MOTHERS' CONCEPTUALIZATION OF CHILDREN'S THINKING1
Authors: Vandeventer Mary 
Published: August 2014

Much evidence has been collected to support the premise that cognitive skills are developmental in nature and that such skills can be modified by different environmental conditions. But if a parent were to ask what he could do to improve his child's learning ability or intelligence, the answer would have to be couched in general terms since little is known about the effect of specific variables on development. Investigators have studied such variables as differential use of language in the home and differential styles of teaching used by mothers. But basic to how a parent can improve his child's learning ability or intelligence are his expectations of the child's abilities and his conceptualizations of them. Yet these variables have received little attention in the literature.

One of the few researchers who has explored this area is Ponzo. He studied mothers' expectations of the abilities of average seven year olds in the Italian culture and came to three conclusions. First, he found that in general mothers tended to overestimate slightly children's abilities. Second, he found that mothers' estimates of the average child were similar to their own children's actual performance. Third, he found that mothers of boys gave significantly higher estimates of children's performance than did mothers of girls.

The present study attempted to extend and broaden Ponzo's work in several ways. First, different measures, one a nonverbal task, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices, and one a verbal task, the Picture Vocabulary Test, were selected. Second, a modified experimental technique was chosen. This technique required mothers to answer the two tasks both as their own and the average child would answer them. Third, a different population was selected. This population consisted of middle‐to‐upper‐middle socioeconomic status American subjects.

Several conclusions were drawn and their implications for parent education were indicated. First, mothers of first‐graders do not conceptualize accurately children's thinking abilities. Rather, they overestimate them. This is true of mothers' conceptualizations of both the average child and their own children.

Second, mothers tend not to differentiate between the abilities involved in a verbal and a nonverbal task. The correlations between their estimates of children's performance on the CPM and PVT were high. The tasks did in fact measure separate abilities in the children.

Third, mothers' estimates of their children's performance are not directly related to their children's actual performance. These findings indicate that in order for mothers to better help their children they need to develop more awareness about children's abilities in general and their own children's abilities in particular. Mothers also need to learn to differentiate between the types of abilities needed in different tasks.

Fourth, mothers in the present study give higher estimates for their own children's performance than they do for the average child's performance. This differs from Ponzo's findings but, because of the particular sample chosen, may be somewhat realistic.

Fifth, mothers of boys do not differ from mothers of girls in their estimates of their own or the average child's performance. This differs from Ponzo's third finding. Ponzo attributed the higher estimates of mothers of boys to cultural values. The author feels that in the present study the belief held by mothers that boys develop more slowly initially than girls counterbalances this tendency and results in no significant difference.

Sixth, the order in which mothers estimate their own and the average child's scores appears to make a difference. This indicates the importance of establishing a frame of reference for mothers and the need to control this variable in future research.

Seventh, the performance of boys did not differ from that of girls. This was true for both tasks.

Limitations of the study such as homogeneity of the sample with respect to intellectual level and socioeconomic status are discussed. The need for additional research is pointed out. Suggestions are made indicating variables which need further study.