| 摘要: | 本研究旨在了解不同背景變項的父母教養方式與幼兒社會行為之差異情形，並分析父母教養方式與幼兒社會行為之相關性，最後預測影響父母教養方式與幼兒社會行為的因素。
本研究以100學年度就讀臺北市與新北市幼兒園，中、大班幼兒及其父母為研究對象，共256對親子為研究樣本，以「個人基本資料表」、「父母教養方式量表」、「幼兒社會行為量表」為研究工具，Likert四點量表計分，以描述性統計、獨立樣本t考驗、單因子變異數分析、積差相關及逐步多元迴歸分析為統計方法。茲將研究結論說明如下：
一、臺北市、新北市地區之幼兒父母較傾向採取「開明權威型」之教養方式，其次依序為「寬鬆放任型」、「專制權威型」，採「忽視冷漠型」的教養方式為最少。
二、不同背景變項的父母教養方式之差異情形
(一) 「不同出生序」、「家中子女數」、「不同父親、母親年齡」、「不同家庭社經地位」之幼兒，其父母教養方式之部分向度有顯著差異。
(二) 不同性別幼兒與父母教養方式無顯著差異
三、幼兒社會行為以「自主能力」較佳，其次依序為「工作能力」、「溝通能力」、「工作能力」、「禮貌」，最後為「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」。
四、不同背景變項的幼兒其社會能力之差異情形
(一) 「不同出生序」、「不同父親、母親年齡」、「不同家庭社經地位」之幼兒，其社會行為之部分向度達顯著差異。
(二) 「不同家中子女數」之幼兒，其社會行為所有顯著差異。
(三) 不同性別的幼兒其社會行為所有向度均無顯著差異
五、父母教養方式與幼兒社會能力之積差相關
(一) 「開明權威型」教養方式與幼兒「溝通能力」、「自主能力」、「工作能力」、「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」呈顯著正相關。
(二) 「專制權威型」與幼兒「自主能力」、「工作能力」、「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」呈顯著正相關。
(三) 「寬鬆放任型」與幼兒「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」呈現顯著負相關。
(四) 「忽視冷漠型」與幼兒「溝通能力」呈負相關；與幼兒「工作能力」、「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」呈顯著正相關。
六、不同幼兒及家庭背景變項對父母教養方式之預測分析
(一) 對於「開明權威型」教養方式，其預測解釋變異量為54.3%。
(二) 對於「專制權威型」教養方式，其預測解釋變異量為31.2%。
(三) 對於「寬鬆放任型」教養方式，其預測解釋變異量為49.1%。
(四) 對於「忽視冷漠型」教養方式，其預測解釋變異量為78.8%。
七、不同幼兒及家庭背景變項對幼兒社會行為之預測分析
(一) 對於幼兒「溝通能力」，其預測解釋變異量為32.6%。
(二) 對於幼兒「自主能力」，其預測解釋變異量為13.3%。
(三) 對於幼兒「工作能力」，其預測解釋變異量為10.5%。
(四) 對於幼兒「禮貌」，其預測解釋變異量為38.2%。
(五) 對於幼兒「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」，其預測解釋變異量為14.6%。
八、不同幼兒及家庭背景變項、父母教養方式對幼兒社會行為之預測分析
(一) 對於整體「溝通能力」，其預測解釋變異量為33.7%。
(二) 對於整體「自主能力」，其預測解釋變異量為18.5%。
(三) 對於整體「工作能力」，其預測解釋變異量為34.1%。
(四) 對於整體「禮貌」，其預測解釋變異量為38.1%。
(五) 對於整體「陌生情境及公共場合之反應」，其預測解釋變異量為21.7%。
最後，針對本研究的發現與結論分別對父母、後續研究提出建議，以做為實務工作及未來研究之參考。
This research focuses on the difference in parent’s discipline method and children’s social behavior under different background variables and analyzes the correlation between parent’s discipline method and children’s social behavior. At last, the factors that affect parent’s discipline method and children’s social behavior are forecasted.
This research takes parents and their children who studied in the kindergarten in 2nd and 3rd grade in Taipei and New Taipei city as the research subjects, with a total of 256 family samples. We use “Personal basic information”, “Parents’ discipline method measurement scale” and “Children’s social behavior measurement scale” as the research tools, grading with “4-point Likert scale” and analyze by “Descriptive statistics”, “Independent samples t-test”, “Single variable analysis”, “Product-moment correlation” and “Stepwise multiple regression procedure”. The conclusions of this research are as follows.
1.In Taipei and New Taipei City, parents tend to adopt the “Open but Authoritative” way to discipline their children mostly, followed by “Free and Nonintervention” and “Autocratic and Authoritative” in sequence, while the “Cold and Detached” is chose least.
2.The difference in parent’s discipline method under different background variables:
(1). “Birth order”, “children number”, “age of the parents”, and “social status of the family” make significant difference in some dimensions in parent’s discipline method.
(2). There is no significant variance between children’s sex and parent’s discipline method.
3.Children react better in “initiative and self-direction” among various social behaviors, followed by “working ability”, “communication ability”, working ability” and “courtesy” in sequence, while “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place” ranked least.
4.The difference in children’s social ability under different background variables:
(1)“Birth order”, “age of the parents”, and “social status of the family” make significant differences in some dimensions of children’s social behavior.
(2)“Children number” makes significant difference on children’s social behavior
(3)Children’s sex has no significant variance in their social behavior in all dimensions.
5.The product-moment correlation between parents’ discipline method and children’s social ability
(1)The discipline method “Open but Authoritative” has positive correlation with children’s “communication ability”, “initiative and self-direction”, “working ability” and “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”.
(2)The discipline method “Autocratic and Authoritative” has positive correlation with children’s “initiative and self-direction”, “working ability” and “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”.
(3)The discipline method “Free and Nonintervention” has negative correlation with children’s “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”.
(4)The discipline method “Cold and Detached” has negative correlation with children’s “communication ability”, but instead has positive correlation with “working ability” and “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”.
6.The forecast analysis on parent’s discipline method by the variables of different children and family background
(1)Regarding the discipline method “Open but Authoritative” the forecast
explained variance is 54.3%.
(2)Regarding the discipline method “Autocratic and Authoritative” the forecast explained variance is 31.2%.
(3)Regarding the discipline method “Free and Nonintervention” the forecast
explained variance is 49.1%.
(4)Regarding the discipline method “Cold and Detached”, the forecast explained variance is 78.8%.
7.The forecast analysis on children’s social behavior by the variables of different children and family background
(1)Regarding the children’s “communication ability”, the forecast explained variance is 32.6%.
(2)Regarding the children’s “initiative and self-direction”, the forecast explained variance is 13.3%.
(3)Regarding the children’s “working ability”, the forecast explained variance is 10.5%.
(4)Regarding the children’s “courtesy”, the forecast explained variance is 38.2%.
(5)Regarding the children’s “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”, the forecast explained variance is 14.6%.
8.The forecast analysis on children’s social behavior by the variables of different children and family background and parent’s discipline method
(1)Regarding the overall “communication ability”, the forecast explained variance
is 33.7%.
(2)Regarding the overall “initiative and self-direction”, the forecast explained variance is 18.5%.
(3)Regarding the overall “working ability”, the forecast explained variance is 34.1%.
(4)Regarding the overall “courtesy”, the forecast explained variance is 38.1%.
(5)Regarding the overall “reaction in unfamiliar situation and public place”, the forecast explained variance is 21.7%.
At last, suggestions for parents and follow-up studies are proposed according to the findings and conclusions in this research as the references for practical work and future studies. |
