How do we think, feel, and behave towards children How do we think, feel, and behave towards children? Developing the Child Attitude Components Scale (CACS) Lukas J. Wolf1; Vlad Costin2,3; Colin Foad2, Geoff Haddock2, Gregory R. Maio1 1University of Bath, 2Cardiff University, 3University of Sussex Introduction Positivity Stress Model fit CFI > .975, RMSEA < .065 (2-factor model > 1-factor model, p<.001) Internal consistency α > .92 α > .81 Test-retest (8.5 months) r = .82-.89 r = .54-.71 Correlations among CACS factors -.56 (babies), -.31 (toddlers), -.71 (children) Correlations among CACS-scales .71-.84 .64-.69 Research on parenting suggests that positive and negative views of children are not mutually exclusive (e.g., Eibach & Moch, 2011), hinting at two separate dimensions underlying people‘s attitudes towards children. However, existing measures do not capture this ambivalence in our attitudes towards children; instead they assess the researchers‘ assumptions of what constitutes liking children. Moreover, previous measures have not considered distinct child age groups (e.g., babies, toddlers). The present research developed the Child Attitude Components Scales (CACS) by: Identifying key child groups that adults spontaneously distinguish Identifying feelings, beliefs, and behaviours that adults spontaneously use to describe these child groups (tripartite model of attitudes; Maio et al., 2018) Broader aims: Provide a better, more comprehensive understanding of adults‘ attitudes towards children Identify risk and beneficial factors in adult treatment of children Table 1. Properties of the CACS-scales. Construct Validity Four studies (N=1,656) tested the scales’ convergent and discriminant validity. Positivity dimension Positivity on all three scales predicted… more positive perceptions and evaluations of babies, toddlers, and children (but not adults) more motivation to be a parent, higher need for affect, higher generativity Positivity on the CACS-children predicted… contributing more to a charity event benefitting children (see below) evaluating child-related stimuli (videos, stories, images) more positively higher self-transcendence (e.g., helpfulness) & conservation values (e.g., security)  All scales unrelated to need for cognition, need for structure, stress-related outcomes Stress dimension Stress on the CACS-toddlers predicted… more anxiety about interacting with toddlers more support for corporal punishment of toddlers (see top right corner) a higher need for structure All scales unrelated to need for cognition and to positivity-related outcomes Figure 2. The stress factor on the CACS-toddlers predicts more support for corporal punishment of toddlers. The positivity factor is unrelated to this outcome. Conclusions Together, this research shows that the CACS is a reliable and valid measure of adults’ attitudes towards child groups. Advantages of the CACS The content of the CACS was derived from people’s spontaneous characterisations of children, thus providing a new level of understanding of how adults evaluate children In contrast to previous measures, the CACS also captures stress-related attitudes The CACS can be applied to match specific contexts (e.g., using CACS-toddlers to test corporal punishment attitudes towards toddlers) Practical uses of the CACS The CACS can be an important tool to explain adult-child interactions (e.g., within family, institutions, or society) The CACS can help identify risk (e.g., corporal punishment, abuse) and beneficial factors (e.g., donating to a child-related event) in adult treatment of child groups. Item Generation We conducted five studies (N=1609) to identify key child groups & items for the CACS scales. Child age groups We first identified which child groups adults spontaneously distinguish, using open-ended questions. The most common child age groups were babies (0-1.5 years), toddlers (1.5-3.5 years), and children (4-11 years). Scale content To generate items for the scale, participants described their beliefs, feelings, and behaviours concerning babies, toddlers, and children in open-ended questions. Subsequently, participants rated how much they agreed with the resulting statements about child groups. Factor structure Two factors emerged consistently across all child groups, with one factor capturing positivity toward them and one capturing stress elicited by them. We used CTT and IRT to select the best performing items. This resulted in the scales: CACS-babies, CACS-toddlers, and CACS-children Positivity factor λ Stress factor Babies make me feel affectionate 0.91 Babies make me feel anxious 0.84 Babies make me feel love 0.86 Babies make me feel frustrated 0.73 I am enthusiastic towards babies I am exhausted by babies 0.71 I feel distant towards babies (R) -0.85 Babies make me feel stressed 0.88 Babies don’t make me feel awe (R) -0.65 Babies don’t make me feel anxious (R) -0.69 Table 2. CACS-babies items. Figure 1. The positivity factor on the CACS-children predicts donating more to a charity benefitting children (BBC Children in Need). The stress factor is unrelated to this outcome. References Contact Eibach, R. P., & Mock, S. E. (2011). Idealizing parenthood to rationalize parental investments. Psychological Science, 22, 203-208. Maio, G. R., Haddock, G., & Verplanken, B. (2018). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. Sage Publications Limited. Dr Lukas J. Wolf University of Bath Email: L.Wolf@bath.ac.uk Website: researchgate.net/profile/Lukas_Wolf3 Website: researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/persons/lukas-wolf Twitter: @wolf_lj @child_salience