelle� Johnson,� Rommel� Robertson,� and� Janis� Wolfe� for� their� assistance� withdata� collection� and� analysis;� Charles� Helwig� for� his� helpful� comments� regarding� the� manuscript;� andthe� students� who� participated� in� the� study.

2Correspondence� concerning� this� article� should� be� addressed� to� Michele� Peterson-Badali,Department� of� Human� Development� and� Applied� Psychology,� Ontario� Institute� for� Studies� in� Educa-tion� of� the� University� of� Toronto,� 252� Bloor� Street� West,� Toronto,� Ontario� M5S� 1V6,� Canada.� E-mail:[email protected]

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 731

collective� concern� for� nurturance� rights—children’s� rights� to� basic� care� and� toprotection� from� harm� and� exploitation—that� contributed� to� legislative� change,such� as� the� establishment� of� universal� free� education� and� limitations� on� childlabor.

In� the� last� half� of� the� 20th� century,� the� focus� shifted� to� rights� of� self-determi-nation,� based� on� the� assertion� that� children� are� not� property� of� their� parents� or� thestate,� but� are� legal� persons� who� are� entitled� to� many� of� the� same� rights� as� adults.It� resulted� in� a� number� of� landmark� court� decisions� that� acknowledged� children’sconstitutional� rights,� as� well� as� changes� to� statutes� that� gave� children� increasedparticipation� in� decisions� affecting� their� lives.� Extreme� views� advocating� chil-dren’s� rights� to� self-determination� equal� to� that� of� adults� emerged� in� the� writingof� several� scholars� (e.g.,� Farson,� 1974;� Holt, � 1974)� in� the� 1970s.� However,� a“kiddie� liberation”� movement� failed� to� take� hold� in� North� America,� and� mostrecently� there� has� been� an� emphasis� on� balancing� the� entitlements� stemmingfrom� children’s� need� for� nurturance� and� children’s� right� to� self-determination.The� United� Nations� (UN)� Convention� on� the� Rights� of� the� Child� (1989)� reflectsthis� balance,� both� in� its� content� and� in� two� fundamental� tenets� that� underpin� it:the� best� interests� of� the� child,� and� the� evolving� capacities� of� the� child.

The� UN� Convention� has� been� ratified� in� Canada,� but� not� in� the� United� States(indeed,� the� United� States� is� one� of� only� two� signatories� to� the� Convention� thathas� not� done� so). � However,� children’s� rights� issues� have� formed� the� basis� formuch� lively� social� and� political� debate� in� North� America,� both� with� respect� tochildren’s� entitlements� to� nurturance� (e.g.,� in� the� areas� of� health� care,� education,child� protection,� and� youth� justice)� and� their� rights� to� self-determination� or� par-ticipation� (e.g.,� the� debate� regarding� minors’� right� to� independently� consent� toabortion� and� access� to� civil� liberties� such� as� freedom� of� speech� and� religion).

As� in� the� aforementioned� discussion,� rights� are� often� defined� in� terms� of� thelaws� and� regulations� within� a� particular� jurisdiction.� However,� as� Flekkoy� andKaufman� (1997)� pointed� out, � “Human� rights� encompass� more� than� the� legalrights� adopted� in� each� country.� In� addition� to� legal� rights,� human� rights� can� bebased� on� moral,� ethical,� and� ‘natural’� reasoning”� (p.� 8).� Thus,� although� the� rightsmight� not� be� fulfilled� in� a� particular� place� or� time,� they� still� “belong”� to� individu-als� as� a� result� of� their� inherent� worth� as� human� beings.� However,� they� serve� theirintended� function—to� protect� individuals� from� harm� and� to� promote� their� well-being—only� to� the� extent� that� they� are� recognized� as� rights� by� those� who� exer-cise� or� fulfill� them.� Assessing� people’s� conceptions� and� beliefs� about� children’srights� is� important,� therefore,� in� order� to� ascertain� which� rights� are� likely� to� besupported� or� implemented.� In� this� regard,� an� examination� of� the� views� of� childrenand� of� adults,� who� are� more� often� in� a� position� of� power� than� children� to� ensurethat� children’s� rights� are� realized,� is� necessary.

Research� examining� adults’� attitudes� toward� children’s� rights� has� comparedattitudes� toward� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights� and� has� examined

732 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

demographic� factors� accounting� for� variation� in� support� of� children’s� rights.Studies� comparing� adults’� support� for� nurturance� and� self-determination� rightsare� few,� but� the� results� are� consistent.� Rogers� and� Wrightsman� (1978)� adminis-tered� a� broad-based� attitude� scale� to� undergraduates,� high� school� students,� andadults� in� continuing� education� courses.� Using� a� 6-point� scale,� participants� indi-cated� extent� of� agreement� or� disagreement� with� 300� items� (e.g.,� “Children� shouldhave� the� right� to� wear� whatever� clothing� they� want,� regardless� of� the� weather”).Across� groups,� nurturance� was� supported� to� a� significantly� greater� extent� thanwas� self-determination.� Ruck,� Peterson-Badali,� and� Day� (2002)� reported� similarfindings� in� a � study� in� which� parents� of� 11-, � 13-, � and� 15-year-old� childrenresponded� to� several� hypothetical� stories� involving� nurturance� and� self-determi-nation� rights� (e.g.,� protection� from� excessive� household� responsibility,� keeping� aprivate� diary). � Parents� of� the� younger� groups� endorsed� nurturance� rights� to� agreater� extent� than� self-determination� rights,� though� both� types� of� rights� receivedhigh� levels� of� endorsement� for� the� oldest� group.

Studies� addressing� the� impact� of� the� age� of� the� child� in� question� on� adults’support� for� children’s� rights� suggest� that� the� effect� of� age� depends� on� the� typeof right� in� question.� With� respect� to� self-determination,� there� is� consistent� evi-dence� that� support� for� rights� increases� with� the� age� of� the� child.� For� example,Bohrnstedt,� Freeman,� and� Smith� (1981)� presented� 1,002� adult� Los� Angeles� resi-dents� with� a� series� of� brief� vignettes� depicting� parent–child� conflicts� around� 10-to� 17-year-old� children’s� self-determination� rights.� Respondents� were� morelikely� to� support� self-determination� for� older� children� than� for� younger� ones.Similarly,� Morton� and� Dubanoski� (1980)� found� that� self-determination� rightswere� more� likely� to� be� endorsed� for� older� children� than� for� younger� children,� andRuck� et� al.� (2002)� reported� that� mothers� of� 15-year-old� children� were� more� likelythan� were� mothers� of� 11-� or� 13-year-old� children� to� support� an� age-matchedhypothetical� child’s� right� to� self-determination.� Finally,� Helwig� (1997)� found� thatcollege� students� were� less� likely� to� support� an� 8-year-old’s� rights� to� freedom� ofspeech� and� religion� than� those� of� an� adult.

The� impact� of� age� on� support� for� nurturance� rights� is� somewhat� different.While� adults� in� the� Morton� and� Dubanoski� (1980)� study� showed� strong� endorse-ment� of� nurturance� rights,� regardless� of� the� child’s� age,� Ruck� et � al. � (2002)reported� that� mothers� of� 15-year-old� children� were� less� supportive� of� nurturancerights� than� were� mothers� of� 11-� or� 13-year-old� children.� However,� it� should� benoted� that� support� for� nurturance� rights� was� still� quite� strong,� even� for� the� oldestgroup.� Thus,� whether� support� for� children’s� rights� to� nurturance� wanes� as� theyapproach� young� adulthood� or� remains� high� regardless� of� age� is� unclear.

Respondent� characteristics� also� have� been� examined� in� relation� to� support� forchildren’s� rights.� Participant� age� has� been� found� to� be� negatively� related� to� sup-port� for� self-determination� rights� (Bohrnstedt� et� al.,� 1981;� Rogers� &� Wrightsman,1978).� There� is� mixed� evidence� with� respect� to� the� presence� of� gender� differences

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 733

in� children’s� rights� attitudes.� Rogers� and� Wrightsman� reported� that� while� womenwere� more� supportive� of� children’s� nurturance� rights� than� were� men,� there� wereno� differences� in� support� of� self-determination� rights.� Ruck� et� al.� (2002)� reportedsimilar� results� in� a� sample� of� parents,� but� only� with� respect� to� their� youngest� (6thgrade)� group.� No� gender� differences� emerged� for� parents� of� older� (8th� and� 10thgrade)� children.

The� impact� of� education� on� attitudes� toward� children’s� rights� has� received� lit-tle� study.� While� Bohrnstedt� et� al.� (1981)� reported� that� education� was� associatedpositively� with� support� for� children’s� self-determination� rights� in� their� sample� ofadults,� Zimmerman,� Temple,� Peterson-Badali,� Ruck,� and� Day� (1999)� found� norelationship� between� mothers’� education� and� support� for� nurturance� rights� in� 6th,8th,� and� 10th� graders,� though� maternal� education� was� related� positively� to� sup-port� for� self-determination� in� one� of� four� hypothetical� vignettes� (freedom� to� pub-lish� a� critical� editorial� in� a� school� newspaper).

Finally,� variables� that� can� be� described� broadly� as� cultural� have� been� exam-ined� in� relation� to� children’s� rights� attitudes.� Bohrnstedt� et� al.� (1981)� examinedrace/ethnicity� and� religious� affiliation� in� relation� to� support� for� children’s� self-determination� rights.� African� American� and� Hispanic� respondents� were� signifi-cantly� less� supportive� of� children’s� rights� to� self-determination� than� were� Whiteand� Asian� American� participants;� and� respondents� who� identified� themselves� asCatholic� or� Protestant� were� less� supportive� than� were� Jewish� participants� or� thosewho� professed� no� religious� affiliation.� The� authors� speculated� that� these� effects(as� well� as� the� age� differences� reported� earlier),� reflect� a� broader� attitudinal� con-struct� of� liberalism–conservatism,� with� African� American� and� Hispanic� partici-pants� (who� were� more� likely� to� espouse� a� Christian� religious� identification)� aswell� as� older� respondents� holding� more� traditional� conservative� views� withrespect� to� children’s� autonomy� rights.

Morton,� Dubanoski,� and� Blaine� (1982)� also� found� support� for� the� existence� ofcultural� differences� in� perceptions� of� children’s� rights� in� a� study� in� which� the� atti-tudes� of� European� Americans,� Japanese� Americans,� and� Pacific� Islanders� to� chil-dren’s� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights� were� compared.� Significantgroup� differences� were� found� on� 12� of� 14� statements� and� were� interpreted� as� con-sistent� with� the� social� organization� and� values� of� the� cultural� groups� (e.g.,� PacificIslanders’� greater� reliance� on� the� family� compared� to� larger� societal� institutionsfor� the� socialization� of� children).� Overall,� the� two� American� groups� had� more� incommon� than� either� had� with� the� Pacific� Islander� group,� which� was� seen� as� lessconcerned� with� children’s� rights� than� children’s� needs.� Though� the� authors� cau-tioned� regarding� the� generalizability� of� their� findings,� they� concluded� that� theirresults� “support� the� assertion� that� cultures� do� vary� on� attitudes� and� values� perti-nent� to� children’s� rights”� (p.� 157).

Another� variable� that� is� captured� under� the� rubric� of� culture� but� that� has� notreceived� empirical� attention� in� previous� studies� of� adults’� attitudes� toward

734 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

children’s� rights� is� nationality.� There� is� some� evidence� that� children’s� endorse-ment� of� children’s� rights� varies� with� nationality.� For� example,� Melton� and� Lim-ber� (1992)� found� that� Norwegian� children� showed� particular� concerns� aboutnurturance� rights,� while� less� than� 10%� of� American� children� mentioned� suchrights� in� response� to� an� open-ended� question� about� what� rights� children� shouldhave� or� do� have.� In� contrast,� American� children� focused� on� self-determination:“the� ability� to� make� choices,� ‘do� things,’� or� express� oneself”� (p.� 178).� However,in� a� study� of� American,� Canadian,� and� Swiss� children’s� endorsement� of� chil-dren’s� rights� in� the� context� of� hypothetical� vignettes,� Cherney� and� Perry� (1996)found� no� group� differences� on� 8� of� 12� scenarios� presented.

In� sum,� the� available� research� indicates� that� there� is� significant� variability� insupport� for� children’s� rights� depending� on� the� age� of� the� child,� the� type� of� right� inquestion� (i.e.,� nurturance� or� self-determination),� and� respondents’� demographiccharacteristics.� However,� many� of� the� studies� in� this� small� literature� are� now� over20� years� old,� predate� the� signing� of� the� UN� Convention� on� the� Rights� of� the� Child,and� might� not� reflect� the� current� social� climate.� In� North� America,� the� last� decadesof� the� 20th� century� saw� significant� changes� to� social� institutions� concerned� withyouth.� While� some� policy� changes� extended� nurturance� protection� for� young� peo-ple,� others� represent� a� retreat� from� the� position� that� youth� require� special� protec-tions.� For� example,� there� has� been� significant� legislative� and� policy� reformdesigned� to� guarantee� all� children� the� right� to� receive� appropriate� educational� ser-vices,� regardless� of� their� exceptionalities.� In� contrast,� during� the� same� period,there� has� been� an� erosion� of� special� juvenile� justice� protections� traditionally� givenyouth� as� a� result� of� their� developmental� status,� and� the� age� at� which� young� peoplecan� be� transferred� to� adult� criminal� court� has� been� lowered� in� many� states.

With� respect� to� self-determination,� there� has� been� no� general� shift � in� thedirection� of� increased� support� for� young� people’s� autonomy,� though� there� havebeen� statutory� trends� as� well� as� key� court� decisions� that� have� recognized� chil-dren’s� autonomy� interests� (Walker,� Brooks,� &� Wrightsman,� 1999).� For� example,in� Ontario,� Canada,� children� are� presumed� capable� of� providing� informed� con-sent� for� health� care� (Health� Care� Consent� Act,� 1996).� In� many� states,� minors� mayindependently� consent� to� treatment,� but� only� if� they� can� demonstrate� sufficientmaturity� (Redding,� 1995).� This� variability� with� respect� to� trends� in� support� forchildren’s� rights� might� also� be� evident� in� broader� social� attitudes.� For� example,Miller� and� Nakamura� (1997)� reported� that� in� the� period� from� 1972� to� 1990,American� social� attitudes� shifted� toward� conservatism� in� relation� to� moral� issuesand� crime,� while� attitudes� in� relation� to� civil� liberties� and� women’s� rights� becamemore� liberal.

The� purpose� of� the� present� study� is� to� re-examine� attitudes� toward� children’snurturance� and� self-determination� rights� from� both� descriptive� and� comparativestandpoints.� First,� we� intended� to� survey� young� adults’� support� for� children’s� nur-turance� and� self-determination� rights� using� a� broad-based� attitude� measure.� A

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 735

second� goal� is� to� examine� whether� attitudes� toward� children’s� rights� vary� as� afunction� of� demographic� factors� such� as� gender,� educational� level,� ethnicity,� andthe� age� of� the� child� in� question� (as� has� been� found� in� previous� research),� as� wellas� nationality,�which� has� not� been� studied.� Third,� we� aim� to� describe� what� factorsparticipants� report� considering� in� making� their� choices� about� children’s� rightsand� to� ascertain� whether� these� factors� are� in� fact� related� to� their� attitudes� towardnurturance� or� self-determination� rights. � To� this� end,� American� and� Canadianundergraduates� were� administered� a� revised� version� of� Rogers� and� Wrightsman’s(1978)� Children’s� Rights� Attitude� scale� and� were� asked� to� focus� on� a� target� childof� either� 8,� 10,� 12,� 14,� or� 16� years� of� age� as� they� made� their� decisions.� After� com-pleting� the� questionnaire,� respondents� reflected� on� the� factors� they� had� consid-ered� in� choosing� their� responses.

Based� on� the� literature� reviewed� earlier,� the� following� hypotheses� are� gen-erated:

Hypothesis� 1.� Respondents� will� show� greater� support� for� nur-turance� rights� than� for� self-determination� rights.

Hypothesis� 2.� Education� (defined� in� this� study� in� terms� of� maternaleducation)3� will� be� associated� positively� with� support� for� self-determination� rights,� but� support� for� nurturance� will� not� necessar-ily� vary� as� a� function� of� education.

Hypothesis� 3.� Support� for� self-determination� rights� will� increasewith� the� age� of� the� child� in� question,� but� age� will� not� necessarilybe� a� factor� in� attitudes� toward� nurturance� rights.

Given� the� mixed� results� of� previous� studies,� it � is� unclear� whether� women� andmen� will� differ� in� their� support� for� children’s� nurturance� rights.

In� terms� of� effects� of� culture� on� children’s� rights� attitudes,� previous� research(e.g.,� Bohrnstedt� et� al.,� 1981)� has� suggested� that� ethnic� background� influencesrespondents’� support� for� children’s� rights,� with� African� American� and� Hispanicparticipants� demonstrating� less� support� for� self-determination� than� White� andAsian� American� respondents.� As� mentioned,� the� effect� of� nationality� (Americanvs.� Canadian)� has� not� been� explored� with� adults.� As� the� United� States� is� a� nationthat� places� “primary� value� on� the� autonomy� of� the� individual� member”� (Cherney&� Perry,� 1996,� p.� 242),� one� might� expect� Americans� to� show� greater� support� forchildren’s� self-determination� than� Canadians.� On� the� other� hand,� as� residents� of� amore� politically� and� socially� liberal� nation� (Lightman,� 1986),� Canadians� might

3Because� all� participants� were� university� undergraduates,� education� in� this� study� is� defined� as� themother’s� highest� attained� education� in� order� to� provide� sufficient� variability� for� analysis.

736 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

show� greater� support� for� children’s� rights� to� self-determination� than� Americans(cf.� Bohrnstedt� et� al.,� 1981).

Method

Participants

Participants� were� recruited� from� Canada� and� from� the� United� States:� 253� froma� university� in� Toronto� and� 208� from� a� public� university� in� the� New� York� Cityarea,� for� a� total� of� 461� participants.� All� participants� were� enrolled� in� undergradu-ate� introductory� psychology� classes� and� received� extra� course� credit� for� volun-teering� to� take� part� in� the� study.� Demographic� characteristics� of� the� sample� bycountry� are� presented� in� Table� 1.� The� overall� sample� was� 31%� male� (N � =� 142)� and69%� female� (N � = � 319).� As� Table� 1� shows,� there� were� differences� in� ethnicitybetween� the� American� and� Canadian� samples,� 2(5,� N� =� 445)� =� 120.52,� p � <� .0001.

Table� 1

Demographic� Variables� by� Country

DescriptorCanada

(n � =� 253)United� States

(n � =� 208)

Gender� (%)Male 31.2 30.3Female 68.8 69.7

Age� (years)M 19.5 19.2SD 1.5 1.6

Race/ethnicity� (%)

White 47.2 44.2Black 4.8 23.9Hispanic/Latino 1.2 14.2Asian 35.9 7.1South� Asian 8.9 1.0Other� 2.0 9.6

Socioeconomic� status� (maternal� education;� %)

Some� high� school� or� less 16.6 17.8

High� school� graduate/some� university� or� college 36.8 48.6University/college� graduate� or� higher 46.6 33.7

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 737

There� were� significantly� more� Black� and� Hispanic/Latino� participants� in� theAmerican� sample� than� in� the� Canadian� sample,� whereas� the� reverse� was� true� forAsian� participants.� With� respect� to� maternal� education,� Table� 1� also� indicates� thatmore� American� participants� than� Canadian� respondents� reported� high� school/some� college� as� their� mothers’� highest� level� of� education,� while� the� reverse� wastrue� for� college/university� completion,� 2(2,� N � =� 461)� =� 8.59,� p � <� .05.� Participantswere� between� 17� and� 25� years� of� age,� with� a� mean� age� of� 19.3� years.� The� age� dif-ference� between� the� American� (M � =� 19.2� years)� and� Canadian� (M � =� 19.5� years)samples,� though� small,� was� significant,� t(459)� =� 1.97,� p � =� .05.

Procedure� and� Measures

Data� were� obtained� by� means� of� two� anonymous� individual� questionnairesthat� were� administered� to� small� groups� of� participants� by� researchers� andresearch� assistants. � The� demographic� information� described� was� obtainedthrough� a� background� information� questionnaire.� To� assess� attitudes� toward� chil-dren’s� rights, � respondents� were� asked� to� rate� 100� items� dealing� with� potentialchildren’s� rights,� adapted� from� the� Children’s� Rights� Attitude� scale� (CRA;� Rog-ers� &� Wrightsman,� 1978).� In� the� instructions� and� on� each� page� of� the� question-naire,� participants� were� reminded� to� think� of� child� of� a� specific� age� (either� 8,� 10,12,� 14,� or� 16� years� of� age)� when� responding� to� the� items.� This� yielded� five� ver-sions� of� the� questionnaire� that� differed� only� in� terms� of� the� age� of� the� target� childspecified� in� the� instructions.� Each� group� received� the� same� version� of� the� ques-tionnaire.

The� adapted� CRA� questionnaire� was� comprised� of� 83� items� from� Wrights-man,� Rogers,� and� Percy’s� (1975)� 100-item� version� of� the� CRA� questionnaire,� 8items� from� Rogers� and� Wrightsman’s� (1978)� 300-item� version,� and� 9� new� itemsthat� were� based� on� several� of� the� hypothetical� vignettes� used� in� previous� studies(e.g.,� Ruck,� Abramovitch,� &� Keating,� 1998;� Ruck� et� al.,� 2002).� Items� were� ratedon� a� 6-point� Likert� scale� ranging� from� 1� (strongly� agree)� to� 6� (strongly� disagree);45� of� the� items� corresponded� to� children’s� nurturance� rights, � while� 55� corre-sponded� to� self-determination� rights.� Nurturance� rights� typically� deal� with� chil-dren’s� entitlements� to� care� or� opportunities, � and� self-determination� rightsgenerally� concern� children’s� independent� decision� making.� As� in� Rogers� andWrightsman’s� (1978)� original� scale,� items� covered� five� domains:� health,� eco-nomic,� safety/care,� education/information,� and� legal/judicial.� In� order� to� avoidresponse� bias,� both� positive� items� (i.e.,� those� supporting� the� child’s� right)� andnegative� items� (those� denying� the� child’s� right)� were� included.� Order� of� adminis-tration� of� the� items� was� fixed� and� was� based� on� an� initial� random� assignment.Sample� questionnaire� items� are� provided� in� Table� 2.4

4A� copy� of� the� questionnaire� is� available� from� the� first� author� upon� request.

738 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Table� 2

Sample� Items� From� the� Children’s� Rights� Attitude� Questionnaire

Domain

Type� of� right

Nurturance Self-determination

Health All� children� should� have� the�right� to� regular� physical�examinations.

Dental� care� should� be�provided� to� children� only�when� their� parents� can� pay�for� it.

Decisions� about� a� child’s�medical� treatment� should�be� made� by� the� child� even�if� his/her� life� is� at� stake.

Children� should� have� the�right� to� choose� their� own�doctors.

Care/safety All� children� should� have� the�right� to� live� in� housing� of�good� quality.

Adequate� clothing� for�children� may� be� a� goal� of�our� society,� but� it� should�not� be� a� right� for� every�child.

Children� should� have� the�right� to� wear� whatever�clothing� they� want,�regardless� of� the� weather.

It� is� up� to� parents� to� decide�what� sports� and� games� are�too� rough� for� children� to�play.

Education/information

School� authorities� should�have� the� right� to� expel� a�child� for� whatever� reason�they� feel� is� sufficient.

Society� should� have� the�obligation� to� ensure� that� all�children,� even� if� they� are�poor,� receive� equal�educational� opportunities.

Parents,� rather� than� children,�should� decide� which� school�a� child� will� attend.

Children� should� have� the�right� to� see� their� medical�records.

Economic Society� should� be� required� to�create� more� jobs� suitable�for� children.

Children� should� not� have� the�right� to� be� paid� the� same�wages� as� adults,� even� for�the� same� work.

Children� should� have� the�right� to� buy� and� sell�property� with� nobody� else’s�permission.

Children� should� have� to�obtain� permission� from�parents� before� taking� a� job.

Legal Every� child� should� be�provided� with� a� lawyer�when� involved� in� a� court�case.

Society� has� no� obligation� to�provide� a� lawyer� for� a� child�who� has� been� arrested.

Children� should� have� the�right� to� get� married� if� they�want� to.

Children� should� not� have� the�right� to� decide� whether� they�need� a� lawyer.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 739

At� the� end� of� the� questionnaire,� respondents� were� asked� to� comment� in� writ-ing� on� what� factors� they� took� into� consideration� when� deciding� on� theirresponses� to� the� items� in� the� adapted� CRA� questionnaire.� Based� on� a� contentanalysis,� these� open-ended� responses� were� coded� into� 10� nonmutually� exclusivecategories� as� follows:

Family:� Child’s� current� family� environment—social� and� economic,� parents’attitudes� and� treatment� of� the� child,� parent–child� relationship� (e.g.,� “Dependson� the� circumstances� of� their� environment� at� home”).

Society:� Religious,� political,� social,� or� cultural� customs� or� issues� (e.g.,� “Cul-tural� tradition—Chinese� tradition—that� emphasizes� the� parental� authority”).

Child� competence:� Age,� intelligence,� maturity� (e.g.,� “The� expected� mentalityof� an� 8-year-old� child� and� how� it� applies� to� his� or� her� ability� to� make� certaindecisions”).

Child� welfare: � The� needs� and� interests� of� children� (e.g.,� “What� is� in� the� bestinterests� of� the� child?”).

Child� opportunities:� Opportunities� or� experiences� available� to� children� (e.g.,“The� opportunities� provided� for� them� .� .� .� in� terms� of� education,� food,� cloth-ing,� shelter”).

Child� desires:� Including� children’s� wishes,� attitudes� and� values� (e.g.,� “Whatthe� child� wants,� the� child’s� values� in� the� situation”).

Child� rights:� The� notion� that,� as� persons,� children� have� an� inherent� entitle-ment� (e.g.,� “They� are� people� and� have� a� right� to� be� heard”).

Legal: � Laws,� legal� rights� of� children� (e.g.,� “Legal� rights� for� 16-year-olds;� forexample,� the� Young� Offenders� Act”).

Issue:� The� notion� that� responses� depend� on� the� particular� question� under� con-sideration� (e.g.,� “Some� situations� call� for� decisions� of� maturity� and� wisdomand� discipline,� while� other� situations� do� not”).

� Other:� Responses� not� captured� by� the� other� foregoing� categories.

A� second� rater� coded� 90� of� the� protocols.� Interrater� reliability5� was� calculatedseparately� for� each� of� the� 10� content� categories� and� ranged� from� 75%� to� 99%across� categories,� with� a� mean� of� 89%.

5Interrater� reliability� was� calculated� using� percentage� agreement,� rather� than� Cohen’s� kappa,because� some� cells� had� very� low� frequencies.

740 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Results

Data� Analysis

Preliminary� analyses� involved� factor� analysis� of� the� adapted� CRA� question-naire� in� order� to� ascertain� whether� the� theoretically� derived� constructs� of� nur-turance� and� self-determination� were� supported� empirically.� For� the� purposes� ofthe� data� presented� here,� it� is� important� to� note� that� two� factors� emerged,� corre-sponding� to� the� a� priori� nurturance� and� self-determination� scales� (Table� 3).� How-ever,� while� 51� of� the� original� 55� items� on� the� self-determination� scale� loaded� onthe� factor� labeled� self-determination,� only� 27� of� the� original� 45� nurturance� itemsloaded� on� the� nurturance� factor.� The� internal� consistency� of� the� nurturance� andself-determination� factor� scores� was� excellent, � with� Cronbach’s� alpha� coeffi-cients� of� .86� and� .94,� respectively.

The� empirically� derived� nurturance� and� self-determination� factor� scores� werethen� examined� using� ANOVA,� with� respondents’� gender,� country,� maternal� edu-cational� level,� ethnicity,� and� age� of� the� target� child� in� the� questionnaire� as� inde-pendent� variables.� Because� of� the� lack� of� association� between� nurturance� andself-determination� scores� (r � =� -.07,� p � >� .10),� these� two� dependent� measures� wereanalyzed� in� separate� ANOVAs,� rather� than� with� MANOVA.� Because� of� the� par-tial� confound� between� nationality� and� ethnicity� described� in� the� Method� section,ANOVAs� were� performed� both� on� the� total� sample� and� on� the� White� participantsalone� in� order� to� tease� apart� the� contribution� of� ethnicity� to� any� effects� of� nation-ality� that� might� emerge� in� the� analyses.� Further,� because� ethnicity� was� so� differ-ently� distributed� across� the� American� and� Canadian� samples,� this� variable� wasnot� examined� in� the� initial� analyses� with� the� entire� sample,� but� was� included� inANOVAs� run� separately� by� country.� For� the� American� sample,� the� ethnicity� vari-able� was� divided� into� White,� Black,� and� Hispanic/Latino;� and� for� the� Canadiansample,� White� participants� were� compared� to� Asian� respondents.� Respondentsfrom� other� ethnic� groups� were� dropped� because� of� small� sample� sizes.� Thus,eight� ANOVAs� were� run� in� total:� total� sample,� White� only,� American,� and� Cana-dian� analyses� for� each� of� the� nurturance� and� self-determination� scores.� To� controlfor� Type� I� error,� a� Bonferroni� correction� was� applied,� thus� requiring� a� probability(p)� level� of� .006� for� significance.

Categories� of� reasons� given� by� participants� when� asked� to� comment� on� thefactors� that� underpinned� their� questionnaire� responses� were� analyzed� using� chisquare.� Categories� were� examined� against� participants’� gender� and� nationality,� aswell� as� the� age� of� the� target� child� to� whom� they� responded� in� the� rights� question-naire.� Point� biserial� correlations� were� used� to� determine� whether� attitudes� towardnurturance� and� self-determination� rights� varied� according� to� whether� participantsmentioned� the� various� categories.� Because� of� the� number� of� tests� performed� ineach� case,� the� significance� cutoff� was� set� at� .01.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 741

Table� 3

Factor� Loadings� of� Items� on� the� Children’s� Rights� Attitude� Questionnaire

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

Children� should� not� have� the� right� to� read� what�they� want� when� parents� consider� the� reading�material� unsuitable.� (R) .49 -.06

Decisions� about� a� child’s� medical� treatment� should�be� made� by� the� child,� even� if� the� child’s� life� is� at�stake. .38 -.01

Children� should� have� the� right� to� vote� to� ensure�that� their� interests� will� be� represented� in�government� policy. .38 .15

Children� should� have� the� right� to� buy� and� sell�property� with� no� one� else’s� permission. .41 -.15

Children� should� have� the� right� to� see� their� own�medical� records. .48 .14

Children� should� have� the� right� to� leave� home� and�live� wherever� they� want. .55 -.10

Parents� should� be� able� to� keep� their� children� from�seeing� movies� dealing�with� content� they� consider�inappropriate.� (R) .50 -.13

Children� should� decide� when� and� how� often� they�wash. .56 -.10

Children� not� should� have� the� right� to� decide�whether� they� need� a� lawyer.� (R) .37 .16

Children� should� be� able� to� choose� whether� or� not�to� participate� in� psychological� research� studies�without� having� to� obtain� permission� of� their�parents. .54 -.01

Children� should� be� able� to� decide� whether� or� not� to�follow� what� adults� think� of� as� being� good� health�habits. .42 -.03

Children� should� have� no� right� to� sleep� outside� if�the� parents� consider� it� dangerous.� (R) .49 -.09

(table� continues)

742 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Table� 3 � (Continued)

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

Children� should� have� the� right� to� wear� whatever�clothing� they� want,� regardless� of� the� weather. .59 -.18

Children� should� have� the� right� to� obtain� credit�(credit� cards,� bank� loans,� time� payment� plans,�etc.)� just� like� anyone� else. .38 -.01

Parents,� rather� than� children,� should� decide� which�school� a� child� will� attend.� (R) .52 .11

Children� should� have� to� get� permission� from� their�parents� before� taking� a� job.� (R) .62 -.09

Children� should� be� completely� free� to� pick� which�school� subjects� they� take. .44 -.05

Children� should� have� the� right� to� obtain� loans� from�banks� and� other� sources� without� having� to� have�an� adult� co-sign� for� them. .40 -.06

Children� should� have� the� right� to� get� married� if�they� want� to. .50 -.15

Parents� should� have� a� right� to� full� knowledge� of�every� aspect� of� their� child’s� physical� or� mental�health,� even� if� the� child� would� prefer� that� they�did� not� know.� (R) .48 -.02

Children� should� not� be� refused� employment�simply� because� of� their� age. .52 .12

Children� should� have� the� right� to� work� as� many�hours� a� week� as� they� want. .58 -.18

Children� should� have� the� right� to� eat� whatever� they�want. .59 -.12

Children� should� have� the� right� to� keep� a� checking�account� in� their� own� name. .51 -.01

Children� should� not� have� the� right� to� decide� where�they� are� going� to� live.� (R) .38 .18

Sometimes� it� is� necessary� to� maintain� records� on�children� which� they� themselves� should� have� no�right� to� see.� (R) .41 .18

(table� continues)

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 743

Table� 3 � (Continued)

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

Children� should� not� have� the� right� to� work� full�time� even� if� they� want� to.� (R) .52 -.15

Parents� should� not� have� the� right� to� enter� a� child’s�room� without� the� child’s� permission. .35 .11

Children� should� be� forced� to� attend� school� even� if�they� don’t� want� to� go.� (R) .38 -.19

Children� should� be� free� to� follow� or� reject� doctors’�orders. .53 -.15

Routine� decisions� about� a� child’s� medical�treatment� should� be� made� by� the� child. .61 -.02

Adults,� rather� than� children,� should� decide� how�often� children� need� physical� examinations.� (R) .50 -.05

Children� should� have� the� right� to� decide� at� what�time� they� will� go� to� bed. .67 -.04

Children� should� have� the� right� to� sue� others� for�damages� whenever� they� wish. .47 .03

It� is� up� to� parents� to� decide� what� games� and� sports�are� too� rough� or� dangerous� for� their� children.� (R) .51 -.07

A� child� should� have� the� right� to� choose� his� or� her�own� lawyer. .56 .09

Children� should� be� able� to� see� whatever� movie�they� want,� regardless� of� content. .73 -.09

School� authorities� should� not� have� the� right� to�enter� a� child’s� locker� without� the� child’s�permission. .33 .08

Children� ought� to� be� able� to� receive� birth� control�devices� without� permission� from� their� parents. .62 .03

Adults,� rather� than� children,� should� have� the� right�to� decide� when� and� where� a� child� can� ride� a�bicycle� on� the� streets.� (R) .58 -.15

Children� should� be� able� to� get� any� sexual�information� they� want. .54 .08

(table� continues)

744 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Table� 3 � (Continued)

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

Contracts� with� children� should� not� be� binding�unless� the� children’s� parents� also� sign.� (R) .39 -.04

Children� should� have� the� right� to� read� whatever�they� want. .60 -.05

Parents� should� have� the� right� to� decide� whether�their� child� can� have� a� savings� account.� (R) .52 .07

Children� should� have� the� right� to� refuse� to� wear�eyeglasses� even� if� a� doctor� feels� they� need� them. .41 -.18

Children� should� have� the� right� to� choose� their� own�doctors. .58 .08

An� adult,� rather� than� the� child,� should� decide�whether� the� child� needs� counseling� for� mental�problems.� (R) .44 .06

Adults,� rather� than� children,� should� make� all�decisions� about� the� child’s� health� care.� (R) .61 .06

Parents� should� have� the� right� to� decide� what�religious� training� and� experiences� their� children�will� be� exposed� to.� (R) .46 -.06

A� child� should� have� the� right� to� decide� whether�information� concerning� his� or� her� health—physical� or� mental—should� be� released� to� others�(parents,� school� officials,� etc.). .56 .05

Children� should� be� prevented� from� engaging� in�any� activities� that� parents� believe� might� harm�them.� (R) .55 -.13

There� should� be� “children’s� legal� advocates”� who�defend� children� from� parents� who� treat� them�unjustly� or� cruelly. -.10 .35

All� children� should� have� the� right� to� be� protected�from� neglect� or� abandonment. -.11 .34

Even� if� an� adult� is� extremely� busy,� they� should�always� make� themselves� available� to� talk� with�their� child� if� the� child� has� a� problem. -.05 .30

(table� continues)

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 745

Table� 3 � (Continued)

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

It� is� unnecessary� to� provide� “children’s� legal�advocates”� who� defend� children� from� parents�who� treat� them� unjustly� or� cruelly.� (R) -.02 .40

All� children� should� have� the� right� to� live� in�housing� of� good� quality. -.07 .56

Society� should� have� an� obligation� to� ensure� that� all�children� live� in� clean,� safe� neighborhoods. -.01 .60

Schools� should� have� no� responsibility� to� provide�textbooks� that� accurately� reflect� the� history� of�ethnic� and� racial� minority� groups.� (R) -.00 .39

Schools� have� no� obligation� to� provide� breakfasts�for� children� who� don’t� get� adequate� breakfasts� at�home.� (R) -.09 .44

All� children� who� need� eyeglasses� should� receive�them,� even� if� they� can’t� afford� to� pay� for� them. .04 .47

Adequate� clothing� may� be� a� goal� of� our� society,�but� it� should� not� be� a� right� for� every� child.� (R) -.02 .45

Even� if� a� child’s� family� cannot� afford� to� provide�lunch� money,� a� school� lunch� should� be� provided�for� the� child. -.17 .50

Some� school� systems� will� always� be� better� than�others,� and� we� shouldn’t� try� to� do� anything� about�this� fact.� (R) -.02 .44

Society� should� have� no� obligation� to� ensure� that� all�children� receive� adequate� nutrition.� (R) -.15 .58

All� children� should� have� the� right� to� receive�mental� health� care� whether� their� parents� can�afford� it� or� not. .01 .46

School� libraries� should� have� no� obligation� to�provide� materials� representing� differing� view-points� on� politics,� religion,� or� other� issues.� (R) .06 .33

(table� continues)

746 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Table� 3 � (Continued)

Item

Factor� 1:Self-

determinationFactor� 2:

Nurturance

All� children� should� have� the� right� to� have� regular�physical� examinations. .00 .54

Society� should� have� the� obligation� to� ensure� that�all� children,� even� if� they� are� poor,� receive� equal�educational� opportunities. .04 .33

Every� child� should� be� provided� with� a� lawyer�when� involved� in� a� court� case. .06 .32

Dental� care� should� be� provided� to� children� only�when� their� parents� can� pay� for� it.� (R) -.06 .47

Teachers� should� not� have� to� make� themselves�available� for� extra� help� or� counseling� to� any�particular� child.� (R) -.03 .32

Schools� should� provide� the� widest� possible� variety�of� opportunities� so� that� the� educational� needs� and�interests� of� all� children� are� met. .02 .45

Society� should� have� no� obligation� to� ensure� that� all�children� receive� the� medicine� prescribed� for�them� by� a� doctor.� (R) -.06 .48

Every� child� should� be� provided� clean,� warm,�adequate� clothing. -.07 .52

Society� should� not� be� obliged� to� help� parents�provide� an� adequate� home� environment� for�children.� (R) -.01 .48

Society� should� have� no� obligation� to� ensure� that�children� in� poor� neighborhoods� receive� an�education� equal� in� quality� to� that� given� children�in� wealthier� neighborhoods.� (R) .02 .54

Schools� should� have� to� provide� facilities� and�training� so� that� all� children� can� develop� their�musical� and� artistic� skills. .05 .40

All� children� should� have� the� right� to� dental�treatment� whenever� necessary. .01 .51

Note.� R� =� reverse� scoring.� Italicized� loadings� indicate� the� factor� to� which� the� item� wasallocated.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 747

Support� for� Nurturance� and� Self-Determination

Overall,� support� for� nurturance� rights� was� very� high� (M � =� 5.3� out� of� 6,� corre-sponding� to� agree� somewhat)� and� was� significantly� higher� than� support� for� chil-dren’s� rights� to� self-determination� (M � =� 2.8,� corresponding� to� disagree� slightly),t(460)� =� 55.64,� p � < � .0001.� With� respect� to� support� for� nurturance� rights,� theANOVA� with� the� total� sample� yielded� only� one� significant� effect:� Women� (M � =5.4)� showed� greater� support� for� children’s� nurturance� than� did� men� (M � =� 5.2),F(1,� 402)� =� 11.63,� p � =� .001.� Although� statistically� significant,� the� gender� differ-ence� yielded� an� effect� size� estimate� of� .40,� which,� according� to� Cohen� (1969),� issmall� in� size.

There� were� significant� effects� of� both� nationality,� F(1,� 402)� =� 12.98,� p � <.0001,� and� the� age� of� the� target� child,� F(4,� 402)� =� 23.26,� p � <� .0001,� on� respon-dents’� self-determination� scores.� Canadian� participants� (M� =� 3.0)� were� more� sup-portive� of� children’s� rights� to� self-determination� than� were� their� Americancounterparts� (M � =� 2.7),� yielding� a� moderate� effect� size� estimate� of� .51� (Cohen,1969).� As� Table� 2� shows,� both� Americans� and� Canadians� showed� greater� supportfor� self-determination� as� the� age� of� the� target� child� increased,� and� this� variableyielded� an� effect� size� that� was� extremely� large� (1.5;� Cohen,� 1969).� Scheffé� posthoc� tests� indicate� significant� pairwise� differences� between� all� non-adjacent� pairsof� means,� as� well� as� between� the� 12-� and� 14-year-olds� (see� Total� column� inTable 2).

Looking� at � the� data� from� a� slightly� different� perspective,� when� the� self-determination� scores� were� dichotomized� into� the� agree� (i.e.,� endorse)� and� dis-agree � sides� of� the� Likert � scale,� only� 8� of� the � 240� American� participants’responses� fell� into� the� agree� category,� compared� to� 32� of� the� Canadian� respon-dents.� Within� the� Canadian� sample,� the� vast� majority� of� agree� responses� appearedin� the� 14-� and� 16-year-old� conditions.� Analyses� with� the� White� participants� onlyparalleled� those� of� the� total� sample,� with� a� significant� gender� effect� for� support� ofnurturance� rights,� F(1,� 154)� =� 9.08,� p � =� .003;� and� significant� effects� of� national-ity,� F(1,� 154)� =� 15.54,� p � <� .0001,� and� age� of� target� child,� F(4,� 154)� =� 15.74,� p � <.0001,� for� support� of� self-determination.

As� mentioned,� separate� ANOVAs� were� run� on� the� American� and� Canadiangroups� in� order� to� examine� the� effect� of� ethnicity,� together� with� the� other� indepen-dent� variables,� on� nurturance� and� self-determination� scores.� No� ethnicity� effectsemerged� in� any� of� the� analyses.� Within� the� American� sample,� the� effect� of� gender,F(1,� 103)� =� 9.34,� p� =� .003,� was� again� significant� with� respect� to� nurturance� scores,but� was� modified� by� a� significant� Gender� � Condition� interaction,� F(4,� 103)� =5.70,� p � <� .0001.� Simple� effects� tests� indicate� that� the� gender� difference� in� nur-turance� scores� was� significant� only� for� the� 12-year-old� (p � <� .01)� and� 16-year-old(p � <� .0001)� target� groups.� In� both� cases,� women� showed� higher� support� for� nur-turance� than� did� men.� There� were� no� significant� effects� in� the� Canadian� sample.

748 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

An� ANOVA� on� American� participants’� self-determination� scores� replicatesthe� age� of� target� child� effect� found� in� the� total� sample,� F(4,� 103)� =� 5.42,� p � =� .001;as� does� the� Canadian� ANOVA,� F(4,� 153)� =� 15.69,� p � <� .0001� (Table� 2).� Post� hoctests� for� the� American� sample� indicate� that� target� ages� 8,� 10,� and� 12� were� notviewed� differently� from� one� another� in� terms� of� granting� self-determinationrights,� but� received� significantly� lower� self-determination� scores� than� did� the� 14-and� 16-year-old� target� groups,� who� did� not� differ� from� one� another.� The� Cana-dian� sample� results� were� similar:� Self-determination� scores� for� target� ages� 8,� 10,and� 12� were� not� significantly� different,� but� all� were� lower� than� the� score� for� age16.� Scores� for� ages� 8� and� 10� were� also� significantly� lower� than� the� age� 14� score.

Rationale� for� Support� of� Nurturance� and� Self-Determination

As� mentioned,� at� the� end� of� the� CRA� questionnaire,� participants� were� askedto� describe� the� factors� that� they� had� taken� into� consideration� when� responding� tothe� questionnaire� items,� and� their� open-ended� responses� were� coded� into� 10� non-mutually� exclusive� categories.� The� considerations� most� frequently� mentioned� byparticipants� related� to� family� issues� (54%),� which� included� the� child’s� currentsocial� and� economic� circumstances,� as� well � as� the� parent–child� relationship.Participants� also� frequently� mentioned� factors� related� to� the� child’s� competence(52%),� including� maturity,� experience,� and� intelligence.� Societal� (including� cul-tural,� social,� governmental)� considerations� were� mentioned� by� 20%� of� partici-pants.� Of� the� participants,� 10%� indicated� that� children’s� rights� are� inherent� and

Table� 4

American� and� Canadian� Participants’� Mean� Self-Determination� Scores� by� Age�of� Target� Child

Participants’� nationality

TotalAmerican Canadian

Age� of� target� child M SD M SD M SD

� � � � 8� years 2.25a 0.15 2.55a 0.12 2.41a 0.67� � � � 10� years 2.38a 0.15 2.54a 0.14 2.43ab 0.59� � � � 12� years 2.41a 0.15 2.98ab 0.13 2.71b 0.73� � � � 14� years 2.97b 0.14 3.36bc 0.13 3.21c 0.69� � � � 16� years 3.19b 0.17 3.67c 0.12 3.40c 0.65

Note.� Within� columns,� conditions� with� identical� subscripts� do� not� differ� significantlyfrom� one� another.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 749

should� not� depend� on� any� external� considerations,� while� fewer� mentioned� thechild’s� welfare� or� needs� (6%),� the� child’s� desires� (5%),� the� child’s� opportunitiesfor� access� to� entitlements� (7%),� or� laws� relating� to� rights� (3%).� Some� 20%� ofparticipants� indicated� that� the� factors� to� be� considered� depend� on� the� specificissue� at� hand,� and� 20%� mentioned� factors� that� did� not� fall� into� the� other� nine� cat-egories.

Frequency� of� use� of� the� categories� did� not� vary� significantly� by� participants’gender� or� the� age� of� the� target� child.� However,� Canadians� were� more� likely� thanwere� Americans� to� mention� that� children’s� rights� are� inherent� (14%� vs.� 5%,respectively),� 2(1,� N � =� 454)� =� 8.40,� p � <� .01,� and� to� include� child� welfare� con-siderations� in� their� responses� (9%� vs.� 2%,� respectively),� 2(1,� N � =� 454)� =� 7.84,p <� .01.

Point� biserial� correlations� were� computed� in� order� to� examine� whether� thefactors� mentioned� by� participants� were� related� to� their� overall� endorsement� of� thenurturance� and� self-determination� rights� in� the� CRA� questionnaire.� The� only� sig-nificant� correlation� was� a� negative� relationship� between� the� family� factors� cate-gory� and� support� for� self-determination� rights, � which� emerged� both� in� theAmerican� (r � =� -.22,� p � =� .001)� and� the� Canadian� (r � =� -.18,� p � <� .01)� groups.

Discussion

The� present� study� examined� rights� attitudes� in� American� and� Canadian� uni-versity� students� using� a� modified� version� of� the� broad-based� CRA� scale� devel-oped� by� Rogers� and� Wrightsman� (1978).� Attitudes� toward� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights� were� compared,� and� demographic� and� developmental� fac-tors� were� explored� as� potential� predictors� of� support� for� both� types� of� rights.

The� overall� pattern� of� support� for� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights� inthe� present� study� was� similar� to� that� reported� by� Rogers� and� Wrightsman� (1978);that� is,� greater� support� for� nurturance� rights� than� for� children’s� rights� to� self-determination.� It � is� interesting� that� while� our� data� yielded� similar� levels� ofsupport� for� nurturance� to� those� reported� by� Rogers� and� Wrightsman� (i.e.,� meanscores� of� over� 5� on� the� 6-point� scale,� or� somewhat� agree),� there� was� less� supportfor� self-determination� in� the� current� sample.� Respondents� in� the� present� studyactually� disagreed� slightly� with� children’s� self-determination� rights� on� the� whole,while� Rogers� and� Wrightsman’s� sample� scored� in� the� agree� slightly� range.� It� isimportant� to� point� out� that� the� items� used� in� the� two� studies� are� not� identical,� andRogers� and� Wrightsman’s� 300-item� questionnaire� sampled� a� broader� range� ofrights� issues.� It� is� also� important� to� note� that� this� undergraduate� sample� is� not� rep-resentative� of� the� population� of� late� adolescents� or� young� adults� in� the� UnitedStates� and� Canada.� However,� previous� research� (e.g.,� Bohrnstedt� et� al.,� 1981)� hassuggested� that,� if� anything,� we� would� expect� this� sample� to� be� more� supportive� ofchildren’s� rights� to� self-determination� than� less� educated� respondents.

750 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

It� is� tempting� to� speculate� that� views� with� respect� to� children’s� rights� to� self-determination� have,� in� fact,� become� more� conservative� over� the� last� quartercentury,� which� is� consistent� with� attitudes� in� other� political� and� social� domains(e.g.,� moral� issues,� crime;� Miller� &� Nakamura,� 1997).� The� findings� are� particu-larly� interesting� when� we� consider� that� this� group� of� young� adults� is� the� next� gen-eration� of� parents.� Whether� their� current� attitudes� will� predict� parenting� practicesand� what� the� developmental� outcomes� will� be� for� their� children� are� empiricalquestions� that� deserve� further� study.

With� respect� to� the� factors� that� predict� attitudes� toward� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights,� the� largest� effect� in� this� study� was� of� the� age� of� the� targetchild� on� attitudes� toward� self-determination,� which� yielded� substantial� differ-ences� between� groups.� These� results� parallel� earlier� findings� (Bohrnstedt� et al.,1981;� Morton� &� Dubanoski,� 1980;� Ruck� et� al.,� 2001),� indicating� that� support� forautonomy� rights� increased� with� the� age� of� the� child.� The� pattern� of� means� sug-gests� that� early� adolescence� is� a� watershed� in� young� adults’� support� for� children’sself-determination� rights.� While� only� 3%� of� participants� who� responded� to� a� tar-get� child� age� 12� or� under� fell� into� the� agree� category� with� respect� to� their� self-determination� rights,� the� figures� increased� to� 14%� for� 14-year-olds� and� to� 19%for� 16-year-olds.� These� results� are� consistent� with� a� developmentally� based� per-spective� on� children’s� autonomy� rights� that� argues� for� extending� rights� on� thebasis� of� the� developing� capacities� of� the� child� (Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002).Indeed,� many� participants� mentioned� the� child’s� competence� as� a� factor� underly-ing� their� decisions� with� respect� to� endorsement� of� the� rights� items.

Despite� the� increases� with� age,� the� general� lack� of� support� for� self-determina-tion� rights,� even� for� adolescents,� is� striking.� Again,� it� might� be� that� more� generalpolitical� and� social� liberal–conservative� views� underlie� respondents’� attitudesabout� children’s� rights� to� self-determination.� Although� we� did� not� measure� theseconstructs� directly,� the� cross-national� comparison� might� help� to� shed� some� lighton� this� issue,� as� Canada� is� acknowledged� to� be� a� more� socially� and� politically� lib-eral� country� than� the� United� States� (Lightman,� 1991).� The� fact� that� Canadianswere� more� likely� to� support� self-determination� rights� than� were� Americans,despite� equivalent� support� for� nurturance,� is� consistent� with� the� argument� thatrights� attitudes� are� related� to� broader� social� and� political� attitudes.

It� should� be� noted� that� this� nationality� effect� was� not� a� result� of� ethnic� differ-ences� in� the� American� and� Canadian� samples,� since� nationality� remained� signifi-cant� for� the� analysis� involving� the� subsample� of� White� participants.� Bohrnstedtet al.� (1981)� interpreted� their� effects� of� ethnicity� and� religious� identification� onsupport� for� children’s� autonomy� rights� similarly,� noting� that� “It� seems� reasonableto� suggest� that� views� on� children’s� rights� are� rooted� in� more� general� liberal–con-servative� postures,� and� the� secular� trends� in� liberalism� and� conservatism� mayhave� important� effects� on� the� ways� adults� feel� about� children’s� rights”� (p.� 459).However,� the� observed� nationality� differences� in� support� for� self-determination

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 751

rights� were� much� smaller� in� size� than� the� overall� difference� between� support� fornurturance� rights,� which� was� very� high,� and� support� for� self-determination,which� was� quite� low.� Thus,� any� hypothesized� effects� of� social� or� political� atti-tudes� on� support� for� children’s� rights� cannot� entirely� account� for� the� difference� inattitudes� toward� nurturance� and� self-determination.� Clearly,� further� empiricalexamination� of� this� issue� is� necessary.

Turning� to� the� effects� of� the� other� demographic� variables� on� support� for� chil-dren’s� rights,� women� were� more� likely� to� support� children’s� rights� to� nurturancethan� were� men.� However,� the� magnitude� of� this� effect� was� small� and� somewhattransient,� disappearing� entirely� in� the� Canadian� analysis� and� emerging� only� insome� age� conditions� in� the� American� analysis.� This� result� parallels� the� mixedresults� with� respect� to� gender� evident� in� previous� studies.� Similarly,� effects� ofeducation� and� race/ethnicity� that� had� been� reported� in� earlier� research� did� notemerge� in� the� present� study.� It� should� be� noted� that� in� order� to� obtain� variabilityin� our� undergraduate� sample,� the� measure� of� education� used� in� our� study� wasmother’s� highest� level� of� education.� However,� it� is� reasonable� to� argue� that� anyeffects� of� maternal� education� as� a� measure� of� the� social� climate� of� the� respon-dents’� home� environment� would� not� continue� to� hold� in� participants� who� arealready� young� adults� themselves� (and� who� presumably� have� established� a� degreeof� autonomy� in� their� social� perspectives).� It� will� be� important� for� future� studiesto� identify� and� measure� directly� the� social� attitudes� and� environments� hypothe-sized� to� predict� attitudes� toward� children’s� rights.� As� mentioned,� direct� explora-tion� of� young� people’s� social� and� political� attitudes� might� be� fruitful� in� thisrespect.

In� the� present� study,� participants� also� were� asked� to� reflect� on� what� factorsthey� considered� in� responding� to� children’s� rights� attitude� items.� Over� half� of� therespondents� mentioned� family� factors,� and� 20%� included� societal� issues� (e.g.,social,� cultural,� religious,� economic),� suggesting� that� for� many� young� people,children’s� rights� are� perceived� as� existing� in� a� particular� interpersonal� or� socio-cultural� context� that� impacts� on� whether� rights� should� be� supported.� Consistentwith� this,� 20%� of� respondents� indicated� that� whether� they� supported� a� potentialright� would� depend� on� the� particular� issues� at � play� in� a� situation,� and� a� smallminority� mentioned� that� opportunities� for� access� (within� the� family� or� in� societyat� large)� would� determine� whether� a � potential� right� should� be� supported.Respondents� also� saw� the� personal� context� in� which� rights� are� exercised� as� rele-vant� in� that� a� majority� discussed� the� child’s� capacity� to� make� rights� decisions� asa� factor� underlying� the� granting� of� that� right.� Thus,� the� vast� majority� of� youngpeople’s� responses� reflect� a� relativistic,� contextualized� perception� of� children’srights:� the� notion� that� extending� rights� to� children� depends� on� personal,� interper-sonal,� and� sociocultural� factors.� Only� a� small� minority� articulated� the� notion� thatrights� are� inherent� principles� that� do� not� depend� on� external� factors� such� asthese.

752 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

These� findings� reflect� Flekkoy� and� Kaufman’s� (1997)� point� that� while� allchildren� might� have� certain� rights� in� principle,� it� is� only� in� their� implementationthat� rights� have� their� impact� on� children.� Implementation—a� decision� aboutwhether� or� not� to� support� a� specific� instance� of� a� right—is� influenced� by� a� wholehost� of� contextual� factors� and� is� not� seen� as� simply� the� application� of� an� abstractprinciple� in� a� specific� situation.� These� results� are� consistent� with� studies� report-ing� that� support� for� civil� liberties� is� stronger� when� framed� in� terms� of� abstractprinciples� (e.g.,� “I� believe� in� free� speech� for� all”)� than� when� placed� in� a� specificcontext� (e.g.,� free� speech� for� the� Nazi� Party� or� Ku� Klux� Klan;� Helwig,� 1995;McCloskey� &� Brill,� 1983)� and� with� vignette� research� indicating� that� support� forrights� is� highly� situation� specific� and� varies� even� within� the� same� category� ofright� (e.g.,� protection� of� privacy;� Ruck� et� al.,� 1998).� Participants’� lay� perceptionsof� rights� are� also� consistent� with� the� position� of� a� number� of� scholars� (e.g.,Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002;� Freeman,� 1992;� Hart,� 1991;� Walker� et� al.,� 1999)who� conceptualize� children’s� rights� “not� as� absolute� entitlements� to� self-determi-nation� or� autonomy,� but� rather� as� rights� that� develop� in� concert� with� children’sgrowing� capacities� to� exercise� mature� judgment”� (Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002,p.� 4).

For� both� the� American� and� Canadian� groups,� there� was� a� negative� relation-ship� between� consideration� of� family� factors� and� support� for� self-determination.This� is� an� intriguing� finding� suggesting� that� the� child’s� bid� for� self-determinationmight� compete� with� the� rights,� needs,� or� desires� of� parents� or� other� family� mem-bers� and� that,� indeed,� such� family� considerations� often� trump� children’s� auton-omy� rights.� Indeed,� this� position� has� been� argued� by� parents’� rights� groups� who“charge� that� the� emphasis� on� children’s� self-determination� rights� violates� thelegitimate� rights� and� responsibilities� of� parents� to� discipline� and� shape� their� chil-dren’s� character� and� behavior”� (Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002,� p.� 6).� Those� pro-moting� a� developmentally� based� children’s� rights� framework� argue� that� thisapparent� conflict� between� family� (i.e.,� parent)� and� child� rights� can� be� resolved,� orat� least� more� meaningfully� addressed,� by� considering� children’s� rights� to� nur-turance� as� well� as� self-determination� (Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002;� Hart,� 1991)within� the� broader� context� of� reciprocal� rights� and� responsibilities� in� the� parent–child� relationship� (Baumrind,� 1978;� Baumrind� &� Thompson,� 2002).

One� reviewer� of� this� paper� raised� the� interesting� point� that,� in� fact,� nurturancemight� be� perceived� not� so� much� as� a� children’s� rights� issue� but� rather� as� an� inher-ent� definer� of� what� it� means� to� be� a� child� and� a� parent� in� a� family.� While� we� arguethat� the� present� data� cannot� address� this� issue,� the� reviewer’s� point� is� well� takenand� bears� further� investigation.� Indeed,� several� studies� in� our� current� researchprogram� are� focusing� on� how� parents� and� children� construct� nurturance� issuesand� whether� those� issues� are� perceived� in� terms� of� rights.

Several� limitations� to� the� study� must� be� noted.� Participants� in� this� study� wereall� university� students,� and� both� groups� were� recruited� from� large� urban� centers.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 753

As� such,� the� respondents� are� not� representative� of� the� broader� population� ofyoung� people� in� the� United� States� and� Canada,� and� caution� must� be� used� ingeneralizing� the� findings� beyond� the� characteristics� of� the� present� sample.� Inaddition,� in� common� with� much� of� the� research� on� attitudes,� the� present� study� didnot� explore� the� relationship� between� participants’� views� about� children’s� rightsand� actual� behavior� in� situations� involving� potential� children’s� rights.� Currently,there� is� very� little� known� about� the� relationship� between� adults’� attitudes� towardthese� issues� and� their� actual� parenting� practices� with� children.� It � would� be� ofvalue� to� examine� such� relationships� concurrently� or� prospectively� as� young� peo-ple� make� significant� transitions� (e.g.,� becoming� parents)� that� are� likely� to� impacttheir� attitudes� and� behavior� with� respect� to� children’s� nurturance� and� self-deter-mination� rights.

Attitudes� toward� children’s� rights� do� not� appear� to� be� static� across� time,� race/ethnicity,� or� nationality.� Accordingly,� discussion� regarding� children’s� rightsshould� not� rest� solely� on� research� from� the� past—another� political� and� culturalclimate—but� rather� on� research� describing� current� attitudes� toward� children’srights.� The� present� study� updated� previous� research� on� children’s� rights� by� exam-ining� variables� considered� in� past� studies� (e.g.,� gender,� educational� level,� race/ethnicity,� age� of� the� child)� as� well� as� nationality,�which� has� not� been� examined� inadults,� in� relation� to� attitudes� toward� a� broad� range� of� both� nurturance� and� self-determination� rights.� In� addition,� by� examining� the� factors� that� participantsreported� considering� in� making� their� choices,� we� sought� to� expand� the� pastresearch� agenda� by� delineating� specific� areas� of� concern� regarding� children’srights.� These� concerns� should� be� a� useful� guide� for� future� research� in� this� area.These� research� findings� also� provide� policy� makers� with� a� contemporary� refer-ence� to� consult� when� seeking� information� on� people’s� attitudes� toward� the� rightsof� children.

References

Baumrind,� D.� (1978).� Reciprocal� rights� and� responsibilities� in� parent–child� rela-tions.� Journal� of� Social� Issues,� 34,� 179-196.

Baumrind,� D.,� &� Thompson,� R.� A.� (2002).� The� ethics� of� parenting.� In� M.Bornstein� (Ed.),� The� handbook� of� parenting� (2nd� ed.,� pp.� 3-34).� Hillsdale,� NJ:Lawrence� Erlbaum.

Bohrnstedt,� G.� W.,� Freeman,� H.� E.,� &� Smith,� T.� (1981).� Adult� perspectives� onchildren’s� autonomy.� Public� Opinion� Quarterly,� 45,� 443-462.

Cherney,� I.,� &� Perry,� N.� (1996).� Children’s� attitudes� toward� their� rights:� An� inter-national� perspective.� In� E.� Verhellen� (Ed.),� Monitoring� children’s� rights(pp. 241-250).� Dordrecht,� The� Netherlands:� Martinus� Nijhoff.

Cohen,� J.� (1969).� Statistical� power� analysis� for� behavioral� sciences.� New� York,NY:� Academic� Press.

754 PETERSON-BADALI� ET� AL.

Farson,� R.� (1974).� Birthrights.� New� York,� NY:� Macmillan.Flekkoy,� M.� G.,� &� Kaufman,� N.� H.� (1997).� The� participation� rights� of� the� child:

Rights� and� responsibilities� in� family� and� society.� London,� UK:� JessicaKinglsey.

Freeman,� M.� (1992).� The� limits� of� children’s� rights.� In� M.� Freeman� &� P.� Veerman(Eds.),� The� ideologies� of� children’s� rights� (pp.� 29-46).� Dordrecht,� The� Nether-lands:� Martinus� Nijhoff.

Hart,� S.� N.� (1991).� From� property� to� person� status:� Historical� perspective� on� chil-dren’s� rights.� American� Psychologist,� 46,� 53-59.

Health� Care� Consent� Act.� (1996).� Statutes� of� Ontario� 1990,� c.2,� Sched.� A.Helwig,� C.� C.� (1995).� Adolescents� and� young� adults’� conceptions� of� civil� liber-

ties:� Freedom� of� speech� and� religion.� Child� Development,� 66,� 152-166.Helwig,� C.� C.� (1997).� The� role� of� agent� and� social� context� in� judgments� of

speech� and� religion.� Child� Development,� 68,� 484-495.Holt,� J.� (1974).� Escape� from� childhood:� The� needs� and� rights� of� children.� New

York,� NY:� E.� P.� Dutton.Lightman,� E.� (1991).� Support� for� social� welfare� in� Canada� and� the� United� States.

Canadian� Review� of� Social� Policy,� 28,� 9-44.McCloskey,� H.,� &� Brill,� A.� (1983).� Dimensions� of� tolerance:� What� Americans

believe� about� civil� liberties.� New� York,� NY:� Russell� Sage.Melton,� G.� B.,� &� Limber,� S.� P.� (1992).� What� rights� mean� to� children:� Children’s

own� views.� In� M.� Freeman� &� P.� Veerman� (Eds.),� Ideologies� of� children’srights� (pp.� 167-187).� Dordrecht,� The� Netherlands:� Martinus� Nijhoff.

Miller,� A.� S.,� &� Nakamura,� T.� (1997).� Trends� in� American� public� opinion:� Acohort� analysis� of� shifting� attitudes� from� 1972-1990.� Behaviormetrika,� 24,179-191.

Morton,� T.� L.,� &� Dubanoski,� R.� A.� (1980).� Children’s� rights:� Attitudes� and� per-ceptions.� Educational� Perspectives,� 19,� 24-27.

Morton,� T.� L.,� Dubanoski,� R.� A.,� &� Blaine,� D.� D.� (1982).� Cross-cultural� percep-tions� of� children’s� rights.� In� J.� S.� Henning� (Ed.),� The� rights� of� children:� Legaland� psychological� perspectives� (pp� 141-160).� Springfield,� IL:� Charles� C.Thomas.

Redding,� R.� (1995).� Children’s� competence� to� provide� informed� consent� formental� health� treatment.� Washington� and� Lee� Law� Review,� 50,� 695-753.

Rogers,� C.� M.,� &� Wrightsman,� L.� S.� (1978).� Attitudes� towards� children’s� rights:Nurturance� or� self-determination.� Journal� of� Social� Issues,� 34,� 59-68.

Ruck,� M.� D.,� Abramovitch,� R.,� &� Keating,� D.� P.� (1998).� The� development� ofchildren’s� understanding� of� rights:� Balancing� nurturance� and� self-determina-tion.� Child� Development,� 64,� 404-417.

Ruck,� M.� D.,� Peterson-Badali,� M.,� &� Day,� D.� (2002).� Adolescents’� and� mothers’understanding� of� children’s� rights� in� the� home.� Journal� of� Research� on� Ado-lescence,� 12,� 373-398.

ATTITUDES� TOWARD� CHILDREN’S� RIGHTS 755

United� Nations� (UN)� General� Assembly.� (1989,� November� 17).� Adoption� of� aconvention� on� the� rights� of� the� child.� New� York,� NY:� Author.

Walker,� N.� E.,� Brooks,� C.� M.,� &� Wrightsman,� L.� S.� (1999).� Children’s� rights� inthe� United� States:� In� search� of� a� national� policy.� Thousand� Oaks,� CA:� Sage.

Wrightsman,� L.� S.,� Rogers,� C.� M.,� &� Percy,� J.� (1975).� Conceptualization� andmeasurement� of� attitudes� towards� children’s� rights� (Report� No.� PS-008-360).East� Lansing,� MI:� National� Center� for� Research� on� Teacher� Learning.� (ERICDocument� Reproduction� Service� No.� ED118262)

Zimmerman,� S.,� Temple,� M.,� Peterson-Badali,� M.,� Ruck,� M.� D.,� &� Day,� D.(1999,� April).� Maternal� influences� on� children’s� and� adolescents’� thinkingabout� rights.� Poster� presented� at� the� biennial� conference� of� the� Society� forResearch� in� Child� Development,� Albuquerque,� NM.