Open Journal of Modern Linguistics
2012. Vol.2, No.4, 170-179
Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojml) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2012.24022
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
Parent’s Attitudes and Behavior, the Learning Environment, and
Their Influence on Children’s Early Reading Achievement
Salim Abu-Rabia, Inat Yaari
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Received July 30th, 2012; revised August 30th, 2012; accepted September 7th, 2012
Three different models predict the relationship between parents’ attitudes toward reading, their behavior
and the learning environment that they provide, and their influence on the reading performance of their
children in first grade. The first model specifies the direct influence of each of the independent variables
(attitudes, behavior and learning environment) on the dependent variable (reading performance of the
child). The second model emphasizes the behavior as mediator between attitudes and reading perform-
ance, and also the direct influence of learning environment on performance. In contrast, the third model
relates to the influence of attitudes on reading performance, with behavior as a mediator just in a suppor-
tive learning environment. In order to examine these models, we investigated a population of fifty first-
grade pupils and their parents, measuring these variables with the help of questionnaires, interviews, ob-
servations and reading tests. The findings suggest that parents’ supportive attitudes have a significant
positive influence on the reading performance of their children in first grade. This conclusion is actually
consistent with all three models. The more specific conclusion, however, is that attitudes are partially me-
diated by parents’ behavior in a supportive learning environment, which partially supports the third
Keywords: Early Literacy; Parental Attitudes; Parental Behavior; Learning Environment
Children usually show curiosity in reading and writing ac-
tivities in rich literacy learning environments. They experience
literary activities in their homes and kindergartens. Literacy
develops on a daily basis for the sake of accomplishing future
literacy skills. Stroud (1995) found literacy props “to be prom-
ising in the development and practice of emergent reading and
writing skills” (p. 13). Clay (1972) used the term “emergent
literacy” to indicate that positive progress has taken place in
children’s attitudes toward books before they begin to learn
reading and writing formally. Children show interest in certain
books and from an early age keep asking their parents to read
these particular books to them (Feitelson, 1988). Martnez and
Roser (1985) argue that children should listen to repeated read-
ing of stories. This type of repeated listening, according to
Martnez and Roser (1985), stimulates the various verbal reac-
tions of the children, focuses on different aspects of the story
and develops a deep understanding of the story and ultimately
better basic academic skills (Abu-Rabia, 2000).
As the first learning environment of children is their home,
which can be enriched by the contribution of their close rela-
tives, this study investigates parental attitudes toward reading
behavior and toward the learning environment that these par-
ents create, and their influence on the reading achievement of
their first-grade children.
Three models are suggested to explain the relationship be-
tween attitudes, behavior and learning environment and their
influence on the reading achievement of first-grade children.
The first model highlights the direct influence of each of the
independent variables. The second model highlights the par-
ents’ behavior as a mediating factor between attitudes and
reading achievement, in addition to a direct influence of learn-
ing environment on reading achievement. The third model, how-
ever, considers the influence of attitudes on reading achieve-
ment with behavior as a mediator only in a supportive learning
Family and Early Reading
The early years of a child’s life play a crucial role in the de-
velopment of knowledge and reading skills, giving the child’s
home a major influence in this stage of life (Lombard, 1994).
Feitelson (1988) argued that certain homes stimulate literacy
whereas others do not. The former equip children with literary
knowledge that enables them to acquire reading faster than
others (Share, Jorm, Maclean, Matthews, & Waterman, 1983).
Substantial evidence documented that children who are read to,
acquire concepts about the functions of written language in
books (Hiebert, 1988; Mason & Allen, 1986). Children also
learn that print differs from speech (Smith, 1989) and that print,
not pictures, contains the story that is being read. Mason and
Allen (1986) observed that “while additional research is needed
to identify factors on the causal chain, a reasonable conjecture
is that story reading at home makes, if not necessary, contribu-
tions to later reading achievement” (p. 29). A number of re-
searchers have argued that there are two types of family vari-
ables: family socioeconomic status (SES) (income of parents
and education) and process variables (the level of home literacy
and parental involvement in children’s learning). Their results
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
indicated that these process variables predicted future reading
achievement better than the SES variables (Hess & Holloway,
1983; Scott-Jones, 1984; Toomey, 1986; White, 1982). Other
researchers found, however, that SES (income and education of
parents) is correlated with reading achievement of children
(Burger & Landerholm, 1991; Ho, Sui-Chu, & Willms, 1996);
specifically, reading achievement is correlated with processes
that occur inside the homes and with parents’ education and
income. Children from low SES families showed low reading
achievement compared to high SES families (Hertzig & Birch,
1971). Furthermore, Davie, Butler and Goldstein (1972) indi-
cated that the educational influence of each parent on their
children’s reading achievement can add an additional six months
to these children’s reading age.
Attitudes and B e ha vi or
Attitude is a psychological state that is expressed through
agreement or disagreement with a certain situation or value
(Eagle & Chaiken, 1993). Attitude has a psychological evalua-
tion state that mediates between the different components that
define the object of attitude and the categories of the peoples’
reactions (Eagle & Chaiken, 1993). People demonstrate their
evaluations of situations through their reactions in various ways:
identification with the situation, disagreeing with it, liking it or
disliking it. The components of reaction are cognitive (beliefs),
affective (feelings toward) and behavioral. Thus, if these are the
components that constitute attitudes, then one can assume that
there is a relationship between attitudes and behavior.
Zimbardo (1992) highlights the interrelationship between
factors that are related to attitudes (attitude system). He sug-
gested looking at attitudes as an evaluation based on cognition,
affective reactions, behavioral intentions and prior behavioral
intentions and that the attitudes influence cognition, emotional
reactions and future behavior intentions (Zimbardo, 1992).
Some scholars argue that there is a reciprocal relationship
between attitudes and behavior (Bentler & Speckart, 1979;
Faxio, 1986; Festinger, 1957). They argue that people will al-
ways try to find some cognitive balance between their attitudes
and their behavior. Other scholars (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977,
1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), however, argue that the corre-
lations between attitudes and behavior are relatively low be-
cause, in their opinion, they reflect the variance between the
components that constitute attitudes. Further, they argue that, in
order to clarify this relationship, scholars should define and test
additional components of the attitude construct as independent
components or mediators of the relationship between attitudes
and behavior, for example, individual differences, situational
differences and habits. Furthermore, to reach a real balance
between attitudes and behavior, attitude should be redefined in
terms of four elements: action, target, context and time.
Parental Att itudes toward s R eading
In the last decade the topic of parental attitudes, beliefs and
children’s education has attracted the attention of scholars
(Goodnow & Collinsm 1990; Holden & Edwards, 1989; Miller,
1988; Sigal, 1985), but only a few have addressed the relation-
ship between parental attitudes toward reading and children’s
reading acquisition. Although we do not have documented data,
we still can assume that there are differences between families’
goals, values and ideas and that such differences might explain
the variance in children’s reading experiences (Anderson &
Stokes, 1984; Heath, 1983).
The verbal interaction between parent and child is essential
in literacy development. The positive feedback of parents on
their children’s reading enhances children’s motivation and
stimulates their thinking. Parents who are not involved in their
children’s literacy development are characterized by their apa-
thy towards their children’s reading activities (Payaton, 1972;
Penner, 1987; Whitehurst & Valdez-Menchaca, 1988). Some
researchers found that parental attitudes toward reading are
expressed differently and ultimately perceived by their children
(Beech, 1990). Others have found that attitudes of parents af-
fect children’s perception of their learning ability, their learning
attitude, and their orientation toward learning assignments
(Stevenson & Newman, 1986; Eccles, 1983; Parsons, Adler, &
Kaczala, 1982). Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) argue in their
critical review of the literature that “…no firm conclusion can
yet be drawn about the respective roles of parental shared prac-
tices and children’s attitudes toward literacy in the development
of literacy skills. Any complete theoretical account of early
literacy acquisition, we feel will almost certainly have spell out
the contribution of these two, potentially related, aspects of
early development” (pp. 291-292).
Parental Beha vi or and Reading
The literacy behavior of parents seems to affect—directly
and indirectly—their children’s reading acquisition (Moon &
Wells, 1979). The literary behavior of parents is expressed
through reading to their children or creating reading and verbal
interaction opportunities for their children (Briggs & Elkind,
1977; Morrow, 1983; Wells, 1985). Reading aloud to children
contributes to establishing reading skills, and such behavior
also stimulates important classroom discussion, which further
enhances reading skills (Hess & Holloway, 1983). Further, pa-
rents and children learn and remember stories and parts of sto-
ries that enable children to enrich their language and use it
when they tell stories and express themselves orally (Snow,
Dubberr & Deblauw, 1983). Others have found that when 7-
year-old children read to their parents, the children improve
their reading skills (Hewison & Tizard, 1980; Tizard, Schofield,
& Hewison, 1982).
Numerous studies highlight the importance of creating verbal
interaction opportunities between parents and children to en-
hance literacy skills in three ways: arbitrary semantic (to extend
and explain children’s verbal messages); scaffolding (the need
to build-up tasks to ease children’s early stages of reading ac-
quisition); responsibility (where parents show accurate and
consistent reading activities) (Arnold & Whitehurt, 1994; Dic-
kinson, 1987; Heath, 1983; Goodsit, Ralton, & Perlmutter, 1988;
Ninio, 1983; Snow, 1983; Snow & Ferguson, 1978; Scherer &
Olswang, 1984; Stevenson & Fredman, 1991; Sorsby & Mart-
lew, 1991; Teale, 1986; Wells, 1985).
There is a widespread agreement that joint parent-preschooler
reading is a highly beneficial parental practice that promotes
the acquisition of literacy-related knowledge and, consequently,
paves the way for successful achievement (Adams, 1990; Gold-
field & Snow, 1984; Teale, 1986). Furthermore, pleasurable
and purposeful adult-guided parent-preschool reading is a more
natural effective means of promoting the acquisition of literacy
than are more traditional curricula (Taylor, Blum, & Logsdon,
1986). There are detailed observations that documented parent-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 171
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
preschool reading activities, suggest wealth of opportunities for
acquiring knowledge about reading and writing (Snow & Ninio,
1986; Tylor, 1983). Although these studies support children’s
benefit in their reading acquisition process, however it is diffi-
cult to establish definitive cause-and effect relations from such
studies (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Furthermore, Scar-
borough and Dobrich (1994) argue in a thorough review of the
literature that the notion that reading to preschoolers makes an
important contribution to literacy development has usually been
accepted uncritically. They also discovered that the evidence in
support of this assumption was not as strong as they had ex-
pected it to be, given the widespread acceptance of this hy-
pothesis (Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994).
Learning Environment as a Medi ator betw e en
Attitudes and B e ha vi or
From the above literature we can argue that attitudes of par-
ents alone do not determine their children’s behavior. The en-
vironmental conditions explain from 25% to 40% of the vari-
ance of the learning achievement in grade 1 to grade 3 (Bradley
& Caldwell, 1984; Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 1986), and a
correlation of 0.35 was found between learning environment
and learning achievement (Iverson & Walberg, 1982). Thus,
there could be a direct or indirect relationship between learning
environment and behavior.
Three factors that influence reading achievement are in-
volved in the definition of the family as a learning environment:
the expectations of the parents (Boocock, 1972; Entwisle &
Hayduk, 1978; Hess, Holloway, Price, & Dickson, 1982), the
availability of reading and writing materials (Briggs & Elkind,
1977; Briggs & Elkind, 1977; Clark, 1976; Durkin, 1966; Flood,
1975; Hansen, 1969; Morrow, 1983), and the creation of learn-
ing opportunities (Clark, 1983; Dave, 1963; Heath, 1983; Par-
kinson, Wallis, Prince, & Harvey, 1982; Wolf, 1964).
Critique on the Research on Family as a Learning
The major critique on the research of family as a learning
environment (Williams, 1974, 1976, 1979) is that, although re-
searchers do distinguish between different forces in the learning
environment (drives for achievement, language and intellectual
environment), they still do not apply these factors in their re-
search. Instead, they are satisfied with global measures of the
relationship between family as a learning environment and
The second critique of Williams (1974, 1976, 1979) is that
the factors that define family as a learning environment do not
stand to be tested via confirmatory factor analysis. He continues
that three factors are suggested based on his analysis: expecta-
tions of parents for learning achievement, social and physical
stimulation that parents convey for their children to promote
their learning achievement, and reinforcements that parents
give to their children through involvement in reading and
learning activities. This categorical division is similar to the
categories applied in this study: the educational expectations of
parents, the creation of learning opportunities, and the avail-
ability of reading and writing materials. Williams’ reinforce-
ment factor is tested in this study, however, in relation to be-
havior and not to learning environment.
The conclusion of Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) based on
the reviewed literature, that, can it be said that “…reading aloud
to young children is the most single important activity for
building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading?
If so, then future research should be focused on pinning down
the aspects of shared reading that are most beneficial. If it is not,
then perhaps more attention should be directed to identifying
and promoting other ways of enhancing children’s preparedness
for literacy acquisition” (p. 297). This conclusion is relevant to
the purpose of our study and motivates its research question and
The purpose of the present study was to test the relationship
between parental attitudes towards reading, behavior and the
learning environment that they create and their influence on the
reading achievement of their first-grade children.
Based on the reviewed literature, we have tested three mod-
1) Parental attitudes towards reading, behavior, and the
learning environment that families convey to their children
directly affect reading achievement (each variable has a sepa-
rate independent influence on reading).
2) Parental attitudes and learning environment do not directly
affect reading achievement but are mediated via parental be-
havior. In other words, parental attitudes and learning environ-
ment affect reading achievement only when they accompany
behavior that supports reading achievement (indirect relation-
3) Parental attitudes affect reading achievement when they
are mediated by behavior, only in environments that support
The sample consisted of two groups: Fifty first-grade pupils
(25 male and 25 female were sampled from two elementary
schools), fifty parents of the 50 pupils (44 mothers and six fa-
thers). Then pupils were selected at random from each class.
These two elementary schools attracted students from middle to
low SES. Most of the parents work in unprofessional jobs.
Attitude questionnaire of parents toward reading. The ques-
tionnaire was adapted from Debaryshe and Binder (1994). The
final version consisted of 39 items divided into 6 concepts.
Parents were asked to rate their answers on a Likert scale (4 =
certainly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = do not agree, 1 = certainly do not
agree). The 7 concepts were: Teaching efficacy (α = 0.88)—
tests the parent’s active ability to equip his/her child with read-
ing skills, e.g., “As a parent, I have a very essential role in my
child’s development.” This concept consisted of 8 items. Posi-
tive affect (0.81)—assesses a positive influence of their child’s
reading habits on the parents, e.g., “Reading aloud is a special
time that I like to share with my child.” This concept consisted
of 11 items. Verbal participation (α = 0.85)—deals with the
importance of verbal behavior of the child as perceived by the
parent, for example, “While reading to my child, I want my
child to participate with me in telling the story.” It consisted of
8 items. Reading instructions (α = 0.86)—assesses direct in-
structions in reading by the parents. For example, “While read-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
ing I like it when my child points to letters or numbers in the
book.” This concept consisted of 3 items. Knowledge (α = 0.84)
—assesses knowledge that the child acquires from books as
perceived by the parents, e.g., “Reading helps my child to learn
about new things that he/she never experienced”. It consisted of
5 items. Resources (α = 0.80)—assesses availability of parents
for reading aloud to their child. For example, “Usually, I am
eager to read to my child, but I am too busy and too tired to do
it.” This concept consisted of 4 items. Parents’ behavior. Par-
ents’ behavior was defined according to 4 measures.
1) Knowledge: was tested by a questionnaire of writer identi-
fication (α = 0.80) (Stanovich & West, 1989; Shatil, 1997). A
list of 55 names of writers and non-writers was presented and
the participant had to identify the real writers; a questionnaire
of journal identification (Shatil, 1997) (α = 0.85) consisted of
50 real names of journals and other fake names, and parents had
to identify the real journal names.
2) Reading habits questionnaire (Beech, 1990) (α = 0.86)
consisted of nine statements that depict parental reading habits;
e.g., “I’d rather watch TV than read a book”. Parents had to
answer yes or no. In addition, two more statements were added:
“I have a library card,” and “I use the TV weekly directory
3) Parental early literacy encouragement (α = 0.88). This tool
was built for the purposes of this study. It consisted of 6 state-
ments. Parents had to answer statements on a scale from 1 =
rarely to 4 = frequently. For example, “I read a book/magazine
with my children.”
4) Observation on parental early literacy engagement (α =
0.86). This questionnaire was built for the purposes of this
study. Seven statements had to be filled out by the observer
about the interaction of parents with their children on a scale of
1 - 4, where 4 indicated a high literary engagement and 1 indi-
cated a low literary engagement. For example, “When the par-
ent and child are reading, they discuss issues related to the con-
tent of the text”.
The learning environment is defined by 4 measures:
1) Parental educational expectations (Seginer, 1984) (α =
0.89). These were tested by 4 statements that parents had to
answer. For example, “What grade can your child optimally
achieve?”, “What grades would you like your child to achi-
eve?” “What does good achievement mean for you?” “What is
low achievement for you?” Parents had to answer on a scale
between 1 = achievement is not too important or/I do not know
and 4 = very important.
2) The availability of reading materials (α = 0.91). This is
tested by a list of 6 items; books, cassettes, children’s books,
dictionary, computer educational programs and computerized
reading programs. The parents had to answer about the avail-
ability of these items on a scale from 5 = very much to 1 = not
3) Literary occasions (α = 0.92). This concept was tested via
six statements that reflect children’s literacy occasions. For
example, “My child watches educational TV programs,” “My
child talks about stories that have been read to him/her,” “My
child listens to taped stories.” The parents had to answer on a
scale of 5 = very much to 1 = not at all.
For more statistical information about the tools, means and
standard deviations of variables, factor analysis loadings of
variables, and Pearson intercorrelation matrix, see Appendix.
Reading comprehension (Artor & Sagev, 1970), consisted of
44 questions: in 24 of the questions, a picture appears with 4
possible answers. The children had to mark the word that
matches the picture. Further, 20 written questions were pre-
sented with four possible answers, and children had to choose
Word naming (Balgor, 1968). The list consisted of 24 basic
words. Children had to read the words aloud. They were tested
for reading accuracy.
Narrative text reading (Greenboim & Lekhter, 1996). The
text consisted of 36 words. Children had to read them aloud.
They were tested for reading accuracy.
The children were assessed in February to give them enough
time to adjust to their schooling environment. Each child was
tested in two meetings: in the first the following tests were
given: word naming, text reading. It took between 10 - 20 min-
utes for each child to finish the two tests. The children were
tested individually. The reading comprehension test, however,
was administered collectively for the whole group. The atti-
tudes questionnaire was administered to the parents at their
homes while conducting observations and semi-structured in-
The first hypothesis tested the influence of attitudes, behav-
ior and learning environment on reading achievement. The
assumption was that all variables would affect reading achieve-
ment of the children. It was tested via multiple regression
analysis when only the emotional dimension of attitudes was
tested. The regression model was statistically significant
(F(3,44) = 8.79, p < 0.001) and predicts 35.3% (R2 = 0.355) of
the variance (see Table 1). The hypothesis was partially con-
firmed because only attitudes had a significant effect on reading
achievement. Similar results were obtained in the linear and the
stepwise regression. The variables, behavior and environment
did not reveal any significant effect (For more statistical infor-
mation about the tools, means and standard deviations of vari-
ables, factor analysis loadings of variables, and Pearson inter-
correlation matrix, see Appendix).
Results of multiple regression analysis of attitudes, behavior and envi-
ronment on reading achievement.
Variable Beta T P
Attitude –0.468 3.28 0.002
Behavior –0.121 .81 0.422
Environment –0.206 1.64 0.108
Note: *The values of Beta are negative because the reading achievement scores
were the number of errors.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 173
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
The second hypothesis states that attitudes do not influence
reading achievement directly but are mediated via behavior but
that environment still does affect reading achievement. To test
the hypothesis, path-analysis procedure (Schumacke & Lomax,
1996) was employed, and the mediation was tested via the
model suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). To test the me-
diation, four possibilities should be checked:
1) To test the effect of attitudes on reading achievement in a
direct model (see model 1). There was a significant correlation
between attitudes (emotions) and reading achievement (r =
–0.56, p < 0.0001).
2) To test the effect of the mediating variable, behavior, on
reading achievement. The correlation between behavior and
reading achievement was (r = –0.44, p < 0.005).
3) To test the effect of attitudes and behavior on reading
achievement in a mediating model (see model 2).
4) To test the regression in the strength of the direct effect of
attitudes on reading achievement between the direct model
(model 1) and the mediating model (model 2).
The regression in the strength of the direct effect indicates
the power of the mediating process. Regression of the direct
significant effect to a zero effect indicates a full mediating
process, whereas regression of the direct significant effect to a
level above zero indicates a partial mediating process (Hoyle &
Model 1 tests the direct effect of attitudes and learning envi-
ronment on reading achievement. The strength of the effect of
attitudes on reading achievement will constitute the crucial
basis for the mediating model testing (For more statistical in-
formation about the tools, means and standard deviations of
variables, factor analysis loadings of variables, and Pearson
intercorrelation matrix, see Appendix).
This mediating model 2 tests the joint influence of attitudes
and behavior on reading achievement.
Comparison of model 1 with model 2 reveals that the direct
significant effect of attitudes on reading achievement becomes
Direct model of attitudes, learning environment and reading.
Mediating model of attitudes, behavior and reading.
lower, –0.53 to –0.47, but the correlation is still significant.
The explained variance of model 1 is 28.1%, and it is 22.1% in
model 2. In other words, there is a significant positive rela-
tionship between attitudes of parents and their behavior, but no
significant relationship between behavior of parents and read-
ing achievement in model 2, which enhances the notion that a
partial mediating process is occurring. In addition, the learning
environment has a low but significant direct effect on reading
achievement (For more statistical information about the tools,
means and standard deviations of variables, factor analysis
loadings of variables, and Pearson intercorrelation matrix, see
The third hypothesis assumes integration between two mod-
els: mediator model and moderator model. In other words, be-
havior (that is supposed to be a predictor of reading achieve-
ment) is the mediator of the direct influence of attitudes on
reading achievement. This mediating model will exist, however,
only in environments that support learning, and other non-
supportive learning environments will find this model irrele-
To test the third hypothesis, two mediating models were
tested: one for learning environment and the second for a non-
learning environment. Testing the mediation was done accord-
ing to the four stages of Baron and Kenny (1986):
1) Testing the direct effect of attitudes on reading achieve-
ment regarding all levels of the moderator variable. For a
non-supportive learning environment, the correlation between
attitudes and reading achievement was significant, r = –0.60, p
< 0.01 (see model 3), and there was a similar result regarding
the supportive learning environment (r = –0.56, p < 0.01).
2) Testing the direct influence of parental behavior on read-
ing achievement regarding all levels of the moderator variable.
For the unsupportive learning environment, there was a signifi-
cant correlation between behavior and reading achievement (r =
0.39, p < 0.05), and a significant correlation between supportive
learning environment and reading achievement (r = 0.44, p <
3) Testing the joint influence of attitudes and behavior on the
reading achievement (see models 4 and 5).
4) Testing the regression in the direct influence of the atti-
tudes on reading achievement between the direct models (mod-
els 3 and 6) and the mediating models (models 4 and 5).
Direct model of the unsupportive learning environment.
Mediating model of the unsupportive learning environment.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
Models 3 and 4 reveal that there is a direct significant influ-
ence of attitudes on reading achievement for an unsupportive
learning environment. There is no proof for the mediating mo-
del, however, as the direct influence of the attitudes on reading
achievement remained close to the same value in both models
(–0.60 and –0.57). There is virtually no correlation (–0.07),
however, between behavior and reading achievement; that is,
behavior does not mediate the influence of attitudes on reading
achievement. Further, the models also reveal that attitudes have
a direct influence on behavior (For more statistical information
about the tools, means and standard deviations of variables,
factor analysis loadings of variables, and Pearson intercorrela-
tion matrix, see Appendix).
Models 5 and 6 reveal that there is a partial proof for a me-
diating process. There is a regression in the magnitude of the
direct influence of attitudes on reading achievement (–0.56 to
–0.45). The explained variance was regressed in models 5
(20.3%) 6 (31.4%) and to 11.1% of the reading achievement
explained by attitudes. There is still a significant effect of atti-
tudes on reading achievement and a nonsignificant behavior
effect on reading achievement. Thus, the mediating model is
partially supported. Attitudes, however, do have a direct effect
From the four models we could conclude that the hypothesis
was partially supported. It seems that parental behavior is not a
mediating variable between attitudes and reading achievement
when the learning environment is less supportive. When the
learning environment is supportive, however, there is a par-
tialmediating role played by the parents’ behavior(For more
statistical information about the tools, means and standard de-
viations of variables, factor analysis loadings of variables, and
Pearson intercorrelation matrix, see Appendix).
The purpose of this study was to test three models that de-
scribe the effect of parental attitudes towards reading, behavior,
and the learning environment on their children’s reading
achievement. The first model highlights the direct influence of
each of the variables involved (attitudes, behavior and learning
environment) on children’s reading achievement. The second
model suggests behavior as a mediator between attitudes and
reading achievement and a direct influence of learning envi-
ronment on reading achievement. Finally, the third model ar-
Mediating model for supportive learning environment.
Direct model for supportive learning environment.
gues that attitudes affect reading achievement only when be-
havior is a mediator in supportive learning environments. The
consistent result of this study is that parental attitudes positively
affect the reading achievement of first-grade children. Parental
behavior and learning environment, however, were not found to
be significantly correlated with the reading achievement of
first-grade children. This finding partially confirms the first
model but raises questions regarding the direct influence of
parental attitudes and learning environment on the reading
achievement of first-grade children. Because attitudes are con-
structed of behavioral, cognitive and affective factors (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993; Zimbardo, 1992), it is possible to attribute the
influence of attitudes on reading to the mentioned three com-
ponents of attitudes, but each component alone does not affect
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) highlight the need to trace the
processes that affect the relation between attitude and behavior.
This is in addition to the focus on the statistical significance of
the results. This way, the statistical results become more mean-
ingful. In this regard, there is a need to locate the direction of
causality. In other words, do attitudes cause behavior or vice
versa? Due to the complexity of the relationship between atti-
tudes and behavior, it has been tested in the literature in differ-
ent ways: correlations, regression and path analysis. The con-
clusions regarding this relationship, however, vary according to
the type of statistical analysis that was employed (see McGil-
licuddy-Delisi, 1982a; McGillicuddy-Delisi, 1982b). Additional
support comes from testing the second model. It revealed a
significant positive relationship between parental attitudes and
behavior, but there was a non-significant relationship between
parental behavior and reading achievement. Because a lower
correlation was revealed between parental attitudes and reading
achievement as compared to the first model, we deduce that the
mediating hypothesis is partially supported.
According to the above, parental attitudes affect children’s
reading achievement without the direct mediation of behavior,
e.g., hidden and clear messages, not doing reading activities at
home, and not providing a positive learning atmosphere. Sig-
nificant positive correlations were found between attitudes and
reading achievement, however, but they were not significantly
related to parental behavior (McGillicuddy-Delisi, 1985). Hol-
den and Edward (1989) highlight the role of attitude in affect-
ing children’s learning. They argue that parental attitude should
be consistent, coherent and should also reflect the behavior of
the parents. Other researchers argue, however, that attitudes in
relation to reading/learning can be tested without considering
the behavior of the parents (Goodnow & Collins, 1991).
It is important to notice that the results of testing models 1
and 2 showed that the influence of learning environment was
not significantly high. In model 1, the influence of learning
environment was low but significant and in model 2 (without
behavior) it was not significant. This finding enhances the rela-
tionship between learning environment and behavior—as two
variables that share some common characteristics.
The third model suggests that the behavior mediates the di-
rect influence of attitudes on reading achievement only in en-
vironments that support learning. The results revealed that in
environments that do not support learning, behavior does not
mediate the influence of attitudes on reading achievement.
These results partially confirm model 3.
Rowe (1991) claimed a relationship between environmental
conditions and reading achievement. He tested the relation
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 175
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
between the environmental conditions that families provide for
their children, socioeconomic status, home reading activities,
and reading achievement. The results revealed that home read-
ing activities directly affect reading achievement, while socio-
economic status did not show a significant influence. In addi-
tion, the effect of reading activities on reading achievement at
home rises with the age of readers, indicating a cumulative
effect on reading achievement (Rowe, 1991). Thus, we can as-
sume that the effect of the supportive learning environment on
the relationship between attitudes and reading achievement,
which is mediated via behavior, depends on the age at which
the reading achievement is tested. This may be because first
grade readers are still in stage one of the reading acquisition
when the influence of the learning environment is not yet fully
evident. After these young readers pass the initial stage of
reading acquisition, however, the influence of a supportive
learning environment becomes stronger. Finally, Rowe (1991)
asserts that it is difficult to reach clear conclusions regarding
the factors that influence the reading achievement of young
readers not only because of the variety of correlations that have
been found between the various factors, but also due to the
different data collection methods and the various statistical
methods used in the analysis of the data.
In sum, partial confirmation of model 3 highlights the im-
portance of three variables: attitude, behavior and learning en-
vironment and their influence on reading achievement. The
overall relationship between them is still not clear, however.
Behavior partially mediates between attitudes and reading achi-
evement while the influence of attitudes on reading achieve-
ment is direct and statistically significant.
There are two future directions in this research; we suggest
investigating the behavior in long-term observations with larger
samples. The second approach is to focus more on the cognitive
and affective components of attitudes as separate and inde-
pendent variables affecting reading achievement. There is also
a need to test the third model among second and third graders
when reading acquisition has already been mastered. Further,
there is also a need to test the gender of parents and young
readers as an interesting variable that may affect reading
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ajzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theo-
retical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bul-
letin, 84, 888-918. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Ajzen, L., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predict-
ing social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Alexander, K. L., & Entwisle, D. R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2
years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 53, 1-139.
Anderson, A. B., & Stokes, S. J. (1984). Social and institutional influ-
ences on the development and practice of literacy. In: H. Goelman, A.
A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 24-37).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Arnold, D. S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1994). Accelerating language de-
velopment through picture book reading: A summary of dialogic
reading and its effect. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy
(pp. 103-128). Oxford: Blackwell.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic
and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1243
Beech, J. (1990). Parents’ attitudes and the reading performance of their
children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1387-1392.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude-behavior re-
lations. Psychological Review, 86, 452-464.
Boocock, S. P. (1972). An introduction to the sociology of learning.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Bradley, R., & Caldwell, B. (1984). The relation of infants’ home en-
vironment to achievement test performance in first grade: A follow-
up study. Child Development, 5 5 , 803-809.
Briggs, C., & Elkind, D. (1977). Characteristics of early readers. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 1231-1237.
Burger, M. L., & Landerholm, E. (1991). A library based program for
parents and their preschool children. Early Child Development and
Care, 70, 37-43. doi:10.1080/0300443910700104
Bus, A. G., van Jjzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint
book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis
on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational
Research, 65, 1-21.
Clark, M. M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us?
London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Clark, M. (1983). Family life and school achievement. Why poor black
children succeed or fail. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Clay, M. M. (1972). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour.
Auckland: Heinemann Educational.
Coulmas, F. (l989). The writing systems of the world. Oxford: Black-
Dave, R. H. (1963). The identification and measurement of environ-
mental process variables that are related to educational achievement.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Davie, R., Butler, N., & Goldstein, H. (1972). From birth to seven.
Debaryshe, B. D., & Binder, J. C. (1994). Development of an instru-
ment for measuring parental beliefs about reading aloud to young
children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1303-1311.
Dickinson, D. K. (1987). Oral language, literacy skills and the response
to literacy. In J. Squire (Ed.), The dynamics of language learning:
Research in the language arts (pp. 147-183). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers Col-
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New
York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T.
Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological
and sociological approaches (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: Free-
Ellis, H. (1926). A study of British geni u s. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Entwisle, D. R., & Hayduk, L. A. (1978). Too great expectation: The
academic outlook of young children. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Ho-
pkins University Press.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorren-
tino, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition
(pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.
Feitelson, D. (1988). Facts and fads in beginning reading. Norwood,
Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, inten tion, and behave-
ior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-
Goldfield, B. A., & Snow, C. E. (1984). Reading books with children:
The mechanics of parental influence on children’s reading achieve-
ment. In J. Flood (Ed.), Promoting reading comprehension (pp. 204-
215). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Flood, J. E. (1975). Predictors of reading achievement: An investiga-
tion of selected antecedents to reading. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1990). Development according to
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
parents: The nature, sources and consequences of parents’ ideas.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodnow, J. J., & Collins, W. A. (1991). Development according to pa-
rents: The nature, sources and consequences of parents’ ideas. In: H.
McGurc (Ed.), Essays in developmental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
Goodsit, S., Ralton, J. G., & Perlmutter, M. (1988). Interaction between
mothers and pre-school children when reading a novel and a familiar
book. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 114, 489-
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. (1986). The relation-
ship of early home environment to cognitive ability and achievement
in the school entry years. International Conference on Infant Studies.
Boston, 10 April 1980.
Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of home literacy environment on
reading attitude. Elementary English, 46, 17-24.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in com-
munities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1989). The learner as cultural member. In M. L. Rice, &
R. L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), Teachability of language. Baltimore, MD:
Hertzig, M. E., & Birch, H. G. (1971). Longitudinal course of measured
intelligence in preschool children of different social and ethnic back-
grounds. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 416-426.
Hess R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1983). Family and school as educa-
tional institutions. In R. D. Parke (Ed.), Review of child development
research, 7, The family. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hess, R. D, Holloway, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984).
Maternal variables as predictors of children’s school readiness and
later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade.
Child Development, 55, 1902-1912.
Hess, R. D., Holloway, S. D., Price, G. G., & Dickson, W. P. (1982).
Family environments and the acquisition of reading skills: Toward a
more precise analysis. In L. M. Laosa, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Families
as learning environments for children. New York: Plenum.
Hewison, J., & Tizard, J. (1980). Parental involvement and reading at-
tainment. British Journal of Educa t ional Psychology, 5 0 , 209-215.
Hiebert, E. H. (1988). The role of literacy experiences in early child-
hood programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89, 161-171.
Ho, S.-C. E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement
on eight-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69, 126-141.
Holden, G. W., & Edwards, L. A. (1989). Parental attitudes toward
child rearing: Instruments, issues and implications. Psychological
Bulletin, 106, 29-58. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.29
Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Statistical power and tests of
mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sam-
ple research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Iverson, B. K., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Home environment and learn-
ing: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Experimental Education, 50,
Jae-On, K., & Mueller, W. C. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis:
What it is and how to do it. Newbury Park: Sage University Papers.
Jordan, C. (1992). The role of culture in minority school achievement.
The Kamehameha Journal of Education, 3, 53-67.
Keeves, J. P. (1986). Motivation and school learning. International
Journal of Educational R esearch, 10, 117-127.
Lombard, A. D. (1994). Success begins at home. The past, present and
future of the home instruction program for preschool youngsters (2nd
ed.). Guilford, CO: The Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc.
Marjoribanks, K. (1972). Environment, social class and mental abilities.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 103-109.
Marjoribanks, K. (1979). Families and their learning environments: An
empirical analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Martinez, M., & Roser, N. (1985). Read it again: The value of repeated
reading during storytime. Reading Teacher, 38, 782-786.
Mason, J., & Allen, J. B. (1986). A review of emergent literacy with
implications for research and practice in reading. Review of Research
in Education, 13, 3-47.
McGillicuddy-Delisi, A. V. (1982a). Parental beliefs about develop-
mental processes. Human Development, 25, 192-200.
McGillicuddy-Delisi, A. V. (1982b). The relationship between parents’
beliefs about development and family constellation, socioeconomic
status, and parents’ teaching strategies. In L. M. Laosa, & I. E. Sigel
(Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 261-299).
New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-4172-7_9
McGillicuddy-Delisi, A. V. (1985). The relationship between parental
beliefs and children’s cognitive level. In I. E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental
belief systems: The psychological consequences for children. Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, S. A. (1988). Parents’ beliefs about children’s cognitive devel-
opment. Child D e velopm en t , 5 9 , 259-285.
Moon, C., & Wells, G. (1979). The influence of home on learning to
read. Journal of Research in Reading, 2, 53-62.
Morrow, L. M. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in
literature. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221-230.
Ninio, A. (1983). Joint book reading as a multiple vocabulary acquisi-
tion device. Developmental Psycholo gy, 19, 445-451.
Parkinson, C. E., Wallis, S. M., Prince, J., & Harvey, D. (1982). Re-
search note-rating the home environment of school-age children: A
comparison with general cognitive index and school progress. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 329-333.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. (1982). Socialization of
achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Devel-
opment, 53, 310-321. doi:10.2307/1128973
Payton, N. (1972). Mother child verbal communication: The relation-
ship between mother question-asking behavior and child response.
MS Thesis, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University.
Penner, S. G. (1987). Parental responses to grammatical and ungram-
matical utterances. Chi l d D e v elopment, 58, 376-385.
Rowe, K. J. (1991). The influence of reading activity at home on stu-
dents’ attitudes towards reading, classroom attentiveness and reading
achievement: An application of structural equation modelling. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 61, 9-35.
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading
to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245-302.
Scherer, N. J., & Olswang, L. B. (1984). Role of mothers’ expansions
in stimulating children’s language production. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 27, 387-396.
Schumacker, E. R., & Lomax, G. R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to stru-
ctural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Scott-Jones, D. (1984). Family influences on cognitive development
and school achievement. In E. W. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research
in education, 11 (pp. 259-306). Washington DC: American Educa-
tional Research Association.
Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., Matthews, R., & Waterman, B.
(1983). Early reading achievement, oral language ability, and a
child’s home background. Australian Psychologist, 18, 75-87.
Shatil, E. (1997). Predicting reading ability: Evidence for cognitive
modularity. Ph.D. Thesis, Haifa: University of Haifa.
Siegel, L. S. (1984). Home environment influences on cognitive devel-
opment in preterm and full-term children during the first 5 years. In
A. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive devel-
opment (pp. 197-233). New York: Academic Press.
Sigel, I. E. (1985). Parental belief systems: The psychological conse-
quences for children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, C. B. (1989). Emergent literacy—An environmental concept.
The reading Teacher, 42, 528-528.
Snow, C. E., & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What chil-
dren learn from learning to read books. In W. H. Teale, & E. Sulzby
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 177
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
(Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 116-138). Nor-
wood, NJ: Ablex.
Snow, C. E., & Ferguson, K. (1978). Talking to children. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Snow, C. E., Dubber, C., & DeBlauw, A. (1980). Routines in mother-
child interaction. Annual Meeting of the American Education Re-
search Association. Boston, 10 April 2012..
Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the
pre-school years. Harvard Educati on Review, 53, 165-189.
Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill,
L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectation: Home and school influences on
literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G., & Munstermari, K. (1996). The influence
of family beliefs and practices on children’s early reading develop-
ment. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing
engaged readers in school and home communities (pp. 3-20). Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sorsby, A., & Martlew, M. (1991). Representational demand in moth-
ers’ talk to preschool children in two contexts: Picture book reading
and a modelling task. Jou rna l of Chi ld Language, 18, 373-396.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and ortho-
graphic processing. Re a di ng Research Quaterly, 24, 402-433.
Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-term prediction of
achievement attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Develop-
ment, 57, 646-659. doi:10.2307/1130343
Stevenson, H. W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D. (1990). Beliefs and achieve-
ment: A study of black, white, and hispanic children. Child Devel-
opment, 60, 508-521. doi:10.2307/1131111
Stevenson, J., & Fredman, G. (1991). The social environmental corre-
lates of reading ability. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
and Applied Disciplines, 31, 681-698.
Stroud, J. E. (1995). Block play: Building a foundation for literacy.
Early Childhood Educatio n J ournal, 23, 9-13.
Takagi, S. F. (1975). Responses of three-year-old children to storytel-
ling of a Japanese picture book. Science of Reading, 18, 105-113.
Teale, W. (1986). Home background and children’s literacy develop-
ment. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy (pp. 173-
205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tizard, J., Schofield, W. N., & Hewison, J. (1982). Collaboration be-
tween teachers and parents in assisting children’s reading. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 1-15.
Toomey, D. M. (1986). Involving parents in their children’s reading.
Collected Original Resources in Education, 10, 1-70.
Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read
and write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Taylor, N. E., Blum, I. H., & Logsdon, D. M. (1986). The development
of written language awareness: Environmental aspects of and pro-
gram characteristics. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 132-149.
Wells, G. (1985). Learning, language and education (pp. 74-99). Phi-
ladelphia, PA: Nfer-Nelson.
White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socio-economic status and
academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461-481.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Valdez-Menchaca, M. C. (1988). What is the role
of reinforcement in language acquisition? Child Development, 59,
Williams, T. (1974). Competence dimensions of family environments.
AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 10 April 2012.
Williams, T. (1976). Abilities and environments. In W. H. Sewell, R. M.
Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in
American society. New York: Academic Press.
Williams, T. (1979). Another view. Unpublished manuscript. Australian
Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
Wolf, R. (1964). The identification and measurement of environmental
process variables related to intelligence. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Zimbardo, P. (1992). The psychology of attitude change and social in-
fluence. New York: McGraw Hill.
S. ABU-RABIA, I. YAARI
Means and Standard Deviations of Attitudes.
Attitudes X SD Min Max
Teaching efficacy 3.31 0.3 2.44 3.92
Positive effect 3.42 0.4 2.45 4.00
Verbal participation 3.32 0.4 2.25 4.00
Reading instruction 2.65 0.7 2.33 4.00
Knowledge 3.35 0.4 2.60 4.00
Resources 3.45 0.6 1.50 4.00
Learning environment 2.60 0.6 1.50 4.00
Note: 4 = certainly agree, 1 = certainly do not agree, n = 50.
Factor Analysis Loading of the Attitudes.
Verbal participation .90 .15
Knowledge .78 .28
Reading instruction .76 –.02
Resources –.11 .92
Positive effect .88 .31
Teaching efficacy .75 .64
Factor Analysis Loadings of the Behavioral Variables.
Behavior Behavior t ha t promotes reading
Self report –.77
General knowledge in the field .76
Frequency of behavior .70
Factor Analysis Loading of the Environmental Variable.
Environment variables Learning environment
Availability of tools/material
Factor Analysis Loading of the Achievement Variable.
Achievement variables Achievement
Reading aloud (words)
Reading aloud (text)
Pearson Intercorrelation Matrix, Attitudes, Behavior, Environment.
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
3) Behavior that promotes reading
5) Learning supportive
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, n = 50.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 179