Impacts of a Book Reading Club Intervention on Enhancing Parents’ Positive Thinking

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of participating in a book reading club on improving parents’ positive interactions with children and positive thinking. A total of 85 parent volunteers were randomized into the experimental or comparison group. The Parent Questionnaire was used to measure positive thinking and interaction with children. Additionally interview results were used to triangulate and elucidate the findings. The findings revealed a positive impact on parents’ positive thinking and interaction with children and that these were significant predictors of parents’ positive thinking. Implications and recommendations are presented.

Keywords

book reading club parent–child interaction positive thinking

Introduction

A large body of research has documented parental influence on children’s cognitive and affective development (Gecas and Schwalbe, 1986; Halloran et al., 2002; Zhou et al., 2002). For instance, Gecas and Schwalbe found parental support and positive interaction with children to be an important influence on children’s self-esteem and self-worth development because family is where the initial sense of oneself is formed. Zhou et al. revealed that parents play a large role in the social and emotional behaviors a child will possess during childhood and later in life; Halloran et al. claimed that parental connectedness was protective against many adolescent health risks including emotional health.

Therefore, parents have the necessity to learn parenting learning strategies from some effective learning environment. According to Greenfield (2009), informal learning environments have widespread impact including the development of adults’ cognitive skills and their abilities to solve social problems. Adults learn most of what they know about through free-choice learning using informal education resources (Falk et al., 2007). While there are ample studies (e.g. Fantuzzo et al., 1992; Fraser, 1998; Hong, 2010; Hong et al., 2008) that focus on children’s cognition, emotion, and technological learning, there are few studies that focus on adult learning. Because parents are an important determinant of children’s social and emotional development, it is important to pay more attention to adult learning, especially if the adults are parents of school-aged children.

Parental influence on children and parental learning strategies

In the past five decades, many family function studies have focused on how different parenting practices influence children’s psychological development and social behavior (e.g. Baumrind, 1991). For instance, Baumrind (1991) found that good adjustment in children was associated with parents who used firm, consistent discipline with warmth and support, a combination she labeled ‘Authoritative’. Researchers have pointed out that father–child interactions are more physical and more likely to engage rough and tumble play while mother–child interactions are more likely to be verbal and to involve more conventional play (Le Camus, 1995; Paquette, 2004). Because of the fact that parent behavior is associated with children’s development, such as children’s gender identity development, these findings are noteworthy because it is one of the most consistent socio-environmental variables to be associated with children’s cognitive, communicative, and social-emotional functioning through the early childhood years, even for children with developmental vulnerabilities (Spiker et al., 2002).

For most parents, parenting classes are traditionally school based, but other sources like parenting classes or talking to their children’s teachers, may either complement information from family and friends or act as an exclusive source of information (Ateah, 2003). According to Walsh (2002) parents seem to recognize the importance of effective parenting, and parents demonstrate this partly by seeking information on effective parenting techniques. For instance, parents have expressed interest in learning how to encourage children’s learning and how to establish disciplinary procedures (Walsh, 2002). Studies found that between 31 percent and 34 percent of parents reported having attended parenting classes or workshops (e.g. Young et al., 1998), and one study of Canadian parents showed 60 percent had attended some sort of parenting group (Koepke and Williams, 1989). Therefore, in this study, Marks’ (2010) publication guidelines for intervention studies were applied and the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) criteria (Des Jarlais et al., 2004; http://www.TREND-statement.org) followed. We designed a book reading club intervention for parents; we focused on developing parents’ positive thinking and positive interactions with children with carefully selected content. It is not the typical book reading club where people select books and read them.

The movement of positive thinking

There has been little attention given to the role of positive experiences in mental health and well-being, especially in comparison to research on negative experiences and mental health (Diener et al., 1999; Luthans, 2002). For example, a literature search in psychology as a whole found approximately 200,000 published articles on the treatment of mental illness; 80,000 on depression; 65,000 on anxiety; 20,000 on fear; and 10,000 on anger; but only about 1000 on positive concepts and capabilities of people (Luthans, 2002). The ratio of articles examined negative psychological states to those examining positive states 17 to 1 (Diener et al., 1999). This situation reflects the prevailing view in health research generally. As remarked by Seligman (2002), much of the task of prevention in this new century should be to create a science of human strength with the mission of understanding and learning how to foster the virtues and skills of young people (Caprara et al., 2006). A recent study by Schmidt et al. (2011) indicates that positive psychology is having an increasing influence on the content and approach of health psychology studies. The new branch of positive psychology (Seligman, 2002, 2003; Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi, 2000; Sheldon and King, 2001) calls for theoretical conceptualizations and practical initiatives directed toward promoting well-being and wellness for all people, given the assumption that even problematic aspects of individual functioning may be better addressed by strengthening the positives. Led by Seligman and a core group of positive psychologists such as Diener (2000), Peterson (2000), and Snyder (2000), the purpose of positive psychology is to shift the emphasis away from what is wrong with people to what is right with people, to focus on strengths, to be interested in resilience, and to be concerned with enhancing and developing wellness, prosperity, and the good life. Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi (2000) summarize positive psychology approaches on the subjective level (i.e. positive subjective experience such as well-being and contentment with the past, flow and happiness in the present, and hope and optimism into the future); the micro, individual level (i.e. love, courage, aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom); and macro group and institutional level (i.e. responsibility, altruism, civility, moderation, tolerance, and a strong work ethic).

In addition, Sasson (2010) revealed that positive thinking is a mental attitude that permits into the mind thoughts, words, images, and behaviors that are conductive to growth, expansion, and success. A positive global expectation about the future has been linked to desirable and successful outcomes in various settings as well as to better physical health and greater longevity (e.g. Carver and Scheier, 2002). Many recent studies have shown interesting relationships between hope, optimism, and positive attitudes and health outcomes (e.g. Ai et al., 2004; Berg et al., 2008; Von Lengerke, 2006). Thus, a major objective of this study was to investigate a book reading club intervention’s effect on improving parents’ positive thinking scores and interaction with children. Three major research questions were investigated: (1) What are the significant differences in parents’ positive thinking scores for arents with different occupations, educational levels, and interaction times with children? (2) What are the significant determinants of arents’ positive thinking? (3) How does experimental group parents’ thinking change after articipating in the book reading club?

Method

Participants and setting

This study took place in a suburb of Southern Taiwan where a total of 100 parents were asked to participate in this quasi-experimental study. Parents were selected because they lived near the investigators’ university. Despite being selected for convenience, the parents are a diverse population. After learning the purpose of the study and being invited to participate, 31 parents (14 fathers and 17 mothers) agreed to join the book reading club intervention and 54 parents (18 fathers and 36 mothers) agreed they would complete the pre- and post-tests but not participate in the intervention. The largest percentage of experimental group parents were self-employed (32.3%), with college degrees (64.5%), who reported spending 36–42 hours per week interacting with their children (35.5%). In contrast, the largest percentage of comparison group parents were homemakers (29.6%), with a junior/senior high school level of education (75.9%), but the largest percentage also reported spending 36–42 hours per week interacting with their children (31.5%). The mean age of experimental group parents is 41.03 (SD = 3.89, range from 36 to 52), while the mean age of comparison group parents is 40.08 (SD = 8.23, range from 25 to 67).

Treatment and procedure

In this quasi-experiment design (Schaefer and Kornienko, 2009) the 31 experimental group parents came to the authors’ university at a group-counseling room once a month for a two-hour book reading club intervention from September 2009 to May 2010. The 31 experimental group parents were randomly assigned into six small teams; each small team had five to six parents. All parents engaged in an intervention initiated by the investigators who served as coordinators during the book reading club intervention. The two-hour intervention included the following elements: (1) cooperative learning in which parents read books together (Johnson and Johnson, 1999); (2) watching parent–child interaction/positive thinking-related movies; (3) small group discussion in which parents disclosed their feelings and thinking within small teams; (4) reflective interaction by peers that challenged parents’ interaction with children and their perceptions; (5) oral sharing in whole-group discussions based on findings from small team discussions. All participants completed the Parent Questionnaire (PQ) in September 2009 (pretest) and May 2010 (posttest). In addition, the experimental group parents were individually interviewed by the first author in June 2010. The follow-up interview was designed to triangulate and elucidate the quantitative results.

Development and validation of instrument

Parent Questionnaire (PQ)

All participants completed the Parent Questionnaire, a 61-item investigator-developed questionnaire that consists of two sections. Three experts in educational assessment and evaluation and two parents (i.e. one father and one mother) reviewed the items of the questionnaire drafts to determine how essential these positive thinking scale items were. It was found that these experts’ agreement on the PQ content validity ration (CVR) was .99; they fit with the requirements of Lawshe’s (1975) theory. In addition, two adults were randomly selected to read items of the PQ to assure their readability and understanding. The PQ includes demographic items and positive thinking scales.

The first section elicits all respondent demographics (i.e. gender, occupation, educational levels, parent–child interaction time, and family member activities).

The second section includes the 55- item Chinese version of Positive Thinking Scale (PTS) (developed by the first author; some items derived from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25; Derogatis et al., 1974)). All participants were asked to rate each item using a four-point scale where ‘4’ represented ‘always’ and ‘1’ represented ‘never’. Parents’ responses to the 55-item PTS were analyzed as follows. First, the spread of responses to each item was determined and only those items with a standard deviation greater than 0.6 were retained. All items’ SD were higher than 0.6 (Hong and Lin, 2011). The internal consistency of the items was found to be high (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). Then we performed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity that showed a moderate–high KMO = 0.607 and a significant difference of all items (approximate Chi-square = 3513.424, p < .0001, d.f. = 1485) (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001). Moreover, we performed a Varimax with Kaiser Normalization factor analysis and found four-factor components. If an item loaded on more than one factor, we assigned the item to the factor with a higher factor loading. Taken together, the four factors accounted for 58 percent of the variance. The first factor (named Optimistic) included 28 items with a total score range from 28–112 and accounted for 29.4 percent of the variance; a sample item is ‘I can handle my life.’ The second factor (named Anxiety/depression) included 15 items with a total score range from 15–60 and accounted for 19.09 percent of the variance; a sample item is ‘I cry easily’ (i.e. these items have been reversed scored). The third factor (named Self-confidence) included six items with a total score range from 6–24 and accounted for 4.98 percent of the variance; a sample item is ‘I am comfortable being a success.’ The fourth factor (named Pessimistic) included six items with a total score range from 6–24 and accounted for 4.53 percent of the variance; a sample item is ‘I have feelings of worthlessness’ (i.e. these items have been reverse scored). The ratings for all items on each scale are summed; the total score ranges from 55 to 220. A higher total score indicates more positive thinking. Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, factor loadings, correlations, and Cronbach’s α result on the 55 items. It can be seen that all items fit within the three indices recommended by Cohen (1988) (i.e. standard deviation higher than 0.6; factor loading bigger than 0.4; and correlation with total score greater than 0.25). The above results indicate that the instrument has an adequate construct validity and internal reliability.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and factor loadings on pretest of participants’ positive thinking scale items (N = 85).

Dimensions/Items	M	SD	Factor loading with total score	Correlations with total score	Alpha if item deleted
Optimistic (28 items)
1. I can handle my life	3.16	.83	.54	.57	.95
2. I like myself	3.24	.76	.63	.58	.95
3. I get along well with people	3.30	.61	.70	.58	.95
4. I deserve what I want	2.51	.90	.60	.40	.95
5. I should have a good life	2.90	.82	.66	.63	.95
6. I view failure as a learning opportunity	3.13	.85	.55	.50	.95
7. I can handle unexpected incidents	2.71	.79	.76	.58	.95
8. When being rejected, I am able to face it with courage	2.89	.86	.70	.52	.95
9. When suffering from pain, I will face it with courage	3.06	.76	.52	.48	.95
10. I am very happy to be alive	3.37	.77	.60	.71	.94
11. I try my best to arrange my life	3.25	.76	.59	.73	.94
12. I think failure is a normal process of life, so we don’t worry too much	3.05	.83	.67	.68	.94
13. I have expectations for others and for myself	2.98	.79	.59	.45	.95
14. I can handle conflicts effectively	2.78	.79	.82	.50	.95
15. I will try to reach the goal	3.05	.75	.72	.59	.95
16. I am satisfied with the progress of my career	2.67	.92	.71	.64	.95
17. My income is enough for me	2.86	.93	.71	.75	.94
18. When doing in-risk assessments, I am able to consider the unexpected incident carefully	2.78	.85	.70	.60	.95
19. I am able to live my own life	2.98	.87	.83	.75	.94
20. I know that I am on the right track	3.24	.69	.76	.69	.95
21. I am able to develop my own career	3.11	.72	.71	.67	.95
22. I praise partner and family more often than I criticize them	2.81	.76	.55	.50	.95
23. When encountering difficulties, I will calm down to think of solutions	3.08	.79	.67	.65	.95
24. I live a substantial life everyday	2.95	.75	.83	.68	.95
25. I often consider everything is perfect	2.83	.85	.76	.56	.95
26. It is easy for me to relax	2.71	.83	.70	.58	.95
27. I always have optimistic attitudes toward the future	3.03	.86	.62	.44	.95
28. I like to interact with friends	3.30	.64	.71	.71	.94
Anxiety/depression (15 items)
29. I cry easily	3.21	.79	.72	.38	.95
30. I feel depressed	3.08	.68	.83	.40	.95
31. I feel that I lose my temper more often than before.	2.98	.83	.77	.35	.95
32. I have difficulty falling asleep	2.90	.84	.76	.25	.95
33. I don’t feel like eating	3.22	.75	.66	.26	.95
34. I feel tight, uncomfortable, or painful in my chest	3.22	.71	.73	.38	.95
35. I feel uneasy and restless	3.11	.68	.87	.39	.95
36. I am tired and exhausted and have lost energy	3.14	.69	.88	.39	.95
37. I feel annoyed	3.10	.69	.84	.32	.95
38. I feel that my memory is poor	2.92	.66	.74	.28	.95
39. It is slower for me to think or do something than before	3.17	.66	.63	.28	.95
40. I tend to look on the dark side	3.19	.80	.61	.47	.95
41. I am pessimistic and I even want to die	3.62	.71	.66	.39	.95
42. I feel that I have lost interest in everything	3.46	.69	.72	.47	.95
43. I feel physically uncomfortable, such as headache, dizziness, palpitation, or stomachache.	3.13	.75	.72	.29	.95
Self-confidence (6 items)
44. I can be responsible for most of my life	3.37	.81	.59	.36	.95
45. I am comfortable being a success	3.06	.84	.61	.56	.95
46. I like to make jokes about myself	2.62	.91	.44	.35	.95
47. There are few things under my expectations	2.70	.66	.51	.25	.95
48. I rarely feel disturbed	2.57	.82	.40	.30	.95
49. In my life, good news is always more than bad news	2.76	.95	.65	.43	.95
Pessimistic (6 items)
50. I have feelings of worthlessness	3.24	.67	.61	.44	.95
51. I feel hopeless about the future	2.90	.93	.40	.25	.95
52. I don’t believe that good news would happen to me	2.89	.79	.46	.29	.95
53. I think I can’t concentrate when I am doing something	3.03	.60	.62	.39	.95
54. I feel less confident than I used to be	3.17	.66	.60	.50	.95
55. I think I am useless	3.60	.64	.57	.45	.95

Individual interviews

To further investigate the effects of this intervention, all the experimental group parents were recruited for individual interviews by the first author. Each parent was interviewed for 20–30 minutes using a semi-structured interview protocol one month after the ending of the intervention. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed. A sample parent interview question is: ‘Do you perceive any differences in your thinking style after joining the book reading club?’

Data analyses

First, we performed ANOVAs to determine if there were any significant differences in positive thinking for parents with different occupations, educational levels, and interaction time with children. Second, a forward regression was conducted to measure the determinants of parents’ positive thinking. Third, we conducted paired t-tests and ANCOVAs to compare parents’ positive thinking between experimental and comparison group parents. Finally, content theme analysis (Patton, 2002) was used to analyze the individual interview results from experimental group parents.

Results

What are the significant differences in parents’ positive thinking scores for parents with different occupations, educational levels, and interaction times with children?

The results of one-way ANOVAs using data from all of the parents showed positive thinking mean scores on the pretest was significantly different for parents with different occupations (F (8, 77) = 3.55, p < .01). The results of Bonferroni post hoc comparisons with different occupations show that parents with professional and self-employed occupations (M = 184.13, SD = 23.00) have significantly higher positive thinking scores than the parents who are unemployed (M = 148.71, SD = 9.01). In addition, it showed that parents’ positive thinking mean scores on the posttest was significantly different for interaction time with children (F (2, 83) = 6.895, p < .01). The results of Bonferroni post hoc comparisons showed that parents with high interaction times with children (i.e. 29–42 hours per week) (M =177.57, SD = 19.78) have significantly higher positive thinking scores than parents with moderate times with children (15–28 hours per week) (M =160.74, SD = 19.28) and parents with low interaction times with children (1–14 hours per week) (M =156.60, SD = 21.10).

What are the significant determinants of parents’ positive thinking?

First, we utilized Pearson correlations to explore significant relationships between the independent variables and parents’ positive thinking on the pretest. The results indicate that group membership and parents’ educational levels have significant correlations with parents’ positive thinking. Second, forward regression results indicate that the group membership explained 16.1 percent of the variance on the pretest of positive thinking (F change = 13.31, p < .001). The intervention explained 21.9 percent of the variance on posttest of parents’ positive thinking (F change = 17.31, p < .001). In addition, we surprisingly found that parent–child interaction times with children per week explained 2.9 percent of the variance parents’ positive thinking posttest scores (F change = 4.48, p < .05). Together the two significant predictors explained 24.8 percent on posttest of parents’ positive thinking total scores.

How did experimental group parents’ thinking change after participating in the book reading club?

As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the two groups’ parents gain scores from pretest to posttest were significantly different on positive thinking total scores and the dimensions of Optimistic, Self-confidence and Pessimistic. In addition, overall adjusting for the pretest mean of experimental group parents’ positive thinking is significantly higher than the comparison group parents adjusting for the pretest mean. In two out of the four dimensions (i.e. Optimistic and Self-confidence), the experiential group parents significantly outperformed the comparison group parents in their adjusting for the pretest mean scores. In the dimensions of Anxiety/depression and Pessimistic, the two groups of parents performed with slight difference.

Table 2.

Results of paired-wise t-tests of parents’ positive thinking scores by groups.

Variables	Groups	N	Pre–post	Paired	SD	t	Effect size^a	p
Positive thinking total	Exp.	31	Pre	169.26	18.34	−2.16*	−0.65	.05
			Post	181.57	19.60
	Com.	54	Pre	163.71	19.38	0.97	0.26	.65
			Post	158.65	19.07
Optimistic	Exp.	31	Pre	86.96	9.96	−2.78**	−0.54	.01
			Post	93.19	13.21
	Com.	54	Pre	81.41	17.28	1.80	0.20	.52
			Post	78.15	14.76
Anxiety/depression	Exp.	31	Pre	49.46	5.71	0.05	0.01	.96
			Post	49.41	5.90
	Com.	54	Pre	47.53	8.85	0.55	0.09	.58
			Post	46.71	8.84
Self-confidence	Exp.	31	Pre	16.48	2.42	−3.48**	−1.04	.00
			Post	19.14	2.71
	Com.	54	Pre	16.30	2.77	1.12	0.19	.27
			Post	15.11	2.50
Pessimistic	Exp.	31	Pre	16.36	2.26	−2.19*	−1.38	.05
			Post	19.91	2.88
	Com.	54	Pre	18.47	2.88	0.69	0.13	.49
			Post	18.13	2.46

Notes:

For Cohen’s d an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 might be a ‘small’ effect, around 0.5 a ‘medium’ effect, and 0.8 to infinity a ‘large’ effect size (Cohen, 1988).

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 3.

Results of ANCOVAs of parents’ positive thinking scores between experimental and comparison groups.

Variables	Groups	N	Mean of posttest	SD	Adjusted posttest mean	Adjusted posttest SE	F	Effect size	p
Optimistic	Exp.^a	31	93.19	13.21	90.89	3.13	7.73**	.81	.01
	Com.^b	54	78.15	14.76	79.57	2.41
Anxiety/depression	Exp.	31	49.41	5.90	48.90	1.61	1.03	.27	.31
	Com.	54	46.71	8.83	46.94	1.07
Self-confidence	Exp.	31	19.14	2.71	18.50	0.55	12.10**	1.03	.00
	Com.	54	15.11	2.50	15.81	0.36
Pessimistic	Exp.	31	19.91	2.88	19.44	0.54	2.75	.41	.10
	Com.	54	18.13	2.46	18.35	0.36

Notes:

Experimental group parents who came to the authors’ university once a month for a two-hour book reading club intervention.

Comparison group parents who only completed pre and postparental questionnaire.

**p < .01.

The follow-up interviews with all experimental parents corroborated the quantitative results. We present below the results from four parents’ interviews to demonstrate their improvement in posttest positive thinking and interaction with children. In analyzing their responses the two recurring themes were positive thinking and positive parent–child interaction.

Positive thinking

Alice (a mother) said:

I am a homemaker, because I felt this was a great opportunity; I joined this book reading club. We read many meaningful books and articles together. We took turns to disclose our thinking and feeling with team members within the book reading club. I learned many great teaching strategies and fostering strategies from coordinators and my team members. I found that not only I made improvement, but also my son Chia-Chen had big changes in his way of communication with me. He found that his thinking changed to be more positive than before. (11 June 2010)

Judy (a grandmother) said:

I graduated from a junior high school. Because my son is a fisherman, he was married at the age of 20, and divorced at the age of 22, so I need to take care of my granddaughter for him. My family economic status is quite a hardship, so we didn’t have any money to send my granddaughter to attend outdoor activities. I always felt I am so unlucky and unfortunate. Whereas, after attending this book reading club with all parents sharing feelings and thoughts with team members, I learned how to educate and communicate with my granddaughter. In addition, the book reading club gradually led me to think positively and built high self-confidence. (8 June 2010).

Positive parent–child interaction

Sam (a father) said:

I always believed that education and caring for children are my wife’s responsibilities, I never pay any attention to those things, but in the book reading club all parents discussed and shared with others about their parent–child interactions. I learned how to communicate with children. I found that not only myself changed, but also that my daughter Chia-Yin has more interactions with me. She is getting accustomed to speaking to me gradually, I am so happy and satisfied with these big changes. (11 June 2010)

Eric (a father) said:

After graduating from college, I got married and became a father at the age of 28. I am the breadwinner for my family members, I have never had time to sit down and interact with my children for the past 10 years. I always transferred my father’s practice to my children. While attending the book reading club, we were carefully watching and reviewing movies, for example, ‘October Sky’, ‘Front of the Class’, ‘Legally Blonde’. All parents discussed and shared their perspectives. I learned how to treat and support my children and others from there. I feel that I think more positively and have decreased my anxiety and depression. (8 June 2010)

Discussion

The t-test and ANCOVA results showed that the experimental group had higher posttest scores in positive thinking than the comparison group even after taking the pretest scores into consideration. This shows that participating in the intervention had a positive effect. These gains were experienced across educational levels, occupations, and interactions with children. The experimental group parents obtained higher means on the posttest of positive thinking than their pretest. For example, we found that 35.5 percent of parents with low educational levels (i.e. elementary/secondary school) made significant gains on the PTS from pretest to posttest as was the case for 35.7 percent of parents with lower income occupations (i.e. service personnel/unemployed/other) and 19.05 percent of parents with moderate interaction times with children and 14.29 percent of parents with low interaction times with children.

These findings provide support for the feasibility of implementing book reading club activities for parents, including low educational level and low income parents, when appropriate cooperative learning and reflective peer-assessment procedures are integrated into the treatment and motivating strategies are used for the parents. Especially, we found that the dimensions of optimism and self-confidence were significantly different between the experimental and comparison parent groups. This study suggests that the treatment is feasible and effective for all parents even those with low income or education. It seems that the book reading club has strong effects on promoting parents’ internal positive emotions and thinking styles. As remarked by Seligman (2002), the task of prevention in the new century should be to create a science of human strength with the mission of understanding and learning how to foster the virtues and skills of young people.

In this study, we found that the book reading club significantly enlightened the parents, therefore providing evidence that a positive, respectful, and supportive learning environment as well as a practical initiative can be effective in promoting well-being and wellness. We conclude that the book reading club was a powerful intervention in which the parents’ active and enthusiastic involvement was the most important element in producing the effects. The experimental group parents were encouraged to communicate their own ideas among peers and to reflect on their own original beliefs and thoughts. In an effort to encourage two-way interactive activities, this study not only focused on promoting parents’ internal reflections on the improvement of positive thinking, but also on providing opportunities for them to interact with their children.

Implication and recommendations

In general, the PTS instrument worked well: the response rate was high; most participants could read and understand the items; the scales showed adequate internal consistency and evidence of convergent and discriminate validity was promising. The intervention appears to have promoted positive results. These results are due to the parents reading the books and viewing the films as well as to the interactions and discussions with the coordinators and the other parents. We highly recommend this type of book reading club to promote parents’ positive thinking and interaction with their children.

Additionally, and surprisingly, we found that educational levels, occupations, and gender were not predictive of posttest parents’ positive thinking; but intervention and parent–child interaction time were. These findings echo the studies by Hales (1990) who found that parents’ interaction with children is a significant psychological and social resource because they control the atmosphere in which children have their first experience as social beings. Although both experimental and comparison group parents came from diverse backgrounds, it is possible that the people who chose to participate in the study were more motivated to enhance their positive thinking. Also they were different from the comparison parents in terms of education, occupation, and initial levels of positive thinking. In addition, the treatment effect might have been confounded with the attention effect: the responses of the experimental group parents may have been influenced by different features of the intervention. It is possible that just the act of participation may have produced an effect regardless of the elements of intervention (e.g. potential Hawthorne effects; McCarney et al., 2007).

In conclusion, this study found that a structured book reading club significantly promoted parents’ positive thinking and positive parent–child interaction. This suggests that the elements of the intervention – heterogeneous grouping, reflective peer-assessment, wide topic of book selection, watching related to positive thinking movies, and reflective peer-assessment (Lin et al., in press) – are all potentially important components in enhancing parents’ positive thinking. Teasing apart the importance of these components individually requires further careful evaluative research. A structured book reading club could serve as an alternative for adult education teachers and educators who are interested in developing innovative teaching strategies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan NSC 97-2630-110-001-MY3. Special thanks go to the editor’s thoughtful suggestions, anonymous reviewers’ constructive comments, and Professor Frances Lawrenz of the University of Minnesota for her insightful suggestions to this manuscript.

None declared.

References

Peterson

Tice

Bolling

Koening

(2004) Faith-based and secular pathways to hope and optimism subconstructs in middle-aged and older cardiac patients. Journal of Health Psychology 9(3): 435–450.

Ateah

(2003) Disciplinary practices with children: Parental sources of information, attitudes, and educational needs. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing 26(2): 89–101.

Baumrind

(1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence 11(1): 56–95.

Berg

Snyder

Hamilton

(2008) The effectiveness of a hope intervention in coping with cold pressor pain. Journal of Health Psychology 13(6): 804–809.

Caprara

Steca

Gerbino

Paciello

Vecchio

(2006) Looking for adolescents’ well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 15(1): 30–43.

Carver

Scheier

(2002) Optimism. In: Snyder

Lopez

(eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York:Oxford University Press, 231–243.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Derogatis

Lopman

Rickels

Ulenhuth

Covi

(1974) The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL). Modern Problems in Pharmacopsychiatry 7: 79–110.

Des Jarlais

Lyles

Crepaz

(2004) Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: The TREND statement. American Journal of Public Health 94(3): 361–366.

10.

Diener

(2000) Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and proposal for a national index. American Psychologist 55(1): 34–43.

11.

Diener

Suh

Lucas

Smith

(1999) Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 276–302.

12.

Falk

Storksieck

Dierking

(2007) Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science 16 (4): 455–469.

13.

Fantuzzo

King

Heller

(1992) Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3): 331–339.

14.

Fraser

(1998) Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research 1(1): 7–34.

15.

Gecas

Schwalbe

(1986) Parental behavior and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48(1): 37–46.

16.

Greenfield

(2009) Technology and informal education: What is taught, what is learned. Science 323(5910): 69–71.

17.

Halloran

Ross

Carey

(2002) The relationship of adolescent personality and family environment to psychiatric diagnosis. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 32(3): 201–216.

18.

Hales

(1990) Valuing the self: Understanding the nature of self-esteem. The Saybrook Perspective 4(Winter): 3–17.

19.

Hong

(2010) Effects of a collaborative science intervention on high achieving students’ learning anxiety and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education 32(15): 1971–1988.

20.

Hong

Lin

(2011) An investigation of students’ personality traits and attitudes toward science. International Journal of Science Education 33(7): 1001–1028.

21.

Hong

Lin

McCarthy Veach

(2008) Effects of an extracurricular science intervention on science performance, self-worth, social skills, and sexist attitudes of Taiwanese adolescents from single-parent families. Sex Roles 59(7–8): 555–567.

22.

Johnson

(1999) Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

23.

Koepke

Williams

(1989) Child-rearing information: Resources parents use. Family Relations 38(4): 462–465.

24.

Lawshe

(1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology 28(4): 563–575.

25.

Le Camus

(1995) Les interactions père–enfant en milieu aquatique (Father–child interactions in an aquatic setting). Revue international de pédiatrie 255: 7–17.

26.

Lin

Hong

Wang

Lee

(in press) Using reflective peer assessment to promote students’ conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions. Educational Technology & Society.

27.

Luthans

(2002) Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive 16(1): 57–72.

28.

Marks

(2010) Publication guidelines for intervention studies in the Journal of Health Psychology. Journal of Health Psychology 15(1): 5–7.

29.

McCarney

Warner

Iliffe

Van Haselen

Griffin

Fisher

(2007) The Hawthorne Effect: A randomized, controlled trail. BMC Medical Research Methodology published online 2007 July 3. Doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-3010.1186/1471-2288-7-30.

30.

Paquette

(2004) Theorizing the father–child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development 47(4): 193–219.

31.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

32.

Peterson

(2000) The future of optimism. American Psychologist 55(1): 44–55.

33.

Sasson

(2010) The Power of Positive Thinking. Available at:http://www.successconsciousness.com/index_000009.htm.

34.

Schaefer

Kornienko

(2009) Building cohesion in positively connected exchange networks. Social Psychology Quarterly 72(4): 384–402.

35.

Schmidt

Raque-Bogdan

Piontkowski

Schaefer

(2011) Putting the positive in health psychology: A content analysis of three journals. Journal of Health Psychology 16(4): 607–620.

36.

Seligman

MEP

(2002) Positive psychology, positive prevention, and positive therapy. In: Snyder

Lopez

(eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York:Oxford University Press, 3–9.

37.

Seligman

MEP

(2003) Foreword: The past and future of positive psychology. In: Keyes

Haidt

(eds) In Flourishing: A Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, xi–xx.

38.

Seligman

MEP

Csikszentimihalyi

(2000) Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist 55(1): 5–14.

39.

Sheldon

King

(2001) Why positive psychology is necessary? American Psychologist 56(3): 216–217.

40.

Snyder

(2000) Handbook of Hope. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

41.

Spiker

Boyce

(2002) Parent–child interactions when young children have disabilities. In: Glidden

(ed.) International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, vol. 25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 35–70.

42.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2001) Using Multivariatestatistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

43.

Von Lengerke

(2006) Public health is an interdiscipline, and about wholes and parts: Indeed, critical health psychology needs to join forces. Journal of Health Psychology 11(3): 395–399.

44.

Walsh

(2002) Spankers and nonspankers: Where do they get information on spanking? Family Relations 51(1): 81–88.

45.

Young

Davis

Schoen

Parker

(1998) Listening to parents: A national survey of parents with young children. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 152(3): 255–262.

46.

Zhou

Eisenberg

Losoya

. (2002) The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children’s empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development 73(3): 893–915.