Parental Socialization and Children’s
Engagement in Math, Science, and
Computer Activities
Sandra D. Simpkins
W. Todd Bartko
Jacquelynne S. Eccles
University of Michigan
This research was funded by Grant HD17553 from the National
Institute for Child Health and Human Development and Grant
0089972 from the National Science Foundation to Jacquelynne
Eccles and Pamela Davis-Kean.
Parental Socialization

Parental Modeling is correlated with
– Involvement in sports and computer activities

Parental Encouragement is associated with
– Involvement in sports and math activities
– Confidence and interest in computer, sports, and math
activities

Parent-Child Coactivity is linked with
– Computer knowledge
– Reading achievement
– Knowledge, competence, and involvement in sports
activities
Gender Differences

Children’s after-school activity engagement
– Boys are more likely than girls to engage in




Computer activities
Math activities
Science fairs and other science-related activities
Parental Socialization
– Parent Encouragement


No gender differences in computer activities
Mixed results concerning math and science activities
– Parent-child Coactivity


More explanation about science museum exhibits to boys
More parent-son computer coactivity
Eccles’ Expectancy-Value Model
Parent & Family
Characteristics
•Education
•Family Income
Child
Characteristics
•Sex
•Age
•Aptitudes
Parental Socialization
•Coactivity
•Encouragement
•Modeling
Child Activity
Engagement
Goals of the Study
 To
test the role of parents in
socializing their children’s
involvement in out of school math,
science, and computer activities
 To
test the role of parents in
socializing any gender differences in
these activities
Childhood and Beyond Study

Children
– 125 2nd grade children

mean age of 8.20 years, SD = .44
– 123 3rd grade children

mean age of 9.24 years, SD = .43
– 200 5th grade children


mean age of 11.16 years, SD = .37
448 Families
– Mostly European-American and spoke English
– 40% of mothers & 54% of fathers earned a degree from
a 4-year college.
– Median annual household income: $60,000 - $70,000
Measures: Children’s Activities

Child report
– How often they





Used a computer outside of school
Engaged in math activities
Engaged in science activities
Scale: 0 = never, 6 = almost every day for a lot of time
Parent report
– In the last week, how much did their child



Engaged in math and science activities for pleasure
Use the microcomputer for activities other than action video
games
Scale: 1 = 0 hours, 9 = 12-16 hours, 12 = over 25 hours
Measures: Parent Socialization

Parent encouragement
– How much they generally encouraged their child to




Work on or play with a computer outside of school
Do math-related (e.g., math-oriented games such as mastermind)
or science-related (e.g., chemistry sets) activities at home
Scale: 1 = strongly discourage, 7 = strongly encourage
Parent-child coactivity
– Generally, how often did they




Work with their child on the computer
Engage in math or science activities with their child
Scale: 1 = never, 3 = 2-3 times a month, 7 = every day for 30
minutes or more
Parent modeling
– In the last week, how much time they spent on



Math- and science-related activities
A microcomputer for activities other than action video games
Scale: 1 = 0 hours, 6 = 10-15 hours, 8 = more than 20 hours
Measures: Parent & Child Characteristics

Parent education
– Highest level of education across each motherfather dyad

Family annual income

Digit Span
– Assess children’s mathematics aptitudes
 Stevenson
& Newman, 1986
 Includes 12 sets of whole numbers
Gender Differences
 Children’s
Activity Engagement
– No significant gender difference for
math and science activities
– Boys used computers more often than
girls, F (3, 239) = 3.21, p < .05
 Parental
Socialization
– No significant gender differences
Bivariate Correlations: Computer Use
1.
Variable
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Children’s engagement
1. Child report
2. Maternal report
.40***
3. Paternal report
.32***
.51***
4. Maternal
.26***
.38*** .38***
5. Paternal
.32***
.40*** .41***
.42***
6. Maternal
.26***
.50*** .41***
.38***
.40***
7. Paternal
.30***
.40*** .51***
.41***
.49***
.46***
8. Maternal
.17***
.23*** .13*
.24***
.13*
.34***
.15*
9. Paternal
.21***
.17**
.25***
.27***
.23***
.38***
Encouragement
Co-activity
Modeling
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
.19***
.09
Bivariate Correlations: Math & Science
1.
Variable
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Children’s engagement
1. Child report
2. Maternal report
.14**
3. Paternal report
.07
.39***
4. Maternal
.10*
.42*** .27***
5. Paternal
.01
.23*** .33***
.31***
6. Maternal
.04
.26*** .21***
.29***
.10
7. Paternal
-.11
.06
.16**
.22***
.18**
8. Maternal
.09
.22*** .02
.14**
.03
.18**
-.08
9. Paternal
-.06
.04
..01
.19***
.06
.22***
Encouragement
Co-activity
.16**
Modeling
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
.25***
.08
Predicting Children’s Activity Engagement
Child
aptitude
Paternal-report
of child
engagement
Child grade
Maternal-report
of child
engagement
Child
gender
Parent
education
Maternal
coactivity
Paternal
coactivity
Child-report
of child
engagement
Parent
Socialization
Family
income
Maternal
modeling
Paternal
modeling
Maternal
encouragement
Paternal
encouragement
Computer Use
.10*
Child
aptitude
.11*
.36***
.65***
Child grade
.19***
Maternal-reported
computer use
R2 = .50
.08*
Child
gender
.15***
Parent
education
.11*
Paternal-reported
computer use
R2 = .43
.69***
Parent
Socialization
R2 = .03
.48***
.43***
Child-reported
computer use
R2 = .27
Family
income
.57***
Maternal
coactivity
.62***
.37***
Paternal
coactivity
Maternal
modeling
.39***
.67***
Paternal
modeling
.71***
Maternal
encouragement
Paternal
encouragement
X2 (58) = 140.71, p < .001, TLI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05
Math and Science
.10*
Child
aptitude
.11*
.36***
.58***
Paternal-reported
math & science
R2 = .34
Child grade
23*
Child
gender
.19*
Parent
education
.11*
.65***
Parent
Socialization
R2 = .03
Maternal-reported
math & science
R2 = .44
Child-reported
math & science
R2 = .07
.12
*
.43***
Family
income
.62***
Maternal
coactivity
.47***
.24***
Paternal
coactivity
Maternal
modeling
.14*
.41***
Paternal
modeling
.22***
Maternal
encouragement
Paternal
encouragement
X2 (58) = 122.29, p < .001 , TLI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05
Conclusions

Synergistic combination of socialization
methods

Utility of parental modeling

Computer vs. math and science activities

Few gender differences in parental
socialization or children’s activities